Bigotry, homosexuality and morality

Ah, now we're getting somewhere interesting. Jamelle says that Ta-Nehisi Coates is right and I am wrong about whether or not Americans are "bigots" about homosexuals because a majority don't support same-sex marriage. (Read Ta-Nehisi's remarks here). What's interesting, and illuminating on both sides, is the definition of "bigot" that each of us is working with. Jamelle points to Pew survey data showing that 49 percent of Americans think homosexuality is immoral, only 9 percent view it as "morally acceptable," and everybody else is in the mushy middle. That, according to Jamelle, confirms Ta-Nehisi's view that most Americans are "deeply prejudiced" against gays, and that drives their political views on gay marriage.

I'm not sure that Ta-Nehisi and I disagree, actually, on the basic data. That is, I would have agreed with him from the get-go that a large percentage of Americans, probably a majority, disapprove morally of homosexuality. What I dispute is whether that counts as "bigotry" as we generally use the term in our political debate.

I don't count moral disapproval as "bigotry" on its face, because the word "bigotry" connotes malicious, unthinking prejudice. Is it really the case that someone who morally disapproves of a particular behavior is therefore a "bigot"? Are people who are vegans therefore anti-meat bigots? Do we really want to think of pacifists -- that is, people who object on moral grounds to war -- as anti-military bigots? Are those who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds in some sense bigoted against murder victims?

I'm allergic to deploying the word "bigot" against those who disagree with me because I think it's usually both untrue and unfair, and is almost always used in popular discourse to shame one's opponent into silence, or, more frequently, to avoid having to grapple with moral arguments one would rather not confront. In any case, being quick to resort to the "bigot" concept makes discussion and debate in a pluralistic society difficult, because it delegitimizes one's opponent's views from the get-go. You cannot argue with a bigot. Here's an e-mail I received today:

You point out how proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to label their opponents bigots. It is not that we do not have counter-arguments; we do. But what this comes down to is simply right vs. wrong. There is no argument against same-sex marriage that is just, ethical or worthy. You can tart up your language with false piety, traditional moralism and what passes in some circles for intellectual argument. But always, your starting point and your end point are rooted in bigotry and hatred. You are a bigot. All those who oppose same-sex marriages are bigots. I cannot state it more clearly than that. There is no point in argument or debate, because there are not two sides with merit. There is right, and there is wrong. You are wrong.

So you see, according to my correspondent, there's nothing to discuss, because anything my side would say that disagrees with him comes from pure, irrational hatred. It's all about power. Is this really the kind of society we want? If I told this guy that there is no argument for same-sex marriage that is just, ethical or worthy, and that his starting point and his end point are rooted in bigotry and hatred for God, traditional morality, heterosexuality, or whatever, I would not only be wrong, I would be embarrassed to make such a pitiful and cowardly statement.

What it comes down to, I think, is the concept of a rational prejudice. I think that some, and perhaps many, supporters of same-sex marriage are anti-Christian bigots, in that they have a fierce and unthinking hatred for all Christians, but I think by no means do they constitute all SSM supporters. I don't believe everyone who finds my religious and political convictions objectionable are therefore bigots. I think it's entirely possible to find certain beliefs and behaviors immoral without being bigoted in the matter, or bigoted toward the people who hold those views. Because see, if I started from the same first premises that motivate someone like my friend N., a pro-SSM secularist, of course I would have deep and sincere moral objections to Christianity, in particular its teachings on human sexuality. N.'s prejudice against Christianity is rational. Now, should he start to treat Christians abusively, or to develop lurid theories and a nasty disposition towards Christians, then I would start thinking about the b-word. But as regrettable and ill-informed as I find his view of Christianity and those who espouse it, I don't think he's remotely a bigot. In fact, he's unfailingly respectful and kind, and a generous fellow whose company I enjoy. I believe most people who want gay marriage see it as a moral good, and are decent folks who happen to misunderstand or to wrongly reject some important truths. I don't think they are bigots, and don't want to think they are bigots, because then I stop listening to them, stop trying to see the world through their eyes, and finally stop caring about what they think or feel or suffer.

