Advertisement
Advertisement
 |
The Worst Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage |
|
 by Howard Schweber, October 23, 2008 |
||
Last week the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state must extend the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples. Their argument involved a determination that homosexuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, but I'm not really interested in that at the moment. Instead, it's the dissenting arguments that interest me. Debates about same-sex marriage seem to inspire really, really bad arguments, and I thought I would take a moment to review a couple of them.
One of the many enlightened arguments against gay marriage
One of these really bad arguments is captured in the phrase "Defense of marriage." The idea, of course, is that allowing same sex couples to marry threatens the marriages of mixed-sex couples. As a member of a mixed-sex marriage myself, I have to confess that I have never been able to ascertain the nature of the threat. The only explanation I can come with, actually, is one that I call the "wow, I could have had a V-8!"principle.
Then there is the argument from "nature." This one is bad on so many levels. Homosexuality is difficult to describe as "unnatural" given that animals practice it with some regularity. But another, more serious, argument is this: animals are governed by nature. Humans are governed by reason, and law. In the Hebrew Bible, God gives the Israelites a single injunction: "Justice, justice, you shall pursue," not "Nature, nature, you shall pursue" (a rather more Aristotelian position, and one forever diminished by Hume's demolition of the is/ought distinction. "There is a special place in Hell,"said Bertrand Russell, "for those philosophers who have refuted Hume." It was in a different context, but the point stands.)
But the really, really bad arguments are the ones that try to define marriage as being about having children and then reason from there. To see just how bad these arguments are, one has to go through them step by step, in each of two distinct iterations.
Version 1 goes like this: Marriage exists in order to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct. The long-standing, fundamental purpose of our marriage laws is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct . . . [therefore] persons who wish to enter into a same sex marriage are not similarly situated to persons who wish to enter into a traditional marriage. The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry." Those are the words of Justice Peter T. Zarella, dissenting in the Connecticut case.
Note that he does not say "procreation," he says "procreative conduct." What's odd about this formulation, of course, is that is not about childrearing, nor even about procreation. After all, same-sex couples procreate, they just employ different mechanics than many mixed-sex couples. In other words, this argument is not about either children or procreation, it's about sex. Which puts proponents in the extraordinary position of arguing that allowing couples to marry encourages them to engage in sex, and withholding the privileges of marriage will discourage sexual activity. Never mind anti-sodomy laws; to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct" would require laws against contraception and fornication (Otherwise, one has the difficult task of explaining why this particular form of non-procreative conduct is the subject of regulation when all the others are not). As someone once said of Rick Santorum, this argument reflects the finest minds of the 14th century.
But that's still not the worst argument! It is the second version of the argument about children that has the distinction of being the absolute Worst Argument in the World (with apologies to Keith Olbermann.) This is the argument that goes: "It is better for children to have two parents of different sexes; Marriage is about creating an environment for raising children, so that's why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry."
The reasoning in this argument is so bad I don't know where to begin. Take the arguments about the data. Proponents of this position cite data that they claim shows that the ideal child-rearing environment includes a mixed-sex couple (not a trio or a committee) of parents. The data is disputed: other data show that children raised bysame-sex parents show no higher rates of social pathology than other children, and the studies that are cited tend to be mysteriously lacking in methologies. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is, indeed, the case that all things being equal the ideal environment for childrearing is a mixed-sex couple. The problem, of course, is that all things are never equal. We can take it as given that children are not better off with a man and a woman in the house than with two men or two women if in the case of the mixed-sex couple one of those adults is a child molester, a child beater, a raging alcoholic or a drug addict, if in the case of the same-sex couples none of those things are true. We can say the same thing about unwanted children, children born into families that cannot afford to care for them, or children born to neglectful parents. The case of unwanted children is particularly telling: one thing you know about the children of same-sex couples, they were the result of planned pregnancies. Not -- how did Shakespeare put it? -- "Within a dull, stale, tired bed . . . got 'twixt sleep and wake." (It's the same thing with overseas adoptions. If you travel to China, spend three weeks, then take the long flight back with a baby screaming in your ear the whole way, when you get home you know with absolute certainty that you wanted that baby.
But we do not say that people who are child molesters, child abusers, drug addicts, or neglectful parents may not procreate. We don't even say that such persons may not marry, on the theory that this will dissuade them from procreating. So why is it the case that we have uniquely selected this one criterion of less-than-absolutely-ideal parenting and made it, alone, the basis for restricting access to marriage?
