thehappycon
In response to an extremely thoughtful and eloquent comment on an earlier piece:
I am surprised Studlife refused to publish this satirical op-ed; it would have spurred an interesting dialogue on the role of morality and the reclassification of gender/sexual norms in our society.
No, it would have just been the subject of countless letters from misunderstanding students falling into two general categories: a) those who cry, “How dare you compare LBGQT’s to those who commit bestiality?” b) this whole awareness movement is “degrading our morals” and an utter waste of my time.
Both groups are misdirected. First, the op-ed, while satirical, alludes to this premise: by accepting LBGQT’s as equal to heterosexuals, we undermine the moral fiber of American society, leading to such obviously undesirable results as stamping bestiality with “approved.” The author makes a common logical fallacy, the slippery slope, implying that by removing one rivet, the whole bottom to our morality falls out. By seeking to integrate historically-repressed minorities into society, we do not abandon our own morals, but recognize that morality is subjective and the ultimate choice rests in the individual. Our duty is of noninterference.
On the other hand, there is value in reconfiguring a society incorrectly aligned to an exclusively heterosexual norm (of kings and queens, marriage, and segregation) as non-heterosexuals have existed, without any self-election, from time immemorial. While heterosexuals have written the history books, staffed the governments, and generally ran the show, the majority has no right to subject the minority to tyranny or mere inequality. Recognition of this is a valuable societal goal and worth some of our time.
As a conservative I have a duty to let people do what they want, when they want. On this we find ourselves in agreement.
Where we disagree, however, is that I feel I have to balance my duty to preserve individual freedoms against the negative spillovers from changing social norms.
The question is never one of individual action, the question of one of curtailing individual action when it creates negative effects outside of the particular actor.
The moral ties that bind society are a product of natural selection. They produce pro-social behavior (such as altruism) that would not exist if individuals acted on their own narrow self-interest. These norms allow individuals to cooperate outside of third party enforcement, reduce transaction costs and externalities, increase trust, and allow actors to predict other individuals’ behavior. Why? Because there are sanctions for behaving in a way that breaks the social norms.
The question here is not one of allowing unbridled individual action. It is not a question of the majority running roughshod over the minority; where before we had slippery slope, here we have rash generalization. The question here is one of estimating the positive effects of a social norm.
In the case of heterosexual relationships, monogamy, and stable nuclear families, the benefits to maintaining these social norms are extremely high. They directly influence the prosperity and health of children. Children with traditional families are more likely to succeed, and as a result departures from this particular social norm should enjoy societal sanctions in accordance with the costs they place on society. This isn’t a politically correct assessment, and it’s unlikely to win too friends (although neither was the original letter), but it is consistent with the data.
[I sat in on a talk today by Jean Ensminger, an anthropologist at CalTech, formally at Washu, who has done experimental game research on various tribes of the world to determine the origins of social norms. In particular, she has found that developed societies exhibit more pro-social behavior (that is, sanctions against those who keep all the money from themselves in the "dictator" game). The new book is still in the works, but you can find the early paper in Science.]
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Campus Diversity, Gays
We both subscribe to the basic libertarian principle: you don’t bother me and I won’t both you. From this, I would say: you can have any type of relationship with anybody you want (has to be consenting adults, of course). I can bet we both value freedom of choice and picking a mate should be no exception. Most Americans abandoned arranged marriage long ago. Sexual preference, sexual activity, etc. should fall squarely in the category of things we ought to be able to do without interference.
Now, you express concern about the externalities of relationships outside the “norm.” First of all, the “norm” isn’t inherently good. Racial segregation used to be the “norm.” Slavery used to be the “norm.” The “norm” is our military is still segregation by sexual preference and I predict this will soon disappear (just glance at military policy in other “advanced” countries).
Arguing for the social “norm” is another logical fallacy, an appeal to history; we’ve always done it that way so that’s the way it should stay. Why is marriage such a desirable institution? Let’s find common ground: the welfare of future generation (read: our children) is crucial. From that, we have to ask, what is the best way to accomplish this? I’m not up on the latest research, but I’d have to agree that a stable environment with involved parents is probably the most influential factor in a child’s development (except genes). Is marriage necessarily stable? Look at rising divorce rates, child abuse/neglect, and infidelity. Is a union between a man and a woman more stable than that between those of the same sex? Not inherently and we can’t really do the research until we allow same-sex marriage. There is no reason why two people of the same sex cannot be at least as, if not more, dedicated to their offspring. Indeed, unlike heterosexual couples, it takes a special effort (adoption or surrogate parents) for same-sex couples to acquire offspring. Heterosexual couples often end up with offspring they don’t want just by virtue of their biological makeup. Are they somehow better qualified to raise a child than those of the same sex? I think not. I concede that “marriage” certainly helps create and bolster a stable family environment. Why not extend that benefit to those nontraditional couples, who are unfairly not given the benefit of the doubt?
There is nothing wrong with tradition and conservative values, but there is nothing absolutely right about them either. Our duty, if you want to call it that, is to keep an open-mind, educate ourselves, and try to find solutions to society’s problems that work. Call it progressive, call it pragmatic, call it godless; the label isn’t important. Finding common goals and effective ways to reach those goals is.