Populism: making use of the tyranny of the majority

[Ophelia]

@NabberGnossi

I cannot speak for the nation, but changing the definition of a word, namely marriage, for the sake of expediting the law and the distribution of benefits is unwarranted. I cannot support changing the meaning of word just because one small group demands that this word should have a new meaning. I think that some people could be much more rationale about the subject if the word “marriage” would not be given a new meaning.

Similar arguments were used to maintain the status of women as property in marriage. Similiar arguments were made to prevent inter-racial marriage.

The definition of marriage is not identical to what it was 50, 100 or 200 years ago. The myth of static definition of marriage is not proper ground for excluded minorities from the institution.

I’d love to see these “similar arguments,” especially the one on inter-racial marriage. Additionally, I might ask what is the “institution” but a contractual union and associated benefits.

I have no qualms about the distribution of rights to same-sex couples. There are two separate and distinct issues here; 1) the definition of marriage and 2) the distribution of rights to same-sex couples. Our constitution guarantees equal rights. Hence, let these rights be equally distributed amongst the populace.

Our constitution says nothing about defining and classifiying words. the issue is not how our modern society, or segments thereof might wish to define marriage.

[NabberGnossi]

I’d love to see these “similar arguments,” especially the one on inter-racial marriage. Additionally, I might ask what is the “institution” but a contractual union and associated benefits.

Sure thing:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm

In Loving, Virginia’s Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages by citing religious beliefs. Others argued against it on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to unhealthy children—perhaps mentally retarded or a mongrel breed. Sex between people of the same sex is also called unnatural, or regarded as bestial by some today. The American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a psychological disorder until 1973. Forde-Mazrui acknowledged that the relation to procreation is different in gay relationships; now the concern is more the lack of procreation because many consider marriage to be based on having children.

Forde-Mazrui noted that similar arguments against same-sex and interracial relationships appear in regards to children. There was once total opposition to couples adopting children of different races, and there is still weight placed against allowing a white couple to adopt a black child, he said, because of societal pressures. The National Association for Black Social Workers has said such cases may result in black children having “white minds.” Similarly, fears abound that adopted children whose parents are gay will be more subject to prejudice, or the child will “have confusion over their sexual orientation…or worse, they’ll end up being gay.”

1. the definition of marriage and 2) the distribution of rights to same-sex couples.

Who gets to define marriage?
You say that modern society cannot:

the issue is not how our modern society, or segments thereof might wish to define marriage.

Who can?

Why shouldn’t current practices in coupling be represented in the law. If same-sex couples get the same rights, shouldn’t their committed relationships also enjoy the same status as straight couples?

I’m not sure who gets to decide this. Is it churches? Do we have a straight majority vote for the laws that will only affect homosexuals?

[Ophelia]

I’m not sure who gets to decide this. Is it churches? Do we have a straight majority vote for the laws that will only affect homosexuals?

I would hope that the Supreme Court would objectively decide if that is possible.

My point of view regarding the definition of marriage is not tied to religion. You have made a huge Assumption.

If you need to know, or would care to know, or not, my point of view is more related to relativism, and how the law has a tendency to compare to, and distinguish from. Words have meaning, and ought to have meaning. If words are used to mean the same thing then how will we distinguish one thing from another? We will not be able to and everything, in time, will become relative. A cat and a dog are not the same. A car is not a truck. A homo is not a hetero. Finally and repetitively, the meaning of words, especially marriage, has nothing to with the distribution of rights.

I say distribute rights equally. By all means, if same-sex couples want to become married and then divorced like the majority of society, why should anyone prevent them from under going the experience? If they want to raise a family, probably a dysfunctional one, like most of the rest of society, why should anyone object? Give them the rights as well as the correlated responsibilities and duties, which they seek. I would love to see the statistics that come out of the societal change 50 years from now. I think it is a fabulous idea.

As to your assumption regarding my religious point of view, first, I am a centrist. Second, does not the Bible say somewhere that YOU must not to judge those outside the congregation? Now, depending on how one wants to define congregation and the collective YOU, one can reason, such as I do that homo-sexual couples ought not to be judged for their practices by those with a differing religious perspective. And ……by the way, are not you being rather judgmental in your assumptions?

[D11 (D)]

"John Stuart Mill, a champion of the open society, warned against the tyranny of the majority. "

That sounds like Alexander Hamilton talking about “taming the great beast”, in which he meant the people. That doesn’t sound like the open society you go on to describe, and it doesn’t even sound like Mill was talking about that.

[NabberGnossi]

I would hope that the Supreme Court would objectively decide if that is possible.

Activist judges? I agree. The equal access ammendent would most likely allow same-sex marriage to become legalized. This is why a constitutional ammendment is necessary.

Finally and repetitively, the meaning of words, especially marriage, has nothing to with the distribution of rights.

So your problem with allowing same-sex marriage is that you want to legally fix the definition of the word? What date would you set the exact definition for? As I’ve said, the definition has changed over time and it has changed many times. I don’t think there is an ahistorical definition for marriage.

And ……by the way, are not you being rather judgmental in your assumptions?

Yes and I apologize if I come off defensive (or offensive) but this is an issue where I think a majority is mistreating a minority. I consider it a moral issue and it impasssions.

That doesn’t sound like the open society you go on to describe, and it doesn’t even sound like Mill was talking about that.

D, here is a passage that leads me to think otherwise:

In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. 13
I have said that it is important to give the freest scope possible to uncustomary things, in order that it may in time appear which of these are fit to be converted into customs. But independence of action, and disregard of custom, are not solely deserving of encouragement for the chance they afford that better modes of action, and customs more worthy of general adoption, may be struck out; nor is it only persons of decided mental superiority who have a just claim to carry on their lives in their own way. There is no reason that all human existence should be constructed on some one or some small number of patterns.

It is chapter 3 (individuality) in On Liberty.
http://www.bartleby.com/130/3.html

The “tyranny of opinion” is the tyranny of the majority and Mill constrasts it to the development of new ideas, new ways of living and eccentricities.

What else but the open society could Mill mean by “freest scope possible?” The last line in this passage is the great insight that convinces me that the Open society must be defended against the tyranny of opinion:
“There is no reason that all human existence should be constructed on some one or some small number of patterns.”

[Ophelia]

@NabberGnossi

Finally and repetitively, the meaning of words, especially marriage, has nothing to with the distribution of rights.

So your problem with allowing same-sex marriage is that you want to legally fix the definition of the word? What date would you set the exact definition for? As I’ve said, the definition has changed over time and it has changed many times. I don’t think there is an a historical definition for marriage.

“[The] definition has changed over time and it has changed many times.”

Yes, it has, at one time people attempted to get polygamy classified as marriage, but this classification was denied.

Regarding the “tyranny of the majority” in another context, revenue grants for various social services across our nation are dictated by lobbyists in Washington. Here it is a minority that influences how our tax dollars are spent. I wonder how many cities and communities are funding junkies?