Fifth Global Conference

---

Session 10: Evil Language, Distorted Realities
Chair: Graeme Goldsworthy

The Evils of [Same] Sex: The U.S. Gay Marriage Debate
Margaret Sönser Breen
Department of English, University of Connecticut, Groton, CT, USA

My paper examines the arguments of the gay marriage debate in the United States since the mid 90s. In particular, I consider how arguments both in favour and against same-sex marriage have depended on the demonization of sex (that is, sexual expression) in general and of same-sex activity especially. I then analyze how the current same-sex marriage debate turns no longer on the “evil” of same-sex sexual expression but rather on the “goodness” of heterosexual expression. It is within these terms, I believe, that the political recognition of same-sex couples will occur in the next few years.
The gay marriage debate began in the United States to achieve national prominence some six years ago. At that time the issue proved to split the lgbt community (if one can speak of “community” as opposed to “communities”): gay marriage seemed an assimilationist measure of social progress—one that further marginalized already marginal gender and sexual minorities, who for various reasons, could or would not support gay marriage. The argument in favour of same-sex marriage made by gay political conservative Andrew Sullivan in his book Virtually Normal , for example, depended on key distinctions between “good” queers and “bad” queers: those who, but for their choice of life partner, were indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts and those who were engaged in dangerous, sexually promiscuous lifestyles. Answering Sullivan a few years later was Michael Warner. In his book The Trouble with Normal , Warner pointed out that Sullivan's argument shared a disheartening similarity with arguments of conservatives in general: the assumption that sexual activity—particularly in its diversity—was something shameful. Warner argued that instead of attacking “sex,” activists pushing for gay marriage would do well rather to consider marriage's political function w/in the U.S.—its function especially as the structure through which various economic and health benefits are filtered and through which any number of social groups, including the growing class of the working poor, are discriminated.
Within the last two years the terms of the debate have shifted, especially owing to a number of events and/or judicial rulings in which queer sexuality has played a key role. So, for example, within the last year the U.S. 's neighbouring Canadian province of Ontario has legitimised same-sex marriages. So, too, the U.S. Supreme Court held in August 2003 linked decisions to overturn the Texas 's sodomy law and to uphold university policies of affirmative action. More recently, there was the November 2003 ruling on the part of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which held that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional; this ruling came on the heels of the ordination of the U.S. Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson (and, with it, not only the protest of various Episcopal bishops but also the Catholic Church's official epistle citing the immorality of same-sex sexual activity). These events have caused the same-sex marriage debate to assume a slightly different shape. At issue is no longer the “evil” of sexual promiscuity, as put forth earlier by certain gay spokespeople such as Andrew Sullivan. Instead, the argument turns on the following distinction: same-sex couples may under the law be entitled to the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts even as those [heterosexual] married couples will also be understood as having spiritually sanctioned unions. Same-sex couples may be granted inclusion into the status quo, but the default representative of the normal will be the “good” heterosexual couple.

---

Identifying the Enemy: Deconstructing Drugs and the Intersections with Gender
Ilana Mountian
Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

The objective of this paper is to analyse discourses around drugs and how this intersects with gender categories. For this purpose, I discuss discourses on health and the dichotomies evoked by such mainstream discourses. Furthermore, I intersect these discourses to the imaginary of drug addiction, in which drugs and drug addicts are portrayed as the ‘enemy'. Hence, notions of fear and formation of the enemy are put forward. Finally, I juxtapose these discourses to the gender arena, in which important differentiations emerge.  For this analysis I draw on psychoanalysis and feminist research, as well as the philosophy of Michel Foucault and the ethical perspective of Alain Badiou, inviting a critical approach to the theme.
Currently the concept of health is conceived almost as a social movement, being one of the insignia of the new morality (‘in the name of health'), and certain drugs (e.g. illegal drugs, tobacco, etc.), in this context, are portrayed as the enemy. This approach to health leads to moral perspectives, evoking dichotomies such as good x bad, natural x artificial, pure x impure preventing a broader discussion on these issues. Furthermore, the drug user is commonly seen as ‘mad, bad or sad', again narrowing the discussion and producing and reproducing a certain imaginary of the individual who uses drugs. When we juxtapose this imaginary to the gender terrain, it seems that differences appear, in which power relationship is reinforced, reproducing social stereotypes. These aspects seem important to focus on since they represent the ‘otherness' of drug use and gender, providing us with a field for debating contemporary moralities and ethical standpoints.

---

Discourses of Evil: Abortion and Capabilities
Sandrine Berges
Bilkent University, Turkey

The claim defended in this paper is that discourses of evil, whilst no doubt compelling, tend to have as their effect a blurring of perceptions of other morally relevant features such as what is good and what is bad. Because a clear perception of good and bad is essential for reaching an informed moral standpoint, evil discourse, I argue, is generally unhelpful. In order to illustrate this argument I concentrate on a case study in applied ethics: the problem of abortion.
If anti abortionists are right and abortion is murder, then, by allowing or performing abortions we are committing acts of infanticide which we rightly regard as evil. If, on the other hand, pro-choice activists are right but we legislate against abortion, then the consequence is a restriction of women's freedom, and in a few cases, putting their health at risk. This is merely bad but not on the same scale as the legal murdering of babies: it is not evil.
Given that we have no ultimately convincing arguments one way or the other, and that the risk involved in legislating wrongly is so much higher if the anti abortionist turn out to be right, it makes sense to go with them and restrict abortion rights.
This rhetoric of evil is compelling but the conclusions we draw from it are highly unsatisfactory. Looking at the anti-abortionist campaign led by the Bush administration, and its consequences especially for women and children in developing countries, it is clear that the pro choicers should stick to their guns.
I shall argue that in order to do so, they must turn away from the discourse of evil so successfully employed by Bush and others to define the abortion debate and turn instead to the Nussbaum/Sen capabilities approach which can give us equally compelling moral reasons why abortion should not be legislated against, and especially, while shifting the debate away from considerations of what is evil and bringing back in focus moral considerations of what is good and bad.
I will argue that this approach is successful not only in giving a compelling general argument for the right to abortion, but also in dealing satisfactorily with controversial issues such as gender selective abortion.