Vol 12, Issue 4 SCOTT DRAPER If you’re aged 8-80 and are exposed to any news media outlet, you’ve likely become aware of the impending postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. A few identical messages have been plastered on the social media pages of every proponent for change. The first, a caveat that the plebiscite is not a good idea for various reasons. Secondly, a call for ‘yes’ votes; that if it’s going to happen (absent a successful High Court challenge), proponents of an amendment to the Marriage Act may as well win it. Since the majority of LGBT people did not want a plebiscite, these messages are reasonable and expected. But controversy, I think, arises from the way in which individuals conduct, and demand others to conduct, themselves during this process. The third message from proponents is one which attempts to pre-emptively demand silence from, and character assassinate those who will not vote, or even consider voting ‘no’.
Let me begin by saying that I am a supporter of same-sex marriage/marriage equality. If the plebiscite occurs, I will be voting ‘yes’ and I would encourage others to do the same. And it is because of this that I understand the temptation to fall into the trap of backing fallacious arguments and using inappropriate means to achieve what appears to be an obviously moral outcome. It is tempting to profess that “love is love”, that “LGBT folk have faced endless persecution in the past and still today”, and that any opponents to this change are necessarily “divisive homophobic bigots”. No matter how true these things are, however, I think their endless expression as a means of combatting opponents is a mistake. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, as we should be especially familiar with within law school, disagreements of opinion are won with arguments, not mere emotional assertions, however strong. Expressions of solidarity, pride and love are fantastic, and inspiring for those who already agree. But they do not persuade those who disagree. And we should want it this way. Our cultural desire for free speech, beyond the limited legal protection it is afforded, exists for this reason. In an alternative society with a minority of support for LGBT rights, we would yearn for their capacity to speak out against the status quo, and would be understandably outraged to be silenced on the basis that such speech offended a sufficient number of people. Allowing non-violent dissent is crucial. So the push to categorise all opposition as ‘hate speech’ – or, as Tim Minchin says: “at least we’ll know how many Aussies are bigoted c****” – is problematic, and misunderstands something foundational. People are not wrong because they are bigots. They are bigots because they are wrong; because they believe unfounded, discriminatory things. This abstract truth flows into the pragmatic point. Attempting to hinder the free speech of others rarely convinces them to agree with you. In fact, it is likely to do the opposite. We must be wary of believing that this is a battle already won, just as the polling before the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum was not determinative. The alleged racists of America, and alleged xenophobes of the UK were still victorious, no matter how many times they were told they were bigoted. Is it ‘hate speech’ to compare such an amendment to legalisation of polygamy? It is a false analogy, but not hateful. What about comparisons to paedophilia? Almost certainly. Will describing these things as bigotry stop people believing they are accurate and good arguments? No. Many believe that it is impossible to convince others who hold opposing views. But I would note that all of us prefer to change our minds in our own time, and seldom during a real-time conversation. Some proportion of society – usually hard-line religious and conservatives – will be unpersuaded regardless. But the fact is, there is likely a significant subset of Australians who are indifferent or undecided on this issue, and we cannot risk losing their support nor the moral high ground by branding any and all dissent as bigoted hate speech. Many, whom this issue does not affect, but are still eligible to vote, do not understand why their opposition is wrong, and rebutting their arguments in an open manner demonstrates that there is no foundation for a ‘no’ vote. Reactionary hostility just indicates that this argument cannot be won on its merits, and promotes the illusion that a movement of tolerance is actually one of oppression. It is, of course, unfair that LGBT people are burdened with engaging civilly in this public conversation, given the history of gay rights (or denial thereof), that much of this debate will consist of debasing the legitimacy of same-sex couples and families, and that the target of these attacks is a particularly vulnerable group of Australians, far more prone to mental illness and suicide. But to demand that others behave civilly is to shackle oneself with the duty to remain so. In fact, it is possible to view this as an opportunity. We do not need to run from an intellectual conversation that is, I think, impossible for the other side to win. Instead, we must demonstrate that this is the case. So, let opponents of same-sex marriage speak, and let them lose the discussion. Scott Draper is a second-year JD student More articles like this: The rest of this issue:
Figel Narage
15/8/2017 08:37:17 am
"We must be wary of believing that this is a battle already won, just as the polling before the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum was not determinative. The alleged racists of America, and alleged xenophobes of the UK were still victorious, no matter how many times they were told they were bigoted."
Tilly
15/8/2017 01:35:34 pm
"Things didn't change by some sort of militant uprising or revolution whereby gays forcibly took their rights from their oppressors, they changed after decades of a hearts and minds campaign where people were convinced that gay people are actually ok."
Figel Narage
15/8/2017 03:59:23 pm
I was thinking about Stonewall as I wrote that. It is very likely true that gay rights would never have advanced without gay people standing up for themselves, sometimes militantly.
