Gay Marriage

[Chaerophon]

"Just plain wrong" is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

I can agree with that; however...

At different times, different societies had differing forms of slavery and everybody in those societies accepted it and would have laughed at you for thinking otherwise.

Here I feel that your relativism is far too uncritical. There were most likely people in these societies who were non-slaves and felt that slavery was wrong and, clearly, there had to be more than a few slaves who felt the same way. The constraint of the human spirit (will to power...?) in such a way, while perhaps seemingly 'fitting' to the constrainers cannot possibly be viewed in the same light by all of those who are constrained. Our belief that such behaviours are "just plain wrong" is not necessarily 'just' a "knee-jerk reaction that substitutes for rational thought". While it is clearly a reaction that speaks to the social mores and perspectives of our time; one must be careful in criticizing the foundation of these perspectives too harshly. I personally subscribe to the notion of fundamental human equality, our equal right to a voice, as being universally desirable and the fundamental units necessary for the enactment of social justice. At heart, no individual human being wants not to be heard - they may think that such a desire is somehow 'wrong' and so keep it pent up; however, that is beside the point. While it may be dangerous to simply impose Western Enlightenment notions of liberal justice in native societies, establishing the socioeconomic and ideological groundwork by which marginalized groups may make ethical claims to common humanity is the first step in admitting any kind of principle of human rights. While you may argue that my defense of such a goal is relativist in its own right, I would point to the relative universality of this perspective as a part of the transnational women's and anti-slavery movements as struggles from both within and outside of particular societies as a worldwide phenomenon. These struggles seem to me to be an indicator that this desire for a right to a voice tends to transcend difference and relativism among local marginalized groups.

It goes without saying that this reaction to slavery is centered in our own liberal ethos of equality; however, this ethos is one that is defended against detractors by the notion that unchallenged ideas run the risk of becoming hegemonic failures of reason. As a base unit, I see some inherent value in such a perspective. The visible constraint and marginalization of a slave's inherent entitlement to a voice as a part of 'humanity' is what strikes the modern liberal as "just plain wrong". While there undoubtedly remain a vast multitude of the fundamentally 'voiceless' in our modern neoliberal society, we do tend to place a premium on the formal concept of our 'shared humanity'. This instinct towards formal equality as a right to having a voice is a necessary precursor to a heightened, more just understanding of the human condition. Without it, dialogue is impossible and 'difference' remains fundamentally an issue of right or wrong rather than what it simply is; difference.