“Equality for All”: The Road We Ought Not Tread
Philosophy, Politics — By Rachel Motte on October 28, 2008 at 7:56 pmCategories can be useful. Most people seem to realize this: tax brackets, biological taxonomy, or fantasy football statistics disappearing seems unlikely. Every day, every moment of our lives, we both consciously and unknowingly sift and sort through senses and thoughts, placing them into folders to be referenced conveniently in the future. There is an overseer for the sorting. My mother likes to call him the “little man.”
Apparently, our little man is a stubborn, crotchety geezer with an incredible aptitude for analytical discernment. He knows exactly where everything is, but must be asked nicely to retrieve information. If you poke him too hard, he’ll sit down, cross his arms, and say through pursed lips, “Nope. Not getting it. Nope.”
Nonetheless, I cannot help but to have developed an affinity for the metaphorical wretch. He is the manifestation of my cognitive ability to recover everything that education and environment has instilled into me.
When an elderly person and I walk towards the same door, it is my little man who reminds me to open the door for them and allow them to enter first. He tells me that a donut for breakfast is not equal to fruit and yogurt, and watching The Office for hours is, to my dismay, unacceptable. Every mannerism, manner, and judgment of material is the result of acting upon my life’s mental absorption and storage. And what good would knowledge be without the ability to utilize it in a way that will benefit both my neighbors and myself?
That is why I feel a sense of gratitude to my “little man.” He is responsible for guiding me, through referencing what I already know, to my every reaction to a social situation, every moral judgment, every decision for prudence. My “little man,” and everyone’s for that matter, is the reason we can create order and respect in a world of constant contrasts.
My affection has led to indignation at constant cultural pressure to murder him.
When classifying, what do you do when you come upon two things that are absolutely identical, (aka “equal”)? You put them in the same category. And two different things, (aka “unequal”)…? Last I checked, knowing red is not equal to green is a requirement for passing kindergarten. Knowing red is more valuable than green is not.
I heard that the “No on Prop 8″ campaign in California has chosen the slogan, “Equality for all.” My is immediate response is simply, “Really?”
When I talk to my grandmother, I don’t treat her like a peer. I don’t go to a funeral dressed in the same manner as when I’m going to class. I don’t expect men to bear children, and I don’t expect women to fight in wars. Regarding these and many others, my “little man” assures me that they are wise and beneficial distinctions.
Ever more clearly, I’m starting to realize that the line dividing “different” and “worse” is nearly nonexistent in current political and social discourse. No, my grandmother is not a classmate, but both are invaluable human beings. No, a woman has different capacities than a man, but they should both be respected equally and paid fairly. No, homosexual relationships are not “equal” to heterosexual relationships, so why must they be included in a distinction that has always directly pertained to defining the nature of a heterosexual couple’s relationship? Why not create a new category?
Frankly, I don’t understand why the homosexual community doesn’t want to “celebrate diversity,” as they claim to ardently desire. Why cry for “equality” when the homosexual movement is largely centered around pride in being different? Let’s not pretend to be blind to color, creed, or any other variances: we should acknowledge and respect them all equally, true, but don’t try to tell me everyone ought to be treated identically, and please…
Let the “little man” live.
Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
35 Comments
Is this the follow up post on gay marriage that we were promised? Where is Dusty’s ‘clarrification’? I take it we are allowed to stop praying for Obama’s grandmother now aren’t we?
Frankly, I don’t understand why the homosexual community doesn’t want to “celebrate diversity,” as they claim to ardently desire. Why cry for “equality” when the homosexual movement is largely centered around pride in being different?
I think there is a distinction between being equal before the law and being equal in the sense of being ‘not different’. In the second sense, no one and no thing is really equal. Is the flighty, short marriage(s) of Brittany Spears equal to the long marriage of John Nash which had to endure decades of mental illness and other challenges (going off the movie A Beautiful Mind here)? By law they are and should be but if you needed to find a good example to use as a role model in giving a talk to a group of engaged couples would you consider both examples to have equal value?
