“The American politics of sexual orientation, over the years, has been suffused with appeals to disgust,” begins renowned philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s latest book, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation & Constitutional Law. Most people would have fallen asleep before they could read half of the title. Indeed, the subject matter is dry and rigid, but it sets aside the emotion and addresses the laws that have shaped our nation into its present state: a state where DADT and DOMA are law, but ENDA is not.
Nussbaum argues that most, if not all, discriminatory laws against the LGBT community are driven by a “politics of disgust”. You couldn’t find a more recent and clearer example than that of New Hampshire State Rep. Nancy Elliott when she describes anal sex between two consenting male adults. Over time, our country has shifted from being disgusted with interracial marriages (anti-miscegenation), to being disgusted with same-sex marriages. Nussbaum maintains that the legal arguments have no standing whatsoever. Just because the majority has animosity towards something does not justify outlawing it. The only exception to this would be in cases where public safety is compromised.
Several notorious constitutional law cases are recalled, such a Loving v. Virginia (1967), City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc. (1985), Bower v. Hardwick (1986), Romer v. Evans (1996), and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). All of these cases were a result of disgust towards another group of people. Although the United States was founded as a nation of the people and for the people, Nussbaum quite accurately states that “[i]n the process, the opinions, full of examples of prejudice, give good reason to think that democratic majorities can’t yet be trusted to put aside bigotry in order to confront this issue in a fair-minded way.”
The problem that the next wave of LGBT activists face is a lack of historical understanding. It’s easy to get emotional and demand equal rights now. It is. The downside is that in reality law must trump emotion. That being said, this book is an important weapon against those who seek to deny us our rights. Read it. Use it.
Duh. And?
Next!
It may be “duh” but disgust isn’t something that opponents of same-sex marriage don’t explicitly identify as their reason for opposition. Basically, the opposition frames their position as supporting “traditional marriage” and “protecting marriage” and proponents waste a lot of energy on attacking false pretenses.
Yeah, disgust is such a primal emotion that it fuels “there oughta be a law!” sentiments, but it’s completely worthless in that regard.
Case in point: Thinking about my heterosexual parents fucking disgusts me as much as thinking about gay anal sex disgusts Nancy Elliott—but the answer isn’t to outlaw the disgusting act, but to not think about it.
Also, have you ever watched someone eat? It’s almost as gross as whatever gross sex grosses you out the most. Let’s outlaw it.
@3: Practically all murders, dictatorial reigns and deaths violent or otherwise are the direct result of the act of opposite-gender sexual pairings, which is why it’s logical to ban such a thing as your parents doing the deed.
The solitary thing you can ban in this world to prevent the spread of all of society’s woes is opposite-gender sexual pairings. It’s common sense.
Putting your dick in excrement, putting your dick in Loveschild — I’m not really seeing a significant difference there.
@4 Thats what we in constitutional law call an overinclusive remedy.
@6: And yet we ban marriage equality to “protect traditional marriage” and “save the children” without backing those statements up with anything more than scary could-be/would-bes.
Beastiality is the same in this regard. There are people who like sex with animals and they are not hurting anyone or any animal doing it. But we must, after thousands of years of this basically ignored behavior, now make it a punishable offense. My argument is people are either free or they are not. And as soon as you let the moralists decide who’s free, you throw out the notion that, as an adult, I am not free to pursue my happiness because somebody else thinks it’s disgusting.
8: Yeah, bestiality is super-duper gross, but for me, its illegality is most informed by matters of consent.
#8 How do you know that it isn’t hurting the animals? I have to agree with #9. Since animals can’t speak any human languages it’s impossible for them to consent to sex with humans therefore all bestiatlity is tantamount to rape.
Speaking of differences between animals and humans, humans have supposedly “rational” thought. Disgust (and it’s close cousin, fear) are emotions that logic should be able to get us past. If I can be honest, I find anal sex pretty disgusting myself, but logic tells me that’s a reason for me not to engage in it not a reason for it to be illegal for people who do engage in it to get married. I mean anal sex isn’t exclusive to the gay population (straight people do it too) nor is it, in fact, a requirement for being gay so it doesn’t even belong in the conversation.