On a Quote by Cynthia Nixon

It's interesting, but as I explore the net I often find things that piqué my interest or curiosity. Of course, this isn't necessarily interesting in and of itself, but what makes it so is the fact that it may concern a certain topic or subject matter that in other circumstances don't nearly interest me in such a fashion, but in other situations I feel the almost unbearable need to respond. I experienced this rather recently when I ran across a quote from self proclaimed lesbian Cynthia Nixon:

'Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table.’

Again, perhaps just another celebrity who holds to the delusion and deceives themselves, in the end serving their pride, in thinking that they're a ring leader or central component in the movement of social "progress." We see a lot of this in today's culture, and in reality it isn't that surprising, for a lot of times these snippets of false wisdom are prompted by mediums, whose own bias already foresees the reaction.


Before I go much further though, let me give credit to Cynthia, or her ghost writer, or her publicist, or her handlers, or her assistants, because her quote is actually more well constructed than most I find by celebrities. Not in a logical way, but because its construction is designed in a manner that it is almost like a trap set to spring when anyone may disagree with her. I admittingly don't know much about Mrs. Nixon apart from her role on, "Sex and The City," the fact that she is a lesbian, and, in fact, is herself married. Thereby, her level of arrogance concerning the quote and this issue are in question, for some celebrities are more arrogant than others. So it occurs to me that my introduction may be a little harsh considering my lack of knowledge concerning the character of Mrs. Nixon, and I will retract a bit on those particulars, offer apologies if applicable, and just confine myself diligently to the quote rather than Mrs. Nixon herself.


When we look at this quote we find its construction to be on very shaky ground and unstable as it turns out. First off, I would like to point out the three main components of Mrs. Nixon's argument. She starts by saying that those who are gay or lesbian have no desire to redefine marriage. We, for the sake of argument, will call this premise, "A." Second, or premise "B," she addresses women's suffrage, adding that they did not redefine voting. Third, or premise, "C," she addresses the civil rights movement, the emancipation of African-Americans, their being recognized as equal or being granted equal rights with whites, including every right to dine in any establishment white people were privy to. Thus, to recap:

A: Gays do not want to redefine marriage in any way.
B: Women did not redefine voting by being granted the right.
C: Civil Rights and the movement towards the equality of African-Americans in society, and that their inclusion to be able to eat alongside whites didn't redefine eating out.

Mrs. Nixon attempts to interlink all these examples and almost uses premises B and C to equate to A. Thereby:

1. B
2. C Therefore, A.


It is a very poorly constructed argument in general terms, but it does succeed in that it suggests that if you disagree with premise A, then you MUST disagree with premises B and C. Thereby, you are against women having the right to vote, and racist. In fact, it could be said you are both racist and sexist. This is the trap that springs if you are to disagree with Mrs. Nixon and those who are opposed to gay marriage might feel a tinge of guilt and or shame when reading over her statement. Furthermore, what is illustrated is that you may even be a enemy to equality in general.


This could just be called an argument from guilt, but at the same time this guilt and disagreements with gay marriage must be reconciled in some fashion beyond just Nixon's argument. Unfortunately for Mrs. Nixon, there is another reason her argument is a poor one, for the "trap" essentially backfires. It contains the implication that change or redefinition is a bad thing, which is counterintuitive to what she wants to state in her quote. Let us briefly ask ourselves what is entailed when something is, "redefined?" The ramifications of a redefinition are that something in the original understanding of the idea or context has shifted or changed.


For example, not to be sardonic, but let us consider the word, "gay." This is a word that has been changed over the years. The word was once used to imply jovial merriment, but now it has changed, or been redefined, to refer to the homosexual. This is rather a simplistic example but it still rings true in the more complex. When we define something, we not only define what it is, but also define what it's not. Allow me to give another illustration. Artists are trained not only to define form by emphasizing their subject in a figure that is either linear or impressionistic (though there are vast varieties and mediums which can define form, such as colorism, and indeed sculpture, but I've only chosen two for our purpose), but a prudent artist is encouraged to recognize what is called, "negative space." That which is outside or apart from the subject, untouched but utilized to give the object the desired form. Thereby, if one had the time, in theory, a positive definition could be reached just by excluding the negative or by elimination.


