John Waters, debating same-sex marriage, and homophobia

With Ireland set to have a referendum next year, where citizens will eventually make the decision whether or not to introduce same-sex marriage, it is likely we can expect further heated debate to take place. Earlier this year, to be sure, we got a flavour of how forceful things can get: RTÉ, the national broadcaster, paid out €85,000 to writer and journalist John Waters and five others over a claim on the Saturday Night Show that they were homophobic.  

In a detailed article for Village magazine last month, Waters subsequently declared he isn't against same-sex marriage for any theological reason or because he considers it socially destructive, but for it potentially breaking “the maintenance of blood link between parent and child.” Granted, his response to some of the controversial remarks he made about gay marriage and adoption in an interview with a college newspaper a few years ago, however, were rather limited.

Waters says he resigned from the Irish Times, where he has been a columnist for 24 years, because management there didn't do anything to “discourage or inhibit the attacks” he frequently received from fellow colleagues on Twitter. “These people knew me and knew how far off the mark the depiction of me as a homophobe was,” he continued. “Everyone sat there enjoying the spectacle of me being savaged.”

In an interview with Radio 1 a couple of weeks ago, Waters went on to talk about the abuses he received on the streets: “they almost invariably came up to me on bicycles and roaring ‘homophobe’ at me or ‘effing homophobe’ and then scooting off. This happened several times. I didn't want to go certain places, I didn't want to go to Dublin.” He also mentioned something about angry abuse coming from a mob on Twitter. Many, to be sure, were not sympathetic to Waters’ misfortune: he, in their view, deserved all the abuse and stress he received.

Is it really fair to call Waters a ‘homophobe’? There has been a lot of debate in Ireland recently about whether opponents of gay marriage are, as a matter of fact, homophobic—roughly defined as someone with a strong dislike or fear of homosexuality and homosexuals. Can we say all opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobic? Certainly many opponents are, but it would seem difficult to unequivocally prove that all are. Below are some reasons why some opponents of gay marriage may not be, as a necessary consequence, homophobic.

1. Those with a strong theological worldview may claim their sincerely held beliefs—whether or not they are true—are metaphysically incompatible with same-sex marriage.
2. Someone who genuinely believes allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would have a damaging impact on society and family life, despite being sympathetic to the cause.
3. A fear of change or status quo bias: there is some psychological evidence to suggest that it is common for people to have a preference for the current state of affairs, regardless of the issue or whether that change is significant or minor. 
4. Standard contrarianism, rather than actual homophobia: some people almost automatically go against the general consensus, in spite of the issue presented (something Waters has regularly done throughout his career). 

Now, I’m not claiming these reasons are always unrelated to homophobic viewpoints, only that it is possible to imagine that it might sometimes be possible to conceive of them as being independent of it. Perhaps one of these reasons can also exonerate Waters (and some others) of the charge of homophobia too.

Yet, at the same time, if we are to deem Waters, and who ever else opposes gay marriage, as homophobic, is it defensible, then, to mock and abuse them on the street or on social media? I believe that it is not. Almost certainly it is quite counterproductive, in many ways, to publicly shame someone as a form of response to a controversial or prejudiced viewpoint; you are unlikely to persuade those who are unconvinced about the merits of same-sex marriage if you merely fire abuse or accuse them of homophobia. As a result, hardly any dialogue is created and opponents will remain incredulous.  

The public shift in support for same-sex marriage has changed significantly in Ireland (and most of the Western world) over the last number of years. Indeed, it is important to bear in mind that only about 10-15 years ago many liberals and progressives were also opposed, or at least ambivalent, to same-sex marriage—mainly concerning same-sex couples adopting children. Today, some of these are probably some of its most vocal proponents. In light of this, you would think they might have more understanding and composure with current gay marriage opponents’ way of thinking. In claiming that support for same-sex marriage is right doesn't mean that every way of supporting it is right. There are more useful ways to reply than automatic vexation or with ad hominem attacks, even when the other person is clearly wrong.

Some people may still be genuinely unsure about the merits of allowing gays and lesbians to marry (like the way many were a decade ago), so the reasonable response is to engage with them in dignified, rational discourse and constructive criticism; that is, by giving reasons why marriage equality is an important moral and social issue, and by responding to any counter objections they might have. You might say it would be a tedious task having to respond to potentially offensive questions relating to the merits of gay parenting, or to the one pertaining to the logical connection between gay marriage, polygamy, incest, and bestiality. On the latter question, in actual fact, the philosopher and gay rights campaigner, John Corvino, says the argument is “stronger than many people think.”

With this in mind, I think proponents of same-sex marriage should have an interest in pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies in the arguments of their opponents. The enterprise may also help proponents clarify and reinforce their position even more. Conversely, rolling your eyes expressing disbelief, or showing contempt and anger to those invoking anti-same-sex marriage arguments, may gain popularity with those who already agree with your position, but it is unlikely to make many from the other side revise theirs. Even so, you might say most opponents are not interested in honest rational debate, as they merely put forward disjointed, ad hoc arguments in order to make it difficult to offer a systematic response. However, if someone purposely does this to prevent genuine debate, you are probably wasting your time engaging with them anyway. 

Another reason for engaging respectfully is that the act of publicly shaming or abusing someone on social media or elsewhere is also ethically problematic in itself, as it creates some unfavorable outcomes. As Tauriq Moosa reminds us in his New Statesman article on online mob justice:  “[w]e must remember that, even though they may act bigoted, we’re still dealing with people, who have friends, family and loved ones; we must remember that combating bigotry takes on a moral dimension not only in terms of beliefs but responses.”

Lastly, it may be short-sighted to publicly sneer and abuse those who hold bigoted viewpoints before critically examining our own first. For instance, many vegetarians and vegans consider our modern day use of non-human animals, for food and other products, as ethically indefensible; to insist otherwise, they say, is to hold on to a speciestist worldview—something akin to racism, sexism or homophobia. Perhaps for this reason, proponents of same-sex marriage should think about some of their own beliefs first—to give thought to any possible inconsistencies or prejudices they might hold—when conversing with their opponents.