THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE GAME
The same-sex marriage debate opens with the rituals of a game of chess, and proceeds along very predictable lines. What is the objective of this game, the prize as it were? It can be summed up thusly:
For gay marriage advocates it is to demonstrate that it is unjust and bigoted to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Why? Because there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that is justly related to marriage. They begin with this premise, then.
Predictably, this is met with the "procreation" argument — observation, really— meant to belie that premise.
The Sterile Couple Argument
Predictably, also, the procreation argument is immediately countered with the "sterile (frequently elderly) couple" argument. This strawman is meant to show two things and has two versions. The first is to demonstrate reductio ad absurdum that marriage cannot have been instituted for purposes of procreation because even heterosexual couples who are incapable of it are still permitted to marry. This inconsistent fact, alone, means marriage must have been intended for some other purpose.
Of course, gay marriage advocates impute to the procreation argument the requirement of actually having to procreate, which is why the sterile-couple argument is a strawman. No one who brings up procreation with the intent of revealing the essential difference between these two respective relationships, understands it as a necessary requirement of marriage. They mean to point out that socially and biologically, the two kinds of relationships are not the same; that same-sex couples do not have the same effects and consequences to society and nature that opposite-sex couples do.
The second point of gay marriage advocates follows from the first. Since the first is obviously absurd, they conclude that this "other" purpose must be to give state sanction and society's blessings to the sentimental, mutually caring, sharing and loving relationships of couples. Thus, to exclude same-sex couples from society's blessings when there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples is unjust, bigoted and just not nice.
These have either of two implications, and I identify the first one as the Tommy and Joey Defense.
The Tommy and Joey Defense is a two-wrongs-make-a-right type of argument, which goes like this:
"If Tommy gets ice cream when he doesn't deserve it, then Joey should get ice cream, too, because he doesn't deserve it either."
This would be assuming, of course, that marriage really is for the purpose of procreation, and is one version of the sterile-couple argument. It becomes an argument based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as non-reproducing couples or individuals would all share that common characteristic, and thus, must be treated equally under the law. Thus, ensues a debate attempting to discredit or defend the equality claim.
As the above reveals not a moral right but the flaw of over-inclusiveness in the law, most gay marriage advocates shun this line of reasoning, and as discussed earlier, argue that Tommy does, indeed, deserve ice cream. And because Tommy deserves it, Joey deserves it also, because after all, where it concerns marriage, it is about society's blessings of the relationships of loving couples, not procreation. This is the other version that I call the Goose and Gander Riposte:
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
This is countered with the "legitimate-state-interest" argument that correctly asserts that it has never been the intention of government to legislate sentimental relationships, and that there is no legitimate or important state interest to do so. After some feeble, unsupported and impotent attempts by gay marriage advocates to show why regulating same-sex relationships would be good and compellingly important for society, these usually just wither away.
Where procreation fits in with all of this is an utter mystery to gay marriage advocates I have posed the question to the detractors of the procreation argument, asking them by what institution or body of laws does government use to steer the mating and procreative activities of men and women into some responsible and orderly system. I've had many respond, incredibly, that there are none! More thoughtful respondents argue that that there are laws independent of marriage that regulate issues of childbearing, paternity, family matters, inheritance and so on, but marriage is not one of them. It is ironic, also, that when marriage is not being idealized by gay marriage advocates as society's blessings on love relationships, it is being denigrated for being merely about property, chattel, issues of inheritance and divorce; that is, nothing having to do with love at all.
Citing the opinions of numerous courts unfavorable to the gay marriage advocates cause does no good, either, and usually elicits the response that the judges are simply, themselves, bigots. The game can degenerate at this point into a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't contest with ad hominem charges of bigotry and homophobia thrown about, which signals the capitulation of the gay marriage advocates' opponent.
So what is the most compelling argument, then, that marriage cannot be disassociated from procreation; indeed, that procreation is central to it?
I now say simply that mating comes naturally, and quite naturally, when this mating occurs between men and women it generally leads to the birth of children. Society recognizes this natural phenomenon as it concerns them, and more importantly, its effects and consequences to society, so through government or some other recognized authority like the church, it steers their behavior into an institution that has proven to be the most beneficial to parents, children and society. That is what marriage is and should remain. Evidently, relationships between friends, even intimate and passionately loving friends, have nothing to do with this. I guess I'm no fun.