Thus, to be happy is not to be angry, is not to be mad, is not to be depressed, etc, etc, etc . . . The definition of something marks its boundaries and limits, and the redefinition stretches them or moves them, creating a new definition out of the conception. Furthermore, to define is to give something identity, and you cannot change something and give it a new identity, and call it the same, any more than you can call a circle a square. They both have unique characteristics which defines and identifies them from other concepts.


Thereby, she is wrong about the redefining of marriage, for marriage has long since prior been the union between a male and female. Pushing these boundaries gives it a whole new identity and definition. We see in B or C however that change or redefinition is not by necessity a bad thing. Due to her application of premises concerning equality, we see that this is really the motive behind her statement, a complete equality despite the existence of predetermined definition. Yet, to allow gay marriage, and to treat gay couples, as hetero couples by marriage is to turn that definition into something which it was not intended to be. So, of course it becomes redefined, it's form has changed.


Even so, we can be even more simplistic to argue Nixon's point. When we ponder or reflect upon gay marriage, it becomes apparent that we add the attribution or particular of, "gay," to "marriage," in order that we can differentiate the concept of gay marriage from marriage proper. If marriage wasn't redefined, then we'd have no reason, nor even the perception, that there was a redefinition occurring, thereby no additional attribution would be needed. Due to the fact that both these terms exist gives evidence that there is a change and redefinition of the marriage institution.


Another part of the issue resides in the fact there is another fallacy in Mrs. Nixon's quote, which is as controversial as the gay marriage proposals. This deals with ethics and morality. It is a necessary condition that by accepting Nixon's remark, you must also believe that homosexuality is a trait born in human beings, and so vital a part of their make up, as to be equal unto race and gender. That is what is suggested anyway. Yet, if you don't believe this and believe sexuality is a choice, then her argument further falls apart.


In my view homosexuality is a choice, as is manifest in general nature, and suggested by the cagtagorical imperative, a secular theory proposed by Immanuel Kant that attempts to explain the existence and values of morality. Briefly, it states that we reason, whether consciously or not, and apply all actions as an absolute world wide. So, murder is immoral because man would quickly become extinct if all men murdered, had the freedom to murder, and were murdered. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative we conclude that murder is morally bad. B and/or C are certainly not choices for they cannot be redefined. Indeed, if one attempts to do so, they fall under a different definition or classification, like transgender. Therefore, it is unjustified that Nixon makes the juxtaposition she does. For what your race is and what gender you are is endowed onto you, and you have no way of shifting back or forth, nor experimenting, as is evident in the homosexual community. A predisposition doesn't equate to being, "born that way," nor does it affect ethical values. Premises B and C are steadfast and, apart from dramatic surgery, are unchangeable. It was this that prompted society to justly make laws and civil protections for both parties that Nixon mentions. Hearts and minds needed to be changed concerning civil rights, and that was on the side of society, not on the side of women or African-Americans, for they cannot be changed or redefined, it was the redefinition of social practices, for lack of better terminology, that established equality.


Lastly, before I end this entry, let me say that though I disagree with gay marriage, or that being homosexual is a state one is born into, I don't hate homosexuals. That is I don't condone any act of violence, outward hatred or the spewing of slurs, and alike conduct. I believe in civility and treating each other respectfully, despite our differences. I suspect if we acted in such a detestable way to everyone we disagreed with, then we would shy away from all human contact whatsoever, and this isn't realistic or reasonable. Even concerning our best friends, family, and acquaintances we share different ideas. People have a hard time understanding that you can disagree with someone and be civil all at the same time. Though, honestly, we do tend to surround ourselves with people we have common interests with.


This being said, I am sure many of you found yourself angry at this entry and that wasn't my intention, though it is inevitable, only to respond to the quote and express my thoughts concerning gay marriage. Yet, if you are angry and made it this far, I thank you at least for reading and following through, for most I suspect would stop half way and write me a nasty response full of colorful vulgarities. Due to the division and emotion this topic breeds, I await such e-mails. However, I thank you again, and I pray that this country and the world could start being civil even in light of disagreements and with that I bid you a fond farewell.