Wait -- the argument turns out to be even worse than that. The whole point of this logic is that if a certain class of people will be sub-optimal parents, we are justified in denying them the legal privileges of marriage, right? Which makes sense only if we assume that not being allowed to be married will make them less likely to raise children (just as the argument for "privileging and regulating" sex assumed that not being married cuts down on sexual activity.) The thing is, we are not talking about a pool of existing children who might be assigned to one set of parents or another by the great bureaucrat in the sky. If the idea is that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry so that they will be discouraged from having and raising children, the implication is that the children those couples would have if they are allowed to marry are better off never having been born at all.
Yup, I have thought about it carefully and I have decided: This really is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Redemption is for the lazy and evil is anything but banal.
She's black, she's white, she's Jewish—and she's pretty darn...
Comedy writer Ben Karlin and memoirist Elizabeth Wurtzel discuss...
Meet the Family Behind the Most Famous Jewish Foods
Chatting with the Hebrew Mamita
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
zbird
When you started discussing the parent studies I was about to criticize you for failing to cite the actual research, but then in the next paragraph you made it clear why any such research is irrelevant: we don't forbid anyone else from marrying or procreating just because they are statistically likely to produce fucked up kids.
It seems to me the opponents of same-sex marriage are flailing for fake arguments against same-sex marriage because what they really believe--that homosexuals are sinners who need to be treated at best and, at worst, banished from society--is no longer acceptable to most Americans. In that sense, Scalia was absolutely right-- when you remove the social stigma from homosexuality itself, you're left with no good reason to treat homosexual unions differently than heterosexual ones.
--Z
tellner
I'm absolutely convinced that the whole push for "gay marriage" is a subtle, clever Right Wing plot to discourage gay sex. I expect it will be about as successful for gays as it is for heterosexuals :)
eric mathew
i just don't understand why there is "yes on 8" banners on this site... that's kind of fucked up.
Anonymous
Er, without getting into a whole big deal, you are not reading the Bible you quote. It gives the Israelites lots of injunctions, not just one, and, it states plainly it is firmly against, really utterly against, " a man lying with another man, as if he were a woman". I forget what page it's on.
I mean, if you are going to refer to Hume, you should quote the Bible accurately. At least at the simplest, literal level.
Take your wife to a defined lesbian venue, for drinks. Spend some time there. Then examine your feelings, oh secure one.
This exercise counts most if you have been married five years or more.
It will be a bad day when more or less anybody is not safe with more or less anybody, from those pointed little significant looks and smiles,wink wink. Sure they are flattering, and exciting. But, life will be a minefield. There will be no such thing as friendship any more, because sex, while also nice, is another matter than friendship.
But who cares. As long as the philosophers have all their posits neatly arranged. Never mind reality. All is theory.
lbjack
The gay marriage advocacy is so full of mendacity that I don't know where to begin. OK, I'll begin with Schweber. While deconstructing the perfectly reasonable notion that a mother and father are preferable to to two mothers or two fathers, and resorting to inflamatory devises like child molesters and such, Schweber leaves out the key qualifier, all else being equal. Of course same-sex parents are better than mixed-sex child molesters or other noxious couples. This is typical of the utterly dishonest arguments made by gay marriage advocates.
Another canard is that opposition to gay marriage is homophobia. Or that if gay marriage isn't passed there will be a gay holocaust. Gay marriage opponents may be wrongheaded, but not for the reasons gay marriage advocates impune them with. Marriage is not a right but an undertaking by a man and a woman. Gays by definition are excluded, but gays covet marriage, especially the wedding part -- make no mistake, to them it's not really about "rights," it's about role playing -- so they seek to change the definition of marriage. They don't need marriage to secure their rights, but hey, it's a drama they can star in, so they turn it into a cause, post-Stonewall, post-Act-Up. I mean, after they've "cured" AIDS, after Lawrence v Texas, what's a drama queen to do? And there are always the likes of Schweber, who makes sure we know he's straight and thus progressive.
Gay marriage is wrong not because it's against scripture or because the right is against it but simply because it's a stupid idea. But that doesn't stop the sanctimonious, chest-thumping screechers from trying to turn an institution which they covet into a sacred right to which they are entitled.
Zeevico
lbjack:
Homosexuals that 'marry' are signalling is that they want to enter into a lifelong commitment. The thrust of the debate over what is known as 'gay marriage' is whether those lifelong commitments are useful to the State, and if so, how. I will list a few examples of the issues that are commonly bundled under the 'gay marriage' debate.
