Come Now
I understand when you disagree with someone, his arguments tend to sound bad. But I like to think I can distinguish between reaonable arguments I disagree with and those that don't pass the smell test. (I was about to link to a definition of smell test, but then I read it: "to be morally acceptable Robinson's removal as an independent investigator doesn't pass the smell test, and many believe it was done for political reasons." This is incorrect. Not passing the smell test, as far as I understand, is about making an argument that is simply unbelievable and everyone knows it.)
I recently heard someone on radio arguing against same sex marriage. He said no one's rights are being denied. Why? Because a gay man is in the same situation as a heterosexual man--both are allowed to marry a woman, neither are allowed to marry a man.
This is a good example of something that doesn't pass the smell test. The issue at hand is can men marry men, and can women marry women. To define it away misses the point. While you might argue that there's no sexual discrimination, which is definitely illegal, it's hard to argue there's no sexual orientation discrimination. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry the sex they prefer, something homosexuals are denied.
So it's pointless to say there's no discrimination here. Of course there's discrimination. The argument has to be it's acceptable, even positive, discrimination.
4 Comments:
Something doesn't pass the smell test when something is "fishy." I don't know where you got your definition from. Your example fits your definition, but that's not the smell test. The link is right.
In my office, it was the "sniff test" which was often conflated into the the "Snicker test" -sort of -"Can you say this without laughing?"
I always thought the the "smell test" referred to something that seemed "off"- "fishy" is the right word- something that may at first looks fine but then you get a whiff
Anon 1: I agree, something fails the smell test if it's fishy. Why do you think the definition I link to, which deals only with moral approval, fits that better?
Not licensing same sex marriages is certainly discrimination - it doesn't pass a smell, sniff, scent, odor or stink test. I always assumed these tests refer to something being identifiably "bad" if it smells bad (ie, food that has gone rotten smells bad and shouldn't be eaten).
Anyway, as you note, the issue has always been whether it is an impermissable discrimination, not whether it is discrimination. However, if a law said gay people could not be licensed to marry anybody, that would be more clearly impermissable discrimination.
Post a Comment
<< Home