fresco wrote:Joe,
The justification of a "democratic" state to would seem on rest on "consensus" !
Indeed it does. But what happens when one consensus contradicts another?
Let's say a society, by consensus, agrees that government should not discriminate among its citizens in the granting of rights and privileges. And let's say that society also decides, by consensus, that it wants to discriminate against some of its members. Which consensus controls?
That seems to be the situation we are facing here. On the one hand, you would have society adopt a rule that would allow discrimination based upon some sort of "biological" basis. Yet the same society has already adopted a rule about rules (a "meta-rule") that says that the government cannot adopt rules that discriminate among its citizens. Can that society, then, adopt a consensual rule that conflicts with a consensual meta-rule?
fresco wrote:<< The informed and uninformed consensuses, however, would be due exactly the same deference.>> ...can you expand on this a little.
As I understand it, you contend that a society would be more likely to adopt, as its consensus, a rule that is well-informed as opposed to one that is not well-informed. That may be so, but then it doesn't really matter if consensuses are all due the same amount of deference. If the members of a democratic society are obliged to conform their actions to the consensus rule, then it matters not whether the members conform to a well-informed consensus or an ill-informed one: both are equally obligatory. As a result, it is of no consequence whether a consensus has a good reason or a bad reason as long as it's a consensus. According to your position, whether banning homosexual marriages serves a legitimate biological purpose or whether it is based on bigotry and hatred is irrelevant so long as a consensus can be reached on the issue.