Ben Wilson
15/8/2017 04:25:00 pm
Great article.
Katherine Smith
15/8/2017 05:22:08 pm
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it - provided it is not blatant hate speech.
Not sure?
15/8/2017 05:37:51 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, and I may very well be as I am no expert, but I was under the impression that same sex couples enjoy the same legal advantages and disadvantages as married couples in the form of civil unions (e.g. Relationships Act 2008 (Vic), simply under a different word?
Betty
15/8/2017 07:11:11 pm
Crap article.
Mark Johnson
15/8/2017 09:58:37 pm
Yeah, no.
Slippery slope fallacy fallacy
15/8/2017 11:33:39 pm
'if you're so bigoted that you think two men or two women being married is somehow your business'
Mark Johnson
16/8/2017 12:06:45 pm
Yeah, you're an idiot and not worth talking to.
Mark Johnson
16/8/2017 12:22:14 pm
Y'know what, fuck it, I've got time.
Typing in capitals makes arguments more convincing
16/8/2017 05:30:37 pm
If you are speaking in terms of undue influence then, presumably, you will know that these presumptions are rebuttable.
Mark Johnson
18/8/2017 12:52:41 am
I don't know if you've had much court experience yet, but a word of advice. The thing where you deliberately misinterpret someone in order to create a strawman argument? Does *not* play well in front of a judge.
Strawman Strawman
18/8/2017 09:05:02 am
Nice retort. Failure to address any of the arguments raised, raising a straw man of your own about apparently irrefutable presumptions, rounding it off with a witty quip from a dated pop culture reference. I am obviously no match for what are undoubtedly your own extensive talents and experiences in court.
Silly
16/8/2017 07:27:17 am
Nah.
Billy
16/8/2017 08:41:01 am
I already adressed genetic risks. If an incestous couple agreeing to something like a vasectomy doesn't strike you as realistic, how about same sex incestous couples, who can't reproduce and so create no risk of genetic problems.
Silly Billy is Very Silly
16/8/2017 02:05:25 pm
I think Mark covered it fairly well, but to repeat:
Fee fi fo fum
16/8/2017 05:44:24 pm
If your conception of marriage is 'two people consenting to a contract' then you're right that there is no logical reason why it should not extend from heterosexual marriage to every other type of union, including incestous marriages in which there is consent, as outlined above.
The Author
16/8/2017 07:01:32 pm
Thanks for the comments guys. Despite some passive-aggressiveness, it's good to see actual debate on aspects of the debate which are often dismissed through pretty empty assertions.
Cows @ the Beanstalk
16/8/2017 08:59:27 pm
An overwhelming, indeed any, quantity of opinion in favour of something doesn't make it valid. Even if the whole world said the Earth is balanced on a turtle's back it wouldn't make it true. "Social push" is not a convincing argument.
WellSaid ^^
17/8/2017 11:26:06 pm
"Reasons for the modification of the original, arbitrary sandwich eating hours must be valid with reference to the original rule, the traditional institution of marriage pre-SSM, for SSM to be marriage, and not a separate category of relationship unification practice."
The Author
17/8/2017 12:22:37 am
Actually, that is just pragmatically not true. Perhaps you misinterpreted what I meant. The "social push" I meant described merely the pragmatic component. Broadly, things "ought" to be legal/illegal for moral reasons. For example, slavery was always immoral regardless of how many people thought otherwise.
Thin end of the wedge
17/8/2017 09:15:15 pm
Imagine one day a father and his adult daughter decide they want to get married, and the factual circumstances mean there is no lack of consent due to undue influence, and one or the other or both are infertile for whatever reason.
Hypotheticals for tangential issues
18/8/2017 10:12:34 am
Again, you miss the point. Yes, you can get as outraged as you like about inconsistency of advocates for not pushing for an extension of marriage beyond gay marriage. And that father and daughter would be absolutely entitled to make those arguments of hypocrisy. But still, this is not an argument against gay marriage.
Costanza
18/8/2017 11:39:17 pm
Female voting was about extending the democratic vote to all members of society rather than just some, which is more democratic. Black civil/political rights were the same in the domain of political rights.
sick of bigotry
18/8/2017 12:06:28 am
Yeah see I might have agreed with these points before a bunch of Neo-Nazis rioted in America and Pauline Hansen walked into the Senate wearing a burqa. I'm kind of done with trying to engage with, or excuse bigotry. Love is Love isn't just an emotional argument it's a rational one- being able to marry has nothing to do with anyone else except your spouse. It's the exact same as divorce. It's nobody else's business and thus there is really no reason to be against gay marriage.
Evasive action
18/8/2017 08:59:03 am
In what way do those unconnected incidents undermine the internal logic of the arguments that makes them less worthy of consideration? I sure hope you've also included the terrorist attack in Barcelona within that incomprehensible matrix. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
October 2022
|