In email, an occasional “Alas” reader wrote:<\/p>\n
Being called a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or — to take an example from the right — an America-hater, a man-hater or an anti-Christian bigot, is not really “criticism” or debate but an attempt to place the opponent beyond the pale of debate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No doubt, she’s right some of the time; we’ve all seen these concepts brought up in an attempt to shut people down. (For example, legitimate criticism of Israeli policy being met with accusations of anti-Semitism). But some policies really are rooted in bigotry, and we shouldn’t accept rules of discourse that forbid us from saying so.<\/p>\n
So, for example, if someone wants to call an essay I write “man-hating,” I think that’s a potentially fair critique. Maybe my essay was genuinely unfair to men; maybe I was stating views that are only coherent if unstated misandrist premises are accepted. Assuming the person was critiquing my analysis, rather than just calling me a bigot, it’s more logical for me to respond by showing that my piece wasn’t actually anti-male, rather than complaining that my critic is trying to shut me up.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at the example of same-sex marriage.<\/p>\n
There are some overtly homophobic arguments against same-sex marriage. The argument that gays are diseased perverts, for example, is often brought up by the less-classy opponents of SSM.<\/p>\n
However, there are some arguments that are not overtly homophobic. For instance, one of the more sophisticated, liberal arguments against SSM can be summed up like this:<\/p>\n
\n
- If SSM is allowed, society will be less able to affirm the importance of being raised by two bio-parents.<\/li>\n
- This will likely result in more heterosexual parents either never marrying, or marrying and then divorcing.<\/li>\n
- This will cause harm to children.<\/li>\n
- Therefore, we should not allow SSM.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Another common argument against SSM is that it would create a slippery slope, leading to such alleged problems as multiple-marriage and cousin-marriage.<\/p>\n
Niether of these arguments are overtly homophobic, and I don’t think you have to be a homophobe to find these arguments credible. However, I think that there’s a hidden, unquestioned homophobic premise behind both these arguments, without which the arguments would not be coherent. Especially when these arguments are made by people who agree that anti-queer bigotry is wrong, pointing out implicit homophobia should not be forbidden from reasonable discourse.<\/p>\n
Let’s restate the above argument:<\/p>\n
\n
- If wives are allowed to own property independently, wives will be freer to leave their husbands, undermining the institution of marriage.<\/li>\n
- This will likely result in more heterosexual parents divorcing, or not getting married in the first place.<\/li>\n
- This will cause harm to children.<\/li>\n
- Therefore, we should not allow wives to own property independently.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
No one today thinks it was a mistake to change marriage<\/a> to allow married women to own property in their own name, to keep their own last names if they wanted to, or to make wife-rape a crime. These are all changes in “marriage” that arguably weakened the institution, much more clearly than allowing SSM would. The difference is we all agree that forcing women to remain unequal is unacceptable, not even to help protect marriage on the margins. Marriage would just have to be protected on other grounds.<\/p>\n
No one would support laws that kept blacks, or Jews, or women, in legal inequality in order to protect marriage. No one would argue that they should have never have allowed interracial marriage, because the lives of interracial couples should be sacrificed to protect the rest of us from the horror of multiple-marriage or cousins marrying. We’ve reached a social consensus that blacks, Jews, women, interracial couples, etc. all have enough value as human beings that to reduce their lives to tools used to protect the rest of us from a dubious harm to marriage, or from a slippery slope, is unjust.<\/p>\n
In contrast, SSM opponents implicitly assume that it is acceptable to force queers to remain unequal, in order to “protect marriage as an institution” in an unproven and marginal fashion. In doing so, they endorse a devaluation of same-sex couples that they would never endorse were they talking about blacks, or Jews, or women. That assumption – unstated and not even consciously thought about – is homophobic. And anyone who opposes SSM but also considers themselves opposed to bigotry against queers, should seriously consider this contradiction in their views.<\/p>\n
Just as dispensing with women’s rights to protect marriage on the margins would be a misogynistic policy; and just as dispensing with racial equality to protect marriage on the margins would be racist; dispensing with equality for same-sex couples in order to protect marriage on the margins is a homophobic policy.<\/p>\n
It’s true that sometimes “homophobia” – like many other words – is misused as a way of “placing opponents beyond the pale of debate,” as my correspondent said. But – unfortunate as that is – it should not be used as a reason to put genuine and reasonable concerns about homophobia beyond the pale of debate, either.<\/p>\n
[Edited a bit to tighten up the prose.]<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In email, an occasional “Alas” reader wrote: Being called a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or — to take an example from the right — an America-hater, a man-hater or an anti-Christian bigot, is not really “criticism” or … Continue reading