openingmind
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 416
What I hadn't thought of before today is that the opponents of gay marriage are making a deep assumption: that the matter can be solved by a simple majority vote.
The assumption, it seems, runs something like this: Living in a democracy means that the majority rules, even simple majorities that barely outnumber the next biggest group.
Closely matched antagonism is a recurring theme in American society and the solution heretofore has been: "Shut up, we beat you, fair and square. The score was 53-47. Why can't you stop whining and accept our point of view?"
If you shed your political convictions for a just a second, you can see this situation is ludicrous. How can you expect two almost equally matched, antagonistic groups to coexist harmoniously?
I can imagine it happening if I think of the antagonism as superficial. If the US took vote on whether Coke or Pepsi would be its National Soft Drink in title only and Coke won by a 6% margin, I can't imagine Pepsi drinkers being embittered to the extent of protests.
That's a stupid example, but the point is this: the efficacy of a simple majority vote depends entirely on the weight of the issue. How can we expect to resolve an issue of basic human rights with a simple majority vote?
I anticipate that in another few years the margin between proponents and opponents of gay marriage will slide in the direction of those "for" and what I'm talking about will be moot.
But when will we learn that simple majority votes in the case of closely matched groups are sometimes a bad approach to a problem? That they compound it? Cause bitterness, outrage, and drama?
The alternative in the American system is the 3/4ths majority. Proponents of gay marriage don't want that because the question is so seemingly closely contested.
But would it be unthinkable or dangerous to suggest that, in the case of closely matched contests, that one side essentially be given the "burden of proof" like a prosecutor in court? Popular law states that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has the burden of proof; she must prove that the accused is guilty, or not innocent. They must prove the negative (not innocent) while the defense enjoys the assumption of the positive (innocent).
What if legal propositions of a certain type (like the proposition that gay citizens should enjoy the same benefits as hetero citizens) were resolved as if the proposition were the positive case ("innocent") and the opposition was effectively presenting a negative case ("not innocent")?
Reasonable doubt, I guess, is a lot like a simple majority vote -- if the doubt of innocence is even a little stronger than the assumption of innocence, then the prosecution wins (well, ideally).
What I'm suggesting is that opponents/prosecutors of certain, serious social propositions be required to win a vote by more than a narrow margin, that the "against" side be required to win by 75% or more.
What qualifies as a serious social proposition? Anything that would alter the basic rights of citizens: voting, property ownership, pay scale, tax eligibilities, or just about anything regulating pertaining to personal life (like marriage, adopting, getting an abortion, etc.)
The ideas of extremists in this situation would almost never succeed. Extremists win their battles currently because it's a lot easier to polarize a people than to recruit a solid majority (75%+).
In the world of logical argumentation, the burden of proof is always with the side asserting an extraordinary claim. The opponents of gay marriage are making a terrifically extraordinary claim: that some people don't deserve all the basic rights. The proponents are arguing that all people (well, gays) deserve the same rights (specifically the right to marry).
Which do you think is the more extraordinary claim? Would you say it's a conventionally accepted fact that all kinds of humans deserve the same rights?
Or think of it this way...The claim that gays don't deserve marriage rights is an ontologically positive argument. They're claiming that there's such a thing as a "real marriage" and that it exists only between a man and woman. Or else they're saying that there's some essential difference of being between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
It's too bad that we don't vote on the individual arguments behind the reason for a vote.
It's hard to see that opponents of gay marriage are making an ontological argument, but once you hear their rhetoric it's obvious. They're arguing ontologically for "sin," that this thing called sin exists and homosexuals have it and accrue it by practicing homosexuality. And they're arguing ontologically for "God" and that "God" would never sanction a gay marriage since being gay is a sin and hence there is "real marriage" (God-sanctioned) and "fake" or Devil's marriage.
I didn't want to get into the whole religious side of it, but as I writing this I realized that you just can't separate the supporting arguments from the main argument. The vote against gay marriage is a main argument with supporting arguments that are extraordinary, ontological arguments.
Dealing with this problem by a simple majority vote is an attempt to bypass meaningful, logical debate.
But I don't propose that anti-gay marriage advocates only be allowed to win by providing proof for sin and God (as awesome as that would be). I only suggest that the simple majority approach is totally inappropriate and unrealistic.
The assumption, it seems, runs something like this: Living in a democracy means that the majority rules, even simple majorities that barely outnumber the next biggest group.
Closely matched antagonism is a recurring theme in American society and the solution heretofore has been: "Shut up, we beat you, fair and square. The score was 53-47. Why can't you stop whining and accept our point of view?"
If you shed your political convictions for a just a second, you can see this situation is ludicrous. How can you expect two almost equally matched, antagonistic groups to coexist harmoniously?
I can imagine it happening if I think of the antagonism as superficial. If the US took vote on whether Coke or Pepsi would be its National Soft Drink in title only and Coke won by a 6% margin, I can't imagine Pepsi drinkers being embittered to the extent of protests.
That's a stupid example, but the point is this: the efficacy of a simple majority vote depends entirely on the weight of the issue. How can we expect to resolve an issue of basic human rights with a simple majority vote?
I anticipate that in another few years the margin between proponents and opponents of gay marriage will slide in the direction of those "for" and what I'm talking about will be moot.
But when will we learn that simple majority votes in the case of closely matched groups are sometimes a bad approach to a problem? That they compound it? Cause bitterness, outrage, and drama?
The alternative in the American system is the 3/4ths majority. Proponents of gay marriage don't want that because the question is so seemingly closely contested.
But would it be unthinkable or dangerous to suggest that, in the case of closely matched contests, that one side essentially be given the "burden of proof" like a prosecutor in court? Popular law states that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor has the burden of proof; she must prove that the accused is guilty, or not innocent. They must prove the negative (not innocent) while the defense enjoys the assumption of the positive (innocent).
What if legal propositions of a certain type (like the proposition that gay citizens should enjoy the same benefits as hetero citizens) were resolved as if the proposition were the positive case ("innocent") and the opposition was effectively presenting a negative case ("not innocent")?
Reasonable doubt, I guess, is a lot like a simple majority vote -- if the doubt of innocence is even a little stronger than the assumption of innocence, then the prosecution wins (well, ideally).
What I'm suggesting is that opponents/prosecutors of certain, serious social propositions be required to win a vote by more than a narrow margin, that the "against" side be required to win by 75% or more.
What qualifies as a serious social proposition? Anything that would alter the basic rights of citizens: voting, property ownership, pay scale, tax eligibilities, or just about anything regulating pertaining to personal life (like marriage, adopting, getting an abortion, etc.)
The ideas of extremists in this situation would almost never succeed. Extremists win their battles currently because it's a lot easier to polarize a people than to recruit a solid majority (75%+).
In the world of logical argumentation, the burden of proof is always with the side asserting an extraordinary claim. The opponents of gay marriage are making a terrifically extraordinary claim: that some people don't deserve all the basic rights. The proponents are arguing that all people (well, gays) deserve the same rights (specifically the right to marry).
Which do you think is the more extraordinary claim? Would you say it's a conventionally accepted fact that all kinds of humans deserve the same rights?
Or think of it this way...The claim that gays don't deserve marriage rights is an ontologically positive argument. They're claiming that there's such a thing as a "real marriage" and that it exists only between a man and woman. Or else they're saying that there's some essential difference of being between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
It's too bad that we don't vote on the individual arguments behind the reason for a vote.
It's hard to see that opponents of gay marriage are making an ontological argument, but once you hear their rhetoric it's obvious. They're arguing ontologically for "sin," that this thing called sin exists and homosexuals have it and accrue it by practicing homosexuality. And they're arguing ontologically for "God" and that "God" would never sanction a gay marriage since being gay is a sin and hence there is "real marriage" (God-sanctioned) and "fake" or Devil's marriage.
I didn't want to get into the whole religious side of it, but as I writing this I realized that you just can't separate the supporting arguments from the main argument. The vote against gay marriage is a main argument with supporting arguments that are extraordinary, ontological arguments.
Dealing with this problem by a simple majority vote is an attempt to bypass meaningful, logical debate.
But I don't propose that anti-gay marriage advocates only be allowed to win by providing proof for sin and God (as awesome as that would be). I only suggest that the simple majority approach is totally inappropriate and unrealistic.
