I jumped in and started trying to nail Joey down on certain terms, and trying to find out what his theory of rights was. To make a long story short, I eventually started developing my own argument against gay marriage based not on religion or revelation, but on reason. I certainly didn't convince anyone, but I got some interesting responses, and I want to follow up on them. The original thread is now of page 39, and has gone off in a direction that has little to do with what I was attempting, so I thought I would start a new thread to deal with this issue.Many folks object to homosexuals having a right to marriage based on religious reasons - duh.
For debate:
Is there a qualitative difference between the message of the Westboro Baptist Church and "moderate" Christians / theists who oppose homosexual marriage?
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I will not try to pretend that my views have not been shaped by my faith, and by my experience of living out that faith to the best of my ability. However, I adhere to St. Anselm's ideal of "faith seeking understanding", so I try to explore issues like gay marriage from a non-religious point of view, especially on a site like this. I've never seen the point in arguing about specific Christian beliefs with someone who doesn't believe in God.
Anyway, I'm going to start by quoting part of what I wrote in response to Joeyknothead's challenge, and then take on Autodidact's criticisms of my argument. This will be very lengthy, but I would appreciate it if people would take the time to read the whole thing before weighing in with a response. Also, I realize that there were others who commented on my argument as well, and I hope at some point to get around to addressing the points they raised. I've been really swamped with responsibilities at work and at home lately, so it may take a while for me to formulate my replies.
One final note: I apologize in advance for the fact that my arguments will be offensive to some. It is not my intention to offend, but I believe in what I'm saying, and so I'm not going to pull any punches. In return, I expect nothing less from Autodidact or anyone else on the other side of this issue.
So, without further ado, here is the bulk of my exchange with Joeyknothead:
I wrote:
Joey replied:Other arrangements can be called "family" insofar are they bear some resemblance to the norm, but only recently have people wanted to "decenter" the norm.
I replied:Who determines the "norm" and are they the same bunch who determines who ain't in the center of it?
Joey replied:History does not record their names, but they would be the same people who also determined that food, clothing, and shelter would be a good idea.
I replied:Does marriage feed folks? Does it clothe folks? Does it shelter folks?
No. Humans provide these things. Marriage is not required for a human to do any of the above.
To my point thatMy point was that marriage is a natural arrangement that has existed since before the dawn of history, and probably for as long as there have been human beings like us. It was obvious to these ancestors of ours that they needed food, clothing and shelter to survive, and it was just as obvious that a situation in which men could have sex with whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without any responsibility was going to lead to a situation in which a) all women would be in danger of getting pregnant with children by men who would abandon them, b) a man would have no incentive to stay with any particular woman, c) that even if a man did have a liking for a particular woman, he would have no natural bond to her children, since they very well might not be his, d) many children would be raised fatherless, and e) as a result there would be chaos. You can actually see a pretty close approximation of this very situation in some areas of large cities today.
Stable society is a good thing. It really does help when it comes to feeding, clothing, and sheltering folks, not to mention protecting them from murder, theft, rape, etc.
Joey replied:Men and women have sex,
I wrote:So do men and men, and women and women, and men and women and women, and men and goats, but I swear, it was just the once and we were both drunk.
To my point that:I was talking about the kind of sex that is able to have direct consequences for social harmony. Your kind of sex might upset a few goatherds, and result in low self-esteem on the part of the goats.
Joey replied:sex leads to babies,
I replied:Sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't.
To my point that:True enough, but I suspect you know what I mean. If you got pulled over for driving 100 miles an hour in a residential zone while drunk, I dont think youd get very far with the judge if you argued that such behavior doesnt always end in disaster. Some actions have predictable consequences that occur often enough to warrant broad statements about them.
Joey replied:and some stability must be imposed on this situation for the good of the women, the children, and society as a whole.
This is the reason that governments have always had an interest in sanctioning marriage.
I replied:I propose what would be most "stable" is not oppressing our fellow human beings.
Joey replied:I agree that oppression is bad. But again, you are accusing me of oppression without explaining yourself. Its not enough to keep repeating the charge. The fact that I oppose this novel idea that two men or two women have a right to be married does not make me an oppressor. What is oppressive is being accused of oppression by people who dont give any good reason for their opinion.
I dont see what possible interest the government could have in sanctioning the union between gays as marriage, just as I hardly see the point of heterosexual marriage as it is defined and practiced today. Thats why I wrote:
It is only recently that marriage has come to be viewed as Dating Plus, i.e. a relationship of indefinite duration that exists primarily for the emotional well-being of the adults involved, and can be called off at any time for any reason by either party. The kids? Oh, I'm sure they'll be fine with it.
I replied:Are you the sole 'determinator' of what constitutes a valid marriage?
Exactly the opposite. Marriage is a long-established social (not primarily religious or political) institution rooted in the nature of men and women; not just in their biological nature but in the way they are known to behave where sexual relations and child-rearing are concerned. For example, theres the saying that men play at love to get sex, and women play at sex to get love, and the fact that in the absence of any incentive, men are often reluctant to make any commitment to women, or to take responsibility for children, especially if they are not sure the children are actually theirs.
As I said, marriage is a social institution, in this case a contractual agreement that develops naturally in any community in response to certain undeniable facts about the way that men and women and children relate to one another. From the establishment of marriage it quickly and necessarily follows that there has to be some way of enforcing the contract, or at least providing strong incentives to abide by it. In a primitive society, this might take the form of an understanding that the male relatives of the bride will (ahem) diminish the grooms manhood if he abuses their daughter/sister/cousin, or runs off with another woman, or refuses to support the children. In a more developed society, there will be legal penalties for such behavior, and perhaps incentives to promote marriage, such as tax breaks. In any case, the point of government sanction of marriage between men and women has always been and should always remain the promotion of stable families which can produce good citizens, as well as provide for the legitimate desires of men and women for sex, companionship, and economic security.
A lot of societies, especially Christian societies, have seen marriage as in institution ordained and sanctioned by God (or the gods), and when we think of marriage in the Western world we usually form an image of the bride and groom walking down the aisle of a church. But marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity, and in America, at least, it has long been possible to go down the courthouse and get hitched by the Justice of the Peace. My point in all of this is to dispel the notion that marriage was somehow invented by a group of politicians or priests. To borrow the saying attributed to Diderot, you could strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest, and marriage would still survive. So would kings and priests, for that matter, and it wouldnt be long before they were in on the act.
But as I said earlier, our notion of marriage has degenerated to the point of being largely meaningless for the purpose of promoting and maintaining stable unions between men and women and protecting children from the effects of divorce. People have come to accept that marriage is largely about feelings, and maybe about getting your mom to stop making snide comments about shacking up. Im not knocking feelings, but contrary