When I hear from my interlocutors after that, it is to accuse me of bigotry and homophobia, but when that doesn't happen, it's usually the "what's-the-harm" argument or "gays-make-babies-also" argument, which is so patently ridiculous that it is not worth the trouble of dismantling. These opponents reserve for later the accusations of homophobic bigotry.
What's The Harm?
The "why-not-what's-the-harm" argument is usually reserved for the end game, and the most the gay marriage advocates hope to achieve is a Mexican stand-off, a stalemate.
The weakness of this argument is that its application can be more broadly applied to many situations and human relationships. This is pointed out, and it is noted that the preferred relationship for responsible procreation and domesticity that is a husband and wife would be seriously undermined by this sort of reasoning. There commences then, by gay marriage advocates, the search for possible harm in these other situations and relationships with the exception of homosexual ones, of course, because these are, it is already assumed, morally and socially equivalent to heterosexual ones, ergo, not bad. Oftentimes, gay marriage advocates will even accept all these other forms of human relationships in what I suspect to be an irresponsible bid to get what they want at any cost.
Finally, the desperate question is posed by gay marriage advocates as to how same-sex marriage would hurt traditional marriage, indeed, one's own personal marriage. It is the sort of mind-your-own-business mentality that effectively negates the very idea of community and society. The assumption here, is that sexual activity is no one else's business. I reply with: sex is everyone's business. The birth of children primarily, makes it so, but so do public health issues as well maintaining public order.
I believe the question of harm specifically to traditional marriage is a red herring; certainly, it is uninformed. I point out that gay marriage needn't harm traditional marriage or anyone's personal marriage for it to be socially undesirable. Causing a rise in income tax cheating or obesity may be enough to not want it. Abusing the logic of the law is certainly an excellent reason to not want it.
So it need not harm traditional marriage at all. It only needs to be a really bad idea. If the results of this are disruptive to society and clear thinking, it would be a bad idea. I believe we are beginning to see the first results of this everywhere same-sex marriage has been legalized, especially concerning matters of conscience and religious freedom.
Enumerating and exposing the detrimental effects that same-sex marriage would have on society is something for sociologists to ferret out as Blakenhorn and Kurtz have done. Nevertheless, while knowledge of the harm or innocuousness of same-sex marriage to traditional marriage is important ammunition, it is somewhat beside the point. Same-sex marriage likely will harm society in ways more general. Allowing same-sex marriage must, in principle, allow all other types of relationships to marry if these, too, are pretendedly innocuous, and marriage is, indeed, all about love— an impossible criterion to verify — or even if some other reason is invented by interested parties, such as personal fulfillment, for example. To go down that path, it would be necessary to convincingly demonstrate the harm or innocuousness of these other types of relationships that might pretend also, to the status of marriage. That will make for a lot of inconclusive studies, crazy theories and verbiage in the future.
The practical effect will be that marriage will be neither about love, nor about children, nor about anything else if same-sex marriage is permitted. One will not know what it will be about at that point. This downward spiral into ambiguity and confusion, where marriage may have only individual, personal meaning but no broad societal meaning, will be harmful enough to the interests of society and signals the end of this institution. It institutes at that point something truly frightening: the IRRATIONAL STATE.
Peripheral Arguments
Before closing I want to note other arguments such as those comparing the interdiction of same-sex marriages with those of inter-racial marriages, the references to slavery, fundamental rights, the 14th Amendment, etc. These I consider peripheral arguments because they all assume as the starting premise, the conclusion being sought, to wit: it is unjustifiable bigotry to deny to same-sex couples — seeing as how they are morally and socially equal to opposite-sex couples — the rights, privileges and incidences of marriage. That, of course, is the question of debate to begin with upon which the credibility of all those other arguments depend.
All this ritualistic argumentation doesn't need to be a sterile exercise in logic and rhetoric, and it still has merit. There are people who are undecided on the matter, and a compelling argument will go a long way to bringing them off the fence and onto the right side. However, I don't believe the internet forums are the best venue for persuasion, since from what I've seen most everyone remains stubbornly unconvinced anyway. But these forums have value as a means of testing and honing one's arguments. Once that is done... well, write a book, publish articles in magazines or on a web site where the general reader will have easier access to the opinions and views of the issue under debate.
For gay marriage advocates it is to demonstrate that it is unjust and bigoted to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. Why? Because there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that is justly related to marriage. They begin with this premise, then.
