|
May 30, 2003
OKAY, OKAY, SO I
I am a lifetime NRA member. (Is that "okay?") And, much as I like and respect Clayton Cramer for his admirable work on behalf of the Second Amendment, I must address his latest remarks about sodomy laws. (See my previous related blog. And if you enjoy that, here's something I wrote before I really began blogging in earnest.) Back to Clayton Cramer's latest blog: Laws express moral disapproval all the time. Think of the South Africa divesture fights of a few years ago, and laws against racial discrimination. A law criminalizing homosexual acts, while generally unenforceable, is a similar form of moral disapproval. This doesn't make such laws into totalitarianism. They can be an effective way to say, "We, as a society, think that there is something wrong with this." For those people who are trying to figure out how to respond to urges that they don't really understand, such laws act as an encouragement towards right behavior--and in some cases, may encourage them to look for help with their homosexuality. For others, such laws, by saying, "You aren't okay," make them miserable, without encouraging them to ask themselves any hard questions. Clayton Cramer is a good man, and I enjoy reading his blogs, most of which I agree with most of the time. But when he decries Horowitz's entirely reasonable position as "over the top" I feel morally obliged to speak up. It would be one thing if sodomy laws were merely, as Cramer says, expressions of moral disapproval, in the same way as anti-discrimination or laws requiring divestment. But his analogy fails, because there are four fundamental distinctions between anti-discrimination/divestment laws and sodomy laws: 1. Laws against discrimination derive from the notion that there is a victim, who has been harmed by the perpetrator; Cramer claims Horowitz is wrong for invoking the totalitarian specter, but what Horowitz correctly asked was whether we "want government intruding on the voluntary associations we make as citizens or dictating to us our moral and spiritual choices." While this might not be full "totalitarianism," as Cramer says, such thinking certainly heads us more in the direction of totalitarianism than freedom. In a free and civilized country, why should anyone get to decide what is "okay" unless there is demonstrable harm to someone else? Who gets to decide what is and is not "okay" and on what basis? How far should they go? Let us assume that homos are really gross, sickening, disgusting, and even downright icky. Not only that, let us assume that all they need is a local shrink, or a good long prayer meeting. Once the power of the state is invoked to use the full criminal sanction against them for their offensiveness, why end there? I mean, aren't there other people who might be deemed offensive or disgusting? Didn't the Nazis start by saying to the Jews, "You are not okay"? posted by Eric on 05.30.03 at 04:46 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|