[ExI] CA gay marriage vote

[Dan]

--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 11:36 AM 6/3/2009 -0700, Dan
> wrote:
>> Why not accept, here, at face value, the notion that
>> traditional or religious beliefs played a role* -- rather
>> than rap
> 
> I was not attributing homophobia and misogyny to
> rap/gangsta et al, but speculating that the latter are a
> pretty blatant expression of the forces that help create the
> former.
> 
>> or "embattled masculinity"?  I think it's vaguely
>> (if unintentionally) racist to presume (not saying you
>> have)
> 
> Or Fanon the black psychiatrist?

Yes, I think so in his case.  At least, I believe his ideology -- basically collectivist already -- blinded him to viewing things in terms of people perhaps holding their own opinions regardless of their race or class.
 
>> that Blacks don't have certain values and act based on
> these -- that they just react to whatever happened in the
> past.
> 
> That's an absurd reduction of what I wrote,

Actually, I wasn't reacting in that statement to you.  That's why I wrote, parenthetically, "not saying you have."

> but taking it
> at its least implausible (since in a sense all of us react
> to whatever happened to us in the past, as well as to our
> expectations for the future): what are these distinctive
> values in black culture that you discern as the basis for
> the homophobia of many (as indexed by polls)?

I don't know; haven't done enough research and don't exactly trust the research that I've read so far.  (See my other parenthetic comment below)

> Pointing to
> Baptist faith or the like doesn't get us far unless you
> explain what leads those ideological belief systems to
> promote hatred of gays (supposing that they do).

I'm not sure I'd reduce it to ideology.  After all, there are pro-gay and anti-gay Baptists and most people, I believe, don't think systematically enough to have an ideology.  (The evidence for this [most people not thinking ideologically or systematically] actually seems sound and overwhelming.  Explaining it is, of course, another matter.  I don't have general theory of why people hold the beliefs or values they do.  I do think some might clues in this area, such as Bryan Caplan's view that people tend to hold certain wrong economic beliefs because the cost of holding them is low.  E.g., if you're anti-free trade or pro-minimum wage, the cost to you for holding these views is very low under most circumstances.  I don't see exactly how this might apply here -- save to point out that being anti-same sex marriage doesn't really impose many costs on most people outside of a few very gay friendly areas in the US.*)

Regards,

Dan

*  That said, I should point out that my personal position is anti-statism, so I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place.  In other words, I think marriage is not for the state to define or enforce.  I think if marriage were de-politicized -- even if the government is otherwise left in place; though the only sane, logical, and moral (meaning those who disagree are either partially insane, partly illogical, or immoral:) position is to peacefully overthrow all states -- many of the issues would die away.  Yes, a few hardcore anti-gay people would protest when some private individual or group recognizes a gay marriage, but they would look like the kooks they are.