If the State has children in its orphanages or foster-childcare systems, it may consider whether two homosexual persons that have indicated their lifelong commitment to one another are in fact competent to raise children. If the State wishes to encourage persons to conceive children, it may consider whether to assist homosexual couples in conceiving children. If the State offers tax credits to de facto or heterosexual couples, the question is whether it would be useful to provide those same credits to homosexual couples. If the State provides for a system of divorce law that divides custody of children and property as between ex-spouses, the question is whether it is just or useful for that system of law to be used for homosexual couples that have separated.
What advocates of 'gay marriage' are really saying is that homosexuals deserve consideration and inclusion in all of these areas.
Dismissing these issues as irrelevant and arguing that homosexuals are desirous of 'role playing' the idea that they are married is a poor argument. They can already 'role-play' marriage. So may polygamous persons. According them consideration under the legal system in a manner analogous to heterosexuals does nothing to assist them in that respect. If you have a point, I suggest you explain it in clearer terms.
If you wish to argue that homosexuals are undeserving of any of those rights, do so. If you wish to base that argument on matters not related to the Jewish faith, that is, because it is 'against scripture', then do so. Opposition to the idea from any political quarter, right or left, does not, as you correcty identify, have anything to do with the arguments for or against these points.
timada
It’s the religious arguments that really anger me, they are the most surreal and silly. You can’t just save marriage for opposite sex couples anymore, love is a free spirit and if it’s not hurting anyone then people should be able to marry who they want and have equal rights.
cinci78
There are several problems with what lbjack has said:
1st the word Marriage, at least according to the Etymological root in latin
maritatus, presents no definition
as to the gender of those who are entering into it. The word
"marriage" really isn't defined by its orginal language as meaning a union
between man and woman. Please also note that Latin is older than Christianity and we know that Constantius II and Constans (two Christain leaders of Rome), issued a law in the Theodosian Code prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married. Logic dictates that if they were the first to prohibit same-sex-marriage than before Christianity took over the Roman Empire there was same-sex-marriage, and therefore the Latin word for marriage was applicable to same sex unions. What one can conclude from this fact is that the word "marriage", absent of one group's moral proclivities can apply to a same-sex-union.
2nd There are religious definitions of marriage that might
exclude same sex couples but these aren't Jewish. Judaism, in it's texts and writings doesn't use
the word marriage. We Jews call a union, Kiddushin, - from the
root kadosh, meaning holy. Or in some instances it is referred to as a
binyan Adeyad - which means a union grounded in eternity. Once
again, neither of these terms expressly states what genders are able to enter into
Kiddushin or a Binyan Adeyad. Although one can intuit what early Jews
might have believed in the past about same sex relationships when looking at other texts in our tradition, same-sex-unions is never stated as forbidden
explicitly in any Jewish religious texts, pre-20th century. In all likelyhood because the sexual act was forbidden. However, modern rabbis are not of one oppinion about that fact. Nevertheless the terms or expressions Kiddushin or Binyan Adeyad themselves are completely neutral regarding who enters into this type of relationship and
rabbis today have the right to interpret what ceremonies they will or will not officaite at according
to their understanding of these terms.
3rd The problem remains that the "state" or rather individual states in the United
States of America are telling Jews what they will recognize as legitmate rituals or aspects of Jewish tradition. What will the state dictate to Jews as appropriate for us next? The state is deciding to understand marriage, not according to
a secular understanding of the word; rather, they are choosing to interpret it according to what the Christian tradition in this country BELIEVES marriage to be. The state imposing
Christian views on Jews is an infringement of our religious freedoms.
4th If you are a Christian and you believe that same sex
couples are role-playing (while that is offensive and most likely untrue), you are entitled
to your opinion, and in a Christian context I wouldn’t really care anyway
because that is up to individual Christian clergy to decide. In the Jewish context interpreted by many rabbis,
or even a secular context, same sex couples would not be role-playing at marriage
and the state has no right to impose a Christian definition of marriage on them or on Jewish
clergy who choose to perform a ceremony of kiddushin.
5th If heterosexual couples have certain rights afforded to them
through the secular state's certification of marriage then a gay couple should
as well. And presently they do not.
6th You also mentioned that for gay people they mostly covet the
wedding and not the marriage, implying that for them marriage isn't about their bringing sacred
recognition to their relationship for a lifetime together. You imply that for them it’s just about
the trappings of the day. I doubt that what you say is true and I don't think
you have any sort of educated basis for that suggestion beyond your own
biases. Please provide some sort of evidence to back that comment up. Perhaps a poll of some sort? A statistic? Anything at all?
lbjack, it appears that you are both a bigot and ignorant.
I invite
you to respond.