Thursday, February 26, 2004
> do u want the law to call u or ur roomie immoral for having a female roomie?
Gosh, let me further elaborate: I was talking about how to go about debating this issue, not what the final outcome should be. So if people started lobbying to call male-female cohabitation "immoral", then my first reaction in this case would be to show respect for their sensibilities and move out, then take it up with them if I felt strongly about it.
In a democracy, public debate and discussion is crucial. It follows that sensitivity and moderation in speech accompany the process if it is to be well-oiled, otherwise if can be damaging. Misdirected and ill-motivated public discourse can be the most damaging to a democratic society. We as Indians know that.
Going back to the chat I was having with those people, the afro-american went on and on about the putative parallels b/w this debate and the civil rights movement, she ranted against this imaginary monster that she called "status quo" (!), she trivialized constitutional and social concepts of individual freedom, etc...while she also said that she would not shed a tear if anyone assissinated Bush tomorrow, etc etc. Another person today remarked that all the gays he knows are very kind and helpful people. My point is that none of this has any logical connection with the real issue at hand, and there lies the danger. Historical conditioning, prejudice, and other tangential notions are influencing the debate.
In short, just because, historically, status quo notions have been used to justify what we no consider to be evil, does not mean that any party that appeals to status quo notions is in the wrong. How difficult is this to understand? Yet everyone, including you Ramki, continue to use that argument. That is dishonest.
OK more importantly, you guys must respond to the main idea I threw up in my previous post -- compare our non-uniform civil code as an option.
Comments: Post a Comment