A neighbor flies a colorful flag. “Love is Love” it proclaims. Since it is merely a dogmatic assertion with no argument provided, it seems somehow aggressive. Worse. It is aggressive. Like all other utterances, it must be understood in context. In context, it is a poke in the eye of anyone favoring heterosexual adult romantic love. Ironically, that kind of love one is welcome to attack. In that case, perhaps the slogan should be “Love is Oppressive.” ...The image on the flag is of a central huge rainbow-colored clenched fist surrounded by little open palms with love hearts on them. I know of no symbolism whereby balling up your first means love.
The rhetorical flourish of the bumper sticker that simply says " = " was the point at which I realized that they were going to win this fight. It's simple, requires no explanation, and although it is quite terribly wrong one needs a thousand words to explain why. They didn't need any words at all.
The gay marriage thing has worked out a lot better than I feared it would, given that it represented a massive change to a fundamental social organization. It hasn't, as far as I can tell, caused any problems at all. I don't mention this to re-open that fight, which was lost and fortunately has not been as destructive as we warned that it might be.
Rather, the point is just to clarify that the mathematical expression of equality is not the right use of the notion of equality in politics or in the personal relationships between individuals. Love is not love: think of any two people you love, and you'll find the differences immediately. I love my mother; I loved my father. The content of the emotional relationship was quite different, for me and for everyone who has ever loved. It's not a 1=1, A=A case, love; it is neither mathematical nor strictly logical.
When we talk about citizens being equal, we don't mean that they're exactly alike or even roughly equivalent. It is not a case like 2+2=2x2=4x1. One citizen may be an astronaut and a Ph.D.; the other one may be a crackhead. They are definitely not equals in most respects. There is only one way in which they really are equals, which is that they were alike endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights that the government's sole legitimate purpose is to protect. In that way, they really are equals: and they are equals not because of any qualities of their own, but because the endowment from on high was bestowed equally upon them.
We see something similar in the same field: "Transwomen are women." To set aside the empirical truth of that proposition entirely, I am struck by the fact that the statement itself is logically self-refuting. Two categories are being discussed, W and tW. We instantly know that they are not the same category; tW is at best a subset of W. (Many would argue it isn't even that, empirically, but that issue is being set aside here.) There are definitely members of the set W that aren't members of tW. That being the case, the sets are not "equal" -- here the term is used in its strict mathematical sense -- but distinct. The assertion that tW=W on the lines that A=A is obviously false.
The clever rhetorical destruction of distinctions is not the font of justice, nor wisdom, nor right. It is, if anything, their enemy. Justice is more likely to be found in careful, disciplined thought and reason. I mean no one any harm by saying this; it is not an expression of malice, let alone hatred. It is simply my duty as a philosopher to stand up for clarity of thought.
10 comments:
There's no way there isn't a deadly hook in same-sex "marriage" (an oxymoron, pace the lies of the age). Satan's bait-and-switches are like that.
That may be; but the things I predicted as likely problems have not materialized. It's also a duty to be honest with one's self, at least, about the places where your predictions did not pan out.
Marriage had already been pretty much destroyed as an institution by no-fault divorce and readily available reasonably reliable birth control. Attempting to preserve it's traditional form was a rearguard action to keep the gays from completing the liberal ritual of killing an institution, gutting it, and then wearing the skin suit It was already hollowed out though the memory was still useful.
And the English word "love" covers several distinct concepts.
From "We should often be careful of the impulse to make invidious distinctions without a strong justification" to "everything is exactly the same as everything else" is a big leap.
It would be nice to think that "=" would lead to the concept of "equal treatment under the law, regardless of party affiliation," but alas.
From "We should often be careful of the impulse to make invidious distinctions without a strong justification" to "everything is exactly the same as everything else" is a big leap.
Aristotle says that justice entails treating relevantly similar cases similarly. That's a long way from "equally," even; and you still have to decide on what counts as a 'relevant' similarity, or an appropriate degree of similaritiy.
Christopher B has the answer. Queer "marriage" was merely an extension of the demolition brought about by EZ divorce.
But 'no harm'?
Materially, perhaps none. Spiritually.....well....the tender embrace of Satan is, as I understand it, not "love is love."
"And the English word "love" covers several distinct concepts."
Korora is absolutely right.
I think this was a gate that opened up the way for many abuses in the name of "love". The Greeks were right to divide it up into Agape, Philia, eros, ludus, pragma, and philautia. They are very different things.
Since marriage is, now, nothing but welfare for live-in lovers, I propose that all State recognition of said institution be rescinded. No more legal recognition or benefits. No more spousal immunity in court, tax-free inheritance, automatic next-of-kin status, automatic power-of-attorney, hospital visitation rights, Social Security Survivor benefits...none of it.
As I receive no benefit from other people's co-habitation, my taxes should not be spent in any way to recognize or reward those relationships. Love is its own reward after all, so who could possibly object to getting all levels of government out of it?
PS: not all harms appear instantly.
Post a Comment