A couple months ago I embroiled myself in yet another argument with conservatives regarding gay marriage. As previous posts on this page make very clear, I support the right of gay couples to access the same legal and tax benefits and to choose to bind themselves with the same legal strictures, covenants and responsibilities that straight couples currently can. While, ideally, I believe that the government should completely remove itself from the marriage contract and any related taxation practices, I’m also realistic enough to know that isn’t going to happen. So, absent the repeal of over 1000 laws at the federal level alone, I feel that the government should not discriminate against couples who have a different gender mix, and thus I argue in favor of gay marriage.
This recent argument took an interesting twist, however. One individual was particularly vehement in his opposition, and after a whole lot of back-and-forth I finally asked the simple question “why?” He didn’t respond in the public forum, but instead chose to send me a private message. Normally, I don’t engage in private debates, because I believe the true value of devoting time to arguing with others comes not from some hope of converting the person who I’m arguing against, but rather from exposing third parties to these arguments. It’s been my experience that those who I argue with rarely if ever change their views on the spot (or if they do, they don’t admit it). I have witnessed people regurgitating the exact points I made in rebuttal to their statements months earlier, demonstrating that they “evolved” their views in the direction I advocated. That heartens me, but I think the best any of us can do is present rational positions for those who aren’t mixing into the debate to consider. Private messaging doesn’t do that, and given the finite amount of time and energy I can or am willing to devote to this strange hobby of mine, closed one-on-one debates with strangers on the internet aren’t very productive. So, I usually tell people that I’ll happily discuss anything, but not via messaging. Most of the time that ends the conversation – I suppose those folks are reluctant to voice some opinions publicly.
This time, though, I was so surprised by the responder that I broke my “no PM arguments” rule. His stated opposition to gay marriage, in response to my “why,” was based on his being a gay man who had witnessed some (usually older) gay men exploited by predatory (usually younger) gay men. He expressed his belief that gay marriage should not be legalized because it would further empower the predators and harm the most vulnerable members of the community. What of all the others, I asked? What of all those who aren’t likely to be prey? The conclusion was that their rights should be subordinated to the protection of those that this fellow decided needed protection.
This paternalism is an intricately entwined and deeply rooted infestation of our and other societies. There are countless examples of majorities having their rights restricted, their options limited and their liberties curtailed for the protection of minorities – minorities that oftentimes neither ask for nor want that protection. Opposing this sort of “harm the majority to protect a few” mentality can be difficult. It’s very easy for the nannies and paternalists to fire accusations of social Darwinism, callousness, selfishness and so forth at those who disagree with them. Who are the selfish ones, though? Who are the people who consider their views and beliefs so much more important than those of others that they feel justified in imposing them on everyone else? How selfish and arrogant is that gay man who demands other gay men be refused access to the benefits of marriage, just so he can protect some who he deems to be at risk? How hubristic are those who tell us we can’t eat this, drink that, smoke that, or employ a barber or a decorator or a florist who hasn’t been sanctioned by the state?
Many seem to mistake their paternalism for charity and good will. They believe their desire to use government to protect others is a demonstration that they care, and, conversely, that those who oppose their statist ways therefore do not care. But, doesn’t forcing others to abide by their beliefs, even if it’s born out of a sense of caring, show a lack of respect for those others? Isn’t this purported “care” really arrogance and condescension? Doesn’t it seem born out of ego and a sense of superiority?
It is also, at its core, what David Mamet aptly described as an abdication of responsibility. While real caring would involve leaving the house and finding places to help individuals in need or in trouble, “caring” via legislation and regulation is little more than handing the job off to someone else. Even the paternalism is false and hollow. After all, part of being a father is knowing when to let your charges find their own way, to stumble if need be, and to learn how to fend for themselves in the process. This governmental form of paternalism, this legislation and regulation for the good of the few, doesn’t let those few learn, and harms the many in the process.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters