I did not say you could not disagree with Martin Albl without being prejudiced. I said you could not dismiss him without being prejudiced. Those are two different things. The first takes his argument seriously, the second does not. "Prejudice" means to "judge" based solely on passion and without reason. But Martin has reasons, not just passion. But then Todd gives the prejudiced reply, stating that there is no other ground for opposing same-sex marriage other than pure prejudice. That is someone who is dismissing Martin rather than thinking about what he writes. Todd can't believe anyone could possibly have reasoned himself to a position that same-sex marriage is bad for society. That person must be a bigot. It must be nice to never have to argue with one's opponents, who are proven wrong simply by the fact that they disagree with hip progressive opinion.
To reject an opinion as "from the Dark Ages" without supporting arguments is dismissive. An opinion is not false because it is old; nor is it true because it is new.
Does the difference between male and female end with genitalia? Is there really no such thing as masculine and feminine nature? Plenty of smart people say no, but common sense (and plenty of social biology) suggests otherwise. If there are differences between men and women that go beyond different body parts, then does it not make sense to say that there may be "motherhood" and "fatherhood" in addition to the generic "parenthood"? We are not arguing about what happens in this or that household, but what is generally true. It isn't just crazies like Albl and Schaff that say this. For example, it is iconoclastic leftist Christopher Lasch who argues in The True and Only Heaven that the idea that men and women are the same is a "sentimental fiction" (pg 36) in service of a radical progressive ideal. BTW, different, it should go without saying, does not mean unequal.
Todd then falls into the solipsism of "whatever I choose is good." There are two ways to judge a choice. Some say a choice is good because it is freely chosen. Others say a choice is good because of the content of the choice. Similarly, some say decent liberal society can thrive irrespective of the character of the people. Others say that decent liberal society needs people of certain character, for example people who are able to control their passions. It is a truism to say that people who are not capable of governing themselves are not capable of self-government. Todd seems to think that all a society needs to hold it together is a radical commitment to equality and "choice," damn the consequences and damn what is being chosen. The logic of his argument is that a society can be indifferent to the character of its people and to the character of the family, the institution most crucial to the formation of individual character.
Again, there are really smart people who agree with Todd. But the best of them do not casually dismiss their opponents' arguments as mere prejudice. My argument here is not that Martin and I correct, although obviously I think we are, but to suggest that there are actually reasons behind our arguments. As I said, to disagree with Martin is not prejudice, so long as one has reasons of one's own. To simply dismiss a thoughtful and well intentioned argument as simply being the product of prejudice requires a profound lack of self-knowledge.
Recent Comments