Analphilosopher Update

KBJ responds to my Conservatives and Gay Marriage/Animal Rights post.

It is interesting that KBJ is willing to challenge tradition because tradition brings harm to animals, who won't be able to have "enjoyments, experiences, and activities" if tradition is allowed to stand. He doesn't seem to worry about human beings who will be denied "enjoyments, experiences, and activities" by the traditionally narrow view of marriage.

He further goes on to argue that "no conservative defends slavery."

True.

Now.

In 1850, conservatives overwhelmingly defended slavery, either on religious grounds (slavery was supported by both the Old and New Testaments), on constitutional grounds (slavery was protected by the original language of our governmental compact), on traditional grounds (all great societies were built by a cultured upper class enslaving their inferiors - see George Fitzhugh), on pragmatic grounds (challenging the status quo would lead to conflict), on 'scientific' grounds (Africans were inherently inferior), on democratic grounds (the majority of Americans did not favor abolition - at least until Beecher-Stowe's emotional appeal began to truly resonate), and on defining slaves as 'other' - outside the traditional concerns of society (see Dred Scot v. Sanford).

So a blind adherence to tradition is not a good thing. And KBJ seems to understand that - he argues that the harm of eating meat overrides the presumption in favor of tradition. He is willing to deny the pleasure of humans who enjoy eating and otherwise consuming animal products - it's a good thing he is not a utilitarian!

So:

Animal enjoyments GREATER THAN Marginal* human enjoyment

* One can clearly see why one's enjoyment of not being eaten is superior to one's enjoyment of eating - if you accept (and I do not) that the enjoyments of animals and humans have equal moral status.

But:

Homosexual enjoyments LESS THAN um, what are the social costs of marriage equality?

Traditional conservatives arguments that marriage equality will somehow harm heterosexual unions are risible. The legal status of Joe and Bob's relationship has no impact at all on Jim and Sally's relationship. To his credit, KBJ does not make this argument, attempting to justify discrimination not to prevent harm but to maintain the purposive nature of the institution - see his "The Cost of Legal Rules" post.

He argues that the purpose of marriage is to provide a nurturing environment for children. Therefore it is reasonable to limit the institution of marriage to those who can procreate. He then dances around the issue of elderly, infertile, and/or voluntarily childless nuptials by saying that the legal costs of analyzing each marriage for its procreative potential allows the law to morally prefer infertile heterosexuals over homosexuals. He supports his argument with an analogy to drinking laws. Drinking laws want to limit alcohol consumption to those mature enough to handle their liquor responsibly. Since the legal cost of assessing the maturity of every American citizen is astronomic, the arbitrary benchmark of 21 is morally acceptable.

KBJ's legal cost analogy breaks down on several fronts.

The benchmark of 21 only temporarily denies enjoyments, experiences, and activities to those under 21. For those who are "mature" prior to 21, the law only imposes a not unreasonable wait of a handful of years. Furthermore, that limitation is not a real limitation. Alcohol, unlike marriage, is readily available to those legally barred from partaking. Mature teenagers who don't raise a ruckus or get falling down drunk don't get arrested for underage drinking. Stupid, immature, reckless teenagers get snagged by the fuzz - the very people who ought not to be allowed to consume the demon drink. The arbitrary heterosexual benchmark for marriage PERMANENTLY bars gays from participation.

Additionally, the harm caused by the KBJ's "moral" restrictions is not comparable. Not being able to drink a beer with Ruby Tuesday's Alpine Burger doesn't have nearly the impact of not being able to transfer leases, inherit without a will, issue medical directives, amicably divide property in the case of a split, receive health insurance, lead a life of dignity, avoid social stigma and discrimination, buy property, and, as the King of Siam says, "et cetera et cetera." If the cost of a legal compromise is high, perhaps the legal compromise needs to be reconsidered.

Finally, all of the above arguments are predicated on the unsupported theory which KBJ returns to again and again, that marriage's purpose is procreation.

Procreation and the material support of children are not the primary purposes of marriage*. If procreation is not the primary purpose of marriage, KBJ's entire philosophical support for discrimination collapses into its own rotten foundation.

But a challenge to the generally accepted (and unreflective) view on the nature of marriage deserves its own (lengthy) post.

I'll try to bang that out fer ya.

* Even if these were the primary purposes of matrimony, homosexuals can raise children too. In fact, on average, children of homosexuals are better adjusted, do better in school, and are happier than the children of heterosexuals**.

** Though one ought to be skeptical of this data since the realities of society skew the sample set. Homosexuals secure enough to live openly with their partner despite the societal stigma will, on average, have higher levels of education and income then their "average" heterosexuals. Lower class, less educated homosexuals are more likely to be closeted. How many openly gay longshoremen do you know? The sample is also skewed because children of homosexuals are universally wanted and planned-for progeny. A child's success and happiness is highly correlated to being loved and wanted, the education level her parents, and financial security.