Predictably, this is met with the "procreation" argument — observation, really— meant to belie that premise.
The Sterile Couple Argument
Predictably, also, the procreation argument is immediately countered with the "sterile (frequently elderly) couple" argument. This strawman is meant to show two things and has two versions. The first is to demonstrate reductio ad absurdum that marriage cannot have been instituted for purposes of procreation because even heterosexual couples who are incapable of it are still permitted to marry. This inconsistent fact, alone, means marriage must have been intended for some other purpose.
Of course, gay marriage advocates impute to the procreation argument the requirement of actually having to procreate, which is why the sterile-couple argument is a strawman. No one who brings up procreation with the intent of revealing the essential difference between these two respective relationships, understands it as a necessary requirement of marriage. They mean to point out that socially and biologically, the two kinds of relationships are not the same; that same-sex couples do not have the same effects and consequences to society and nature that opposite-sex couples do.
The second point of gay marriage advocates follows from the first. Since the first is obviously absurd, they conclude that this "other" purpose must be to give state sanction and society's blessings to the sentimental, mutually caring, sharing and loving relationships of couples. Thus, to exclude same-sex couples from society's blessings when there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples is unjust, bigoted and just not nice.
These have either of two implications, and I identify the first one as the Tommy and Joey Defense.
The Tommy and Joey Defense is a two-wrongs-make-a-right type of argument, which goes like this:
"If Tommy gets ice cream when he doesn't deserve it, then Joey should get ice cream, too, because he doesn't deserve it either."
This would be assuming, of course, that marriage really is for the purpose of procreation, and is one version of the sterile-couple argument. It becomes an argument based on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as non-reproducing couples or individuals would all share that common characteristic, and thus, must be treated equally under the law. Thus, ensues a debate attempting to discredit or defend the equality claim.
As the above reveals not a moral right but the flaw of over-inclusiveness in the law, most gay marriage advocates shun this line of reasoning, and as discussed earlier, argue that Tommy does, indeed, deserve ice cream. And because Tommy deserves it, Joey deserves it also, because after all, where it concerns marriage, it is about society's blessings of the relationships of loving couples, not procreation. This is the other version that I call the Goose and Gander Riposte:
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
This is countered with the "legitimate-state-interest" argument that correctly asserts that it has never been the intention of government to legislate sentimental relationships, and that there is no legitimate or important state interest to do so. After some feeble, unsupported and impotent attempts by gay marriage advocates to show why regulating same-sex relationships would be good and compellingly important for society, these usually just wither away.
Where procreation fits in with all of this is an utter mystery to gay marriage advocates I have posed the question to the detractors of the procreation argument, asking them by what institution or body of laws does government use to steer the mating and procreative activities of men and women into some responsible and orderly system. I've had many respond, incredibly, that there are none! More thoughtful respondents argue that that there are laws independent of marriage that regulate issues of childbearing, paternity, family matters, inheritance and so on, but marriage is not one of them. It is ironic, also, that when marriage is not being idealized by gay marriage advocates as society's blessings on love relationships, it is being denigrated for being merely about property, chattel, issues of inheritance and divorce; that is, nothing having to do with love at all.
Citing the opinions of numerous courts unfavorable to the gay marriage advocates cause does no good, either, and usually elicits the response that the judges are simply, themselves, bigots. The game can degenerate at this point into a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't contest with ad hominem charges of bigotry and homophobia thrown about, which signals the capitulation of the gay marriage advocates' opponent.
So what is the most compelling argument, then, that marriage cannot be disassociated from procreation; indeed, that procreation is central to it?
I now say simply that mating comes naturally, and quite naturally, when this mating occurs between men and women it generally leads to the birth of children. Society recognizes this natural phenomenon as it concerns them, and more importantly, its effects and consequences to society, so through government or some other recognized authority like the church, it steers their behavior into an institution that has proven to be the most beneficial to parents, children and society. That is what marriage is and should remain. Evidently, relationships between friends, even intimate and passionately loving friends, have nothing to do with this. I guess I'm no fun.
When I hear from my interlocutors after that, it is to accuse me of bigotry and homophobia, but when that doesn't happen, it's usually the "what's-the-harm" argument or "gays-make-babies-also" argument, which is so patently ridiculous that it is not worth the trouble of dismantling. These opponents reserve for later the accusations of homophobic bigotry.
What's The Harm?
The "why-not-what's-the-harm" argument is usually reserved for the end game, and the most the gay marriage advocates hope to achieve is a Mexican stand-off, a stalemate.
The weakness of this argument is that its application can be more broadly applied to many situations and human relationships. This is pointed out, and it is noted that the preferred relationship for responsible procreation and domesticity that is a husband and wife would be seriously undermined by this sort of reasoning. There commences then, by gay marriage advocates, the search for possible harm in these other situations and relationships with the exception of homosexual ones, of course, because these are, it is already assumed, morally and socially equivalent to heterosexual ones, ergo, not bad. Oftentimes, gay marriage advocates will even accept all these other forms of human relationships in what I suspect to be an irresponsible bid to get what they want at any cost.
Finally, the desperate question is posed by gay marriage advocates as to how same-sex marriage would hurt traditional marriage, indeed, one's own personal marriage. It is the sort of mind-your-own-business mentality that effectively negates the very idea of community and society. The assumption here, is that sexual activity is no one else's business. I reply with: sex is everyone's business. The birth of children primarily, makes it so, but so do public health issues as well maintaining public order.
I believe the question of harm specifically to traditional marriage is a red herring; certainly, it is uninformed. I point out that gay marriage needn't harm traditional marriage or anyone's personal marriage for it to be socially undesirable. Causing a rise in income tax cheating or obesity may be enough to not want it. Abusing the logic of the law is certainly an excellent reason to not want it.
So it need not harm traditional marriage at all. It only needs to be a really bad idea. If the results of this are disruptive to society and clear thinking, it would be a bad idea. I believe we are beginning to see the first results of this everywhere same-sex marriage has been legalized, especially concerning matters of conscience and religious freedom.
Enumerating and exposing the detrimental effects that same-sex marriage would have on society is something for sociologists to ferret out as Blakenhorn and Kurtz have done. Nevertheless, while knowledge of the harm or innocuousness of same-sex marriage to traditional marriage is important ammunition, it is somewhat beside the point. Same-sex marriage likely will harm society in ways more general. Allowing same-sex marriage must, in principle, allow all other types of relationships to marry if these, too, are pretendedly innocuous, and marriage is, indeed, all about love— an impossible criterion to verify — or even if some other reason is invented by interested parties, such as personal fulfillment, for example. To go down that path, it would be necessary to convincingly demonstrate the harm or innocuousness of these other types of relationships that might pretend also, to the status of marriage. That will make for a lot of inconclusive studies, crazy theories and verbiage in the future.
The practical effect will be that marriage will be neither about love, nor about children, nor about anything else if same-sex marriage is permitted. One will not know what it will be about at that point. This downward spiral into ambiguity and confusion, where marriage may have only individual, personal meaning but no broad societal meaning, will be harmful enough to the interests of society and signals the end of this institution. It institutes at that point something truly frightening: the IRRATIONAL STATE.
Peripheral Arguments
Before closing I want to note other arguments such as those comparing the interdiction of same-sex marriages with those of inter-racial marriages, the references to slavery, fundamental rights, the 14th Amendment, etc. These I consider peripheral arguments because they all assume as the starting premise, the conclusion being sought, to wit: it is unjustifiable bigotry to deny to same-sex couples — seeing as how they are morally and socially equal to opposite-sex couples — the rights, privileges and incidences of marriage. That, of course, is the question of debate to begin with upon which the credibility of all those other arguments depend.
All this ritualistic argumentation doesn't need to be a sterile exercise in logic and rhetoric, and it still has merit. There are people who are undecided on the matter, and a compelling argument will go a long way to bringing them off the fence and onto the right side. However, I don't believe the internet forums are the best venue for persuasion, since from what I've seen most everyone remains stubbornly unconvinced anyway. But these forums have value as a means of testing and honing one's arguments. Once that is done... well, write a book, publish articles in magazines or on a web site where the general reader will have easier access to the opinions and views of the issue under debate.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 4:58 PM
1 Comments:
Great piece, Lee. You've definitely captured the flow of the debate.
I'm not sure I agree with your final comment about the internet being wholly unpersuasive. Obviously, in an internet debate you're not going to change the mind of the other arguer. Someone debating a point publicly is too invested in a topic to change. There are others, however, reading the debate who are quietly deciding with which side they would most like to associate themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home