There are many people -- seemingly everyone who has a blog or works for the media -- who have decided that homosexuality is either morally neutral or morally good -- and who cannot comprehend why anybody would disagree. Therefore, because these folks do not understand why anyone could object to homosexuality, anyone who doesn't share their view could only be motivated by irrational hatred of the most odious kind. It's a peculiar thing, to impute bigotry to half the people in one's own country, because they happen to hold a negative viewpoint about the moral licitness of the sexual practices of a tiny minority -- a viewpoint that has been thoroughly and overwhelmingly mainstream in Western culture from, say, 1,500 years ago up until the day before yesterday.

Understand that I'm not making the argument here that the traditional, Biblical view of homosexuality is morally wrong; I'm saying that to ascribe all opposition to homosexual behavior to irrational, malicious prejudice is an extremely parochial and ahistorical stance. Given what most people in the West have long believed about homosexuality and the Biblical basis for sexual ethics and morality, it is completely unsurprising that so many people take a dim view of the morality of homosexuality.

What I'm saying is that I believe people can be morally wrong in their prejudices without being bigots, a strong word that I think should be reserved for knotheads and thugs (of which both sides in this debate have more than a few). Ta-Nehisi and I would agree that some degree of animus against homosexuality, either visceral or formal, drives most of the opposition to same-sex marriage. Where we'd part, it seems to me, is how to regard that opposition, both in their views and in their person. If you believe deep down that I am a bigot, that tells me that, like the letter-writer above, you have no respect for my point of view or me at all, and that you will do your very best to run over me the first chance you get. Bigots exist, but I think it's dangerous to look for them behind ever tree, because the temptation to self-righteousness can be overwhelming. If one's opponents can all be written off as bigots, then one relieves oneself the duty to see them as human beings who can be talked to, reasoned with, treated with respect even in defeat, and, finally, loved, despite it all. They become an abstraction, and less than human. Again, is that really the kind of society we want to live in?

UPDATE: Of course, this is impossibly naive.

And I forgot to point out that very many of us simply do not agree that homosexuality is morally neutral, like race is. If you don't believe that it's morally neutral, then arguments for same-sex marriage that depend on comparing gays today to blacks in the pre-civil rights era simply don't work.

UPDATE.2: To clarify, I'm not saying that if somebody is raised in a culture in which a particular prejudice is mainstream, then that person's prejudice is beyond moral judgment. If one's Alabama grandfather believes racial segregation was just and right, it's perfectly legitimate to judge his view as immoral, even though he had been formed by a culture that taught segregation. Indeed, I would describe Granddad's view as bigoted, because I see no basis, neither in reason nor in the Christian religion, to uphold Granddad's segregationist views. On the other hand, unless he was a malicious jerk, knowing Granddad's background would make me reluctant to apply the word "bigot" to him, even if I thought privately that he was exactly that. Why? Because I would have an appreciation for the world that made Granddad's conscience, and how it distorted his moral lens; I would know how much he has to overcome to see things rightly, and would extend him understanding and mercy, even as I judge him to hold immoral views, and would feel morally bound to challenge him on those views if they came up, and I would certainly believe that Granddad's segregationist views should not be enshrined in law.

I know I'm splitting some hairs here, but this is the kind of moral exercise many, many white Southerners born and raised in the post-civil rights era have to do all the time when relating to the older generation. It teaches you how to love and respect folks who believe something you know to be profoundly immoral, by teaching you to discern their own flawed humanity, and perhaps to be careful issuing blanket judgments because you don't want young folks 50 years from now damning you as a malign Other for believing things today that are uncontroversial. This is, I guess, another illustration of what Jamelle meant here:

This exchange between Rod Dreher and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage is interesting, if only because it provides another striking example of how ones identity has an incredible impact on how one views the world and other human beings. That is, it's pretty easy to believe that bigotry drives political action against same-sex marriage when you yourself belong to a minority group that was a regular target of disenfranchisement (or worse) for more than a century.