My “little man” just informed me that your “little man” is wrong.
Equality for all applied thoroughly is helpful to none. When I hear “equality” it nearly always calls the word “supremacy” to mind. The various special interests that claim to fight for equality in most cases want to be on top of the equal pile.
Equality for all applied thoroughly is helpful to none. When I hear “equality” it nearly always calls the word “supremacy” to mind. The various special interests that claim to fight for equality in most cases want to be on top of the equal pile.
Equality for all applied thoroughly is helpful to none. When I hear “equality” it nearly always calls the word “supremacy” to mind. The various special interests that claim to fight for equality in most cases want to be on top of the equal pile.
Equality for all applied thoroughly is helpful to none. When I hear “equality” it nearly always calls the word “supremacy” to mind. The various special interests that claim to fight for equality in most cases want to be on top of the equal pile.
Boonton,
The post on same-sex marriage is coming. I arranged to have someone respond to my argument within the post. I sent my post to the respondent on Saturday and received his response this morning. I will be editing the post to include hyperlinks and will probably send it live tomorrow.
Thanks for following up. Apologies for the delay – I know that I said to expect the post by last week, but these last few weeks have been busy and I ran out of time for the post.
Dustin
Dustin,
Sounds good, I’m looking forward to it.
Jon
When I hear “equality” it nearly always calls the word “supremacy” to mind. The various special interests that claim to fight for equality in most cases want to be on top of the equal pile.
How does this apply to gay marriage? Assuming prop 8 fails how, exactly, would gay marriages be ‘on top’ of straight ones?
I have voted No on 8 and am working in the No on 8 campaign because my gay neighbors should have the same right I have to marry the person they love.
My wife and I do not have children and cannot have children. So, other than both partners having a design sense rather than just one (her), how is my marriage different from that of our gay friends?
Married couples make a better community at minimum by creating more stable households; leveraging each other’s earnings to build financial security and participate in the community. I see no downside to opening civil marriage to same sex couples.
As far as the ludicrous argument that churches will be required to consecrate these marriages, I give you the example of divorced catholics. Unless you receive an anullment from the Church you cannot be married (again) in the Church. Despite the fact that you are engaging in a totally legal ceremony (in the eyes of the law), the Church is totally within its rights to deny you the sacrament of marriage, until you pay the church to make your previous marriage go away.
Yours does not institutionalize discrimination against either of sexes. Theirs does.
how is my marriage different from that of our gay friends?
Yours does not institutionalize discrimination against either of sexes. Theirs does.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand. Which sex is being discriminated against if gay marriage is kept legal?
“Yours does not institutionalize discrimination against either of sexes. Theirs does.”
I’m not getting this. I hope this explanation is better than the one some time back (I forget whose insane theory it was) that tried vainly to equate honesty about the existence of gay people with sexual abuse of children.
“Yours does not institutionalize discrimination against either of sexes. Theirs does.”
I’m not getting this. I hope this explanation is better than the one some time back (I forget whose insane theory it was) that tried vainly to equate honesty about the existence of gay people with sexual abuse of children.
A male homosexual relationship practices sexual discrimination against females. A female homosexual relationship practices sexual discrimination against males.
A male homosexual relationship practices sexual discrimination against females. A female homosexual relationship practices sexual discrimination against males.
And it would seem a male heterosexual relationship practices self-discrimination against other males!
smmtheory remains the stupidest person to ever comment here.
Um, wow.
A male homosexual relationship practices sexual discrimination against females. …
So, I am practicing racism unless I am married to a (props to Tiger Woods) Cablinasiantina woman? I am practicing classism unless I am married to trailer park living, harvard educated, um Okie, from, let’s say Oregon by way of New Mexico, who’s an OG from the ghetto?
Good lord it’s hard to live up to the expectations of the voices in smmtheory’s head.
Smmtheory, being stupid, is unable to tell the difference between institutional discrimination and individual discrimination.
Individual Discrimination = homosexual relationship
Institutionalized Discrimination = homosexual relationship blessed by Government pretending it is marriage.
See the difference Boonton? Probably not.
Individual Discrimination = Jon Gallagher not marrying a Cablinasiantina woman.
Institutionalized Discrimination = Government telling Jon Gallagher he cannot marry a Cablinasiantina woman.
See the difference Jon Gallagher? Probably not.
See the difference Boonton? Probably not.
Because there isn’t a difference. Your individual choices may be discriminatory but the institutional ones are not as comment #19 indicates.
If you were consistent, which you’re not because you are an idiot, you would have to say the gov’t could not recognize Jon Gallagher’s marriage because he didn’t want to marry a Cablinasiantina woman and by choosing to marry, say, an Irish woman, gov’t recognition of his marriage was ‘institutionalizing’ discrimination against Cablinasiantinas.
smmtheory appears to be among those who think that the legalization of same sex marriage means that everyone will be required to be in a homosexual marriage. The law does not require you to marry someone of the same sex, it merely allows you that option. If you wish to marry someone of the opposite sex, this law will not prevent you from doing that.
Is smmtheory for real? Boonton is right – smmtheory is an idiot. Perhaps the stupidest comments I’ve read anywhere.
Wow! That was even worse than I had feared. I am forced to finally acknowledge what others have said for some time: smmtheory is an idiot, perhaps the stupidest poster here.
Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. When slavery was legal and sanctioned by the government it didn’t mean that everybody was required to own a slave. That didn’t make laws enabling slavery any less discriminatory than they were either. They merely allowed you the option to own a slave. If you didn’t wish to own a slave the law didn’t prevent that.
I am of course honored that the three of you (Boonton, Godbot, and Rob Ryan) call me stupid.
That didn’t make laws enabling slavery any less discriminatory than they were either.
Ok, before this thread dies out to the newer one, who exactly is being discriminated against here? Women who can’t marry a particular gay man because he has choosen to marry another man?
This you’re comparing to slavery? Should you ever feel the need to question why something like 95% of African Americans vote Democratic please first ask a friend or neighbor to smack you in the head with a 2 by 4.
After people have worked so hard to ensure that laws were enacted to ensure nobody is discriminated against due to sex, now you want to nullify their work by allowing discrimination due to sex.
No, I’m not comparing it to slavery. I’m saying the same sort of argument for it would probably have been used for slavery. It is not very convincing or compelling reasoning for justifying the recognition of marriage on a non-marital arrangement. It’s not exactly like you haven’t used the same sort of comparison either, so if you don’t like it maybe you should remember that when you are tempted to argue the same way in the future.
Since you have no objections to people of the same sex being “married”, would you also have no objections to two brothers being “married”, or two sisters, or even a mother and daughter or father and son? A lot of the advocates for this do. What about you?
After people have worked so hard to ensure that laws were enacted to ensure nobody is discriminated against due to sex, now you want to nullify their work by allowing discrimination due to sex.
Back to basics:
Sam chooses to marry an Irish woman rather than a black woman.
This is legal, is this ‘institutionalized discrimination’ based on race?
How do you figure that this is the same as “Sam may not marry a black woman because the state says it is illegal for him to do so”?
Ohhhh, you’re also stupid.
Or even more to the point:
Sam chooses to marry a woman.
How, under your odd, strange, absurd and stupid use and abuse of the English language, would that not be discrimination against men?
oxswctaz fixts slork tlwaq ayqucezdm rqfszwjvb zutadsbp
oxswctaz fixts slork tlwaq ayqucezdm rqfszwjvb zutadsbp
oxswctaz fixts slork tlwaq ayqucezdm rqfszwjvb zutadsbp
Nice try ebgxmlaf, smmtheory is still more stupid.
Well Boonton, I would dumb it down for you to understand it, but since I’m stupid I don’t think I could dumb it down any more than it already is.
“I don’t think I could dumb it down any more than it already is.”
no probably not.