Resistance to diversity is resistance to freedom

Inspired by Brad Richert’s recent post.

The American people need to learn the difference between choosing for themselves and choosing for others. When voting, the options are mutually exclusive, so we must empower the former by treating the latter liberally.

Freedom is having the right to do whatever it is you want to do as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s freedom. Laws are made precisely to enforce that principle. But what I see when I watch other Americans decide how they’re going to vote on an issue is a narrow-minded considering of their own personal beliefs. Voting on what you believe is right for yourself and your preferred way of life is not a vote for freedom.

Same-sex marriage again serves as an appropriate example. Allowing gay couples to marry in no way affects the marriages of heterosexual couples. No one’s rights are being infringed.

People can disagree. They can voice their opinions, criticize, complain, or march down the streets in opposition. But the moment they vote to deny gay couples to marry, they are impeding freedom by selfishly forcing their opinions on others.

[to be continued]

Notes

Sanctity of marriage

Opponents often mention the ‘sanctity of marriage’ argument. I hear that preserving only heterosexual marriage is “a victory for marriage.” But marriage is not something that exists by itself; there’s no lonely marriage archetype or anything of the sort. [I may be wrong here, see notes on social scripting below] Only actual marriages exist (emphasis on plurality). The degree of ‘sanctity’ of any marriage depends on the bond between the individuals within that marriage and is entirely unaffected by anyone else’s marriage, gay or straight.

John and Betty are married. Their marriage is sacred. Here come Bill and Bob. They get married. Let’s return to John and Betty. What’s this? Their marriage is still sacred! It’s magic!

Can someone please explain the sanctity of marriage argument to me, since I’m obviously not getting it?

Social scripting

I might have an inkling here. It seems certain kinds of people depend on a ‘script’ for living. You’re supposed to go to school, get married to someone of the opposite gender, and raise children. Same-sex marriage violates that script.

Some people prefer having social (and legal) norms to dictate how one should live. In other words, they prefer not to have freedom! Eureka!

This reminds me of a discussion during one of my classes in art school. Some students preferred fine art, which means having complete freedom. Others couldn’t operate that way at all. They needed rules to follow. They needed external guidance.

My major was fine art. So you know where I stand. I doubt it’s any coincidence that my social views are so similar.

In a sociological context, such ‘scripting’ can be reduced to one word: meme. A meme can be understood metaphorically as a cultural gene. And like a gene, the bodies which the meme indwell fight for its survival through self-preservation and procreation. Thus, the battle of ideas.

From the branches to the roots

It seems that arguing isolated civil rights issues will bear little fruit. The underlying matter is arrogance. The solution involves humbling the arrogant so they can see that their points of view are relatively true, not absolutely true. This country needs a primer of existentialism. “Because we make choices based on our experiences, beliefs, and biases, those choices are unique to us — and made without an objective form of truth.”

And back to religion

How can someone be so arrogant as to believe that they’re absolutely right on moral issues? Ah, when they think they have God on their side. Again, religious and cultural diversity seems the only way for people to learn to accept ideas that conflict with their own. On average, all systems grow towards complexity (i.e. diversity). So no worries. It’s only a matter of time.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Resistance to diversity is resistance to freedom

  1. I agree; it’s like the abortion issue. I would not have an abortion. However, I do not feel I am authorized to make that decision for everyone else on the planet. Therefore, I am prochoice. Similarly, I believe that although I am not gay and do not want to marry another woman, I have not been appointed judge and jury for everyone else and therefore, if a gay couple wishes to marry, then let them!

  2. My sentiments exactly. Abortion is complicated because no one can (or ever will) agree on when a fetus is technically a human being. As a principle, I’d say that the smaller the degree of certainty, the more the choice should be given to the public; the greater the degree of certainty, the more the choice should be given to law. Since there’s so much uncertainty surrounding when or if abortion constitutes murder, it follows that the choice should be given to the people.

    “I do not feel I am authorized to make that decision for everyone else…”

    That statement has stuck in my head. Imagine the mentality it takes to believe that you are authorized to make that decision for everyone else. I don’t think I’m crossing a line when I say those who vote pro-life and anti-gay marriage are arrogant for doing so. They must truly have some sort of superiority complex.

    I’m particularly bothered by pro-life proponents who equate pro-choice with pro-abortion. No one is saying they want people to get abortions. I know I don’t. But it’s not my choice to make. That’s the bottom line.

    There must be a reason why certain people think pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same thing. Perhaps these people also think that allowing same-sex marriage is equal to approving same-sex marriage. The mentality might be summarized, “If I accept something, I advocate it.” This idea follows naturally from my arrogance argument, which can be summarized in a similar fashion, “What’s true for me should be true for everyone.”

    I also think it’s important to note that the debate is a false dichotomy. A pro-life policy would force a choice upon the people. The opposite of this mandatory non-abortion would be mandatory abortion! Now that’s pro-abortion.

    It’s unfortunate that so much time, money, and effort are put into the pro-life/pro-choice debate when there’s one thing both sides can agree upon: the underlying problem is unwanted pregnancy. I believe that far more could be achieved if the efforts of the debate were refocused into preventing the motive behind abortion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s