Thus I semi-reluctantly wrestle, as promised, with the issue of moral relativism. A few times I've fought this battle online with liberal Xangans, but it usually ends up either in tepid compromise or the outright disappearance of individuals to defend the opposing viewpoint. Since none of you (devoted readers) exist, I don't have to worry about that.
Understand, dear phantom readers, that my selection of gay marriage as the backdrop for this discussion is purely arbitrary, determined only by its recent prominence in current affairs. These concepts are deeper than any one situation, and my views on gay marriage are irrelevant to this discussion, although I will say, states' rights get my vote over any sort of federal or judicial action any day. Power to the people...oooh, funkytown. Excuse me.
Essentially, we've got one group, the religious conservatives, arguing against gay marriage for many reasons...the most salient and simple being that it is just *wrong*. This particular idea really gets the opposing faction's goat (whatever that means). The liberals heatedly resent the idea of someone applying their moral standards to someone else...they adhere to the doctrine of moral relativism, that is, that right and wrong are personally defined, not absolute. An attractive and seemingly logical concept, admittedly.
The problem is, no liberal has the bollocks to see it through completely, to its logical end. They want to take a smattering of moral relativism, and apply it here, apply it there, without adopting the concept in its entirety.
The quickest way to expose this is to start pointing out the maligned stepcousins of homosexuality, what could be considered "fellow perversions". Bestiality...still quite frowned upon, and not about to be legalised!!! Polygamy...still illegal, even in Utah. Please, stretch your minds a little...even pedophilia. Necrophilia. ET CETERA ET CETERA ET CETERA. PETER CETERA. Woo yeah. Again, excuse me.
Right about now, the liberals are frothing in panicky rage, HOW-DARE-YOU-COMPARE-HOMOSEXUALITY-WITH-THOSE-THINGS!!! Why is there such a response? Because these things are still viewed by the public...yes, even those open-minded liberals...as grotesque, immoral, and perverse. As homosexuality once was, by collective society. These "relativists" will hypocritically claim that such actions are morally wrong. By whose standards? You can't, with any degree of integrity, force your morals onto these polygamists and necrophiliacs...their morals are their own, and according to your creed of relativism you have no right to tell them their chosen "alternative lifestyle" is wrong.
Here is where the liberals pull out their wildcard. Some of those things can hurt another person. Apparently morality is relative "up to a point". The "consenting adult" thing is fine, but where that condition is not met, it is morally wrong. This is silly...if morality is relative why is it really wrong to hurt someone? Seriously, a true moral relativist has to admit that this is only a society's assertion, since there is no absolute truth. If you respond in exasperation, "it's just wrong" you have proven my point, and thus abandoned your stance on moral relativism, from which you were defending gay marriage.
Liberals want to live in a world that allows them to intermingle absolute and relative morality at their discretion, but the philosophies that underlie these concepts are like oil and vinegar. This half-hearted, partially applied relativism is riddled with fallacy. You cannot make the case for moral relativism until you deny absolute truth.
If you have a response to this you would like posted on here, I will gladly do so and respond to it. Please email me and specify whether or not you would like to remain anonymous. Thank you!