Thursday, May 15, 2008

Moral minimalism is poison: Today, we see that the California State Supreme Court doesn't give a fig about what the people of California want.

In striking down the ban on gay marriage, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Complicit in this type of thinking are all the Republican elites who have been telling us for years that what people do sexually is their own business. Advancing the libertarian view, any kind of sex is hunky dory as long as it is consensual. Moral minimalism of this sort is bound to lead to things like gay marriage. Its logic should also bring about to the legalization of the family choas we see in the polygamist sect in Texas.

This belief, as common on the right as the left, that anything goes as long as its consensual is poison.

7 comments:

SFG said...

I guess this is why I'm not a conservative, but what's your objection to gay marriage? Biblical? Empirical?

Anonymous said...

Although I generally disagree with the grounds they based their decision on, I still agree that homosexuality is none of the governments business. This is another non-issue that exists solely for vote-grabbing on both sides of the political spectrum.

Can't we talk about more consequential issues like illegal immigration, affirmative action, the welfare state, unnecessary wars, etc?

Jason said...

Eh? The FLDS sect has been around for decades, living quite comfortably in those hotbeds of perverted liberalism, Utah, Arizona, and Texas. In addition to non-traditional marriage patterns, they've been supporting that way of life with welfare fraud and child abuse. (Both the forced marriage of young girls, and the abandonment of young boys who might compete for wives.) And with very few exceptions, all of this has gone on with the complete tolerance and de facto approval of the law.

And after generations of this nonsense - long enough for them to inbreed some really interesting genetic diseases - suddenly gays getting married in California is the problem? That's what we should be worried about?

I don't think so.

c.o. jones said...

I see a couple of big problems with this:

1. As Steve Sailer points out, it's already hard enough to interest young men these days in marriage. If wedding ceremonies become fixed in the public mind as being associated with either (a) cartoon-like bridezillas, or (b) gay guys using it as an excuse to throw lavish, hedonistic, over-the-top parties, what self-respecting heterosexual man is going to want to participate?

2. This will create another opportunity for marriage and immigration fraud, and probably bring with it an identity theft angle as well.

Villaraigosa was predictably ebullient this afternoon, proclaiming that he had never been prouder to be a Californian. He knows the score, and sees this as one more little victory for his side on the way to transforming California into a socialist (Mexican) workers' paradise.

SFG said...

1. As Steve Sailer points out, it's already hard enough to interest young men these days in marriage. If wedding ceremonies become fixed in the public mind as being associated with either (a) cartoon-like bridezillas, or (b) gay guys using it as an excuse to throw lavish, hedonistic, over-the-top parties, what self-respecting heterosexual man is going to want to participate?

Oh please. Men don't hate getting married because weddings suck, we hate getting married because it means we can't fuck around anymore. There's the financial risk as well; the female gets claim on our salary if we separate. The male reluctance to commit is much more deeply rooted and much older than gay marriage.

Anonymous said...

Moral minimalism is poison: Today, we see that the California State Supreme Court doesn't give a fig about what the people of California want.

Good!

Moral minimalism of this sort is bound to lead to things like gay marriage.

Oh no!

Jason Malloy said...

Gay marriage isn't just good because it's "consensual", it's good because it sets aside a realistic and socially beneficial avenue for gay men to live relatively normal and more temperate lives. Gay marriage is very conservative.

Let's look at the three more obvious approaches society can take on gay males and how each option will relatively benefit society:

Option A: Society disallows gay marriage and does not acknowledge the intrinsic nature of homosexuality. Society therefore tries to "convert" gays to heterosexuals.

Outcome A: Most gays ignore the attempts and distance themselves further from mainstream values, resulting in more promiscuity and disease. A smaller minority of gays attempt conversion and almost all of them fail. The latter results in infidelity, broken homes, and painful divorces. Also the poor wives are too often given horrible diseases from surreptitious gay trysts.

This also lowers the birthrate in three ways: Women forgo marriage to a straight man to marry a gay man, which most likely means less sex and less completed fertility; women get divorced, resulting in less time in a stable union and therefore less completed fertility; gay men reproduce, which increases gay alleles in the population.

Option B: Society disallows gay marriage and does acknowledge the intrinsic nature of homosexuality. Therefore society recommends gays remain celibate.

Outcome B: Gay males do not remain celibate. Given unrealistic goal posts to fit into social norms gay males continue destructive promiscuous lifestyles.


Option C: Society allows gay marriage and acknowledges the intrinsic nature of homosexuality.

Outcome C: Gay males still are much more promiscuous than straight males, on average, because they don't have female sexuality to counterbalance them. But several forces reduce that promiscuity: Marriage provides an attractive avenue of recognized social approval. Gay stereotypes are really male stereotypes, but many men are relatively monogamous by nature, especially as they age. Many men also desire children and fatherhood as well. Marriage allows gay males a logical venue to adopt children, which will not only further temper their lifestyle, but open up a number of good homes for unwanted children who would otherwise be a burden on society.

Steve's idea that gay marriage hurts straight marriage is a weak theory, that has already been empirically examined and disconfirmed. Data not doctrine.

Anyway, what really does need to change to keep straight men in marriage is the harmful cultural practice of expensive weddings. Expensive weddings lead to divorce by starting out marriages with precarious finances. Money troubles are a leading cause of divorce.

It's more likely that supergay gay weddings would create a straight male backlash against weddings rather than marriage. That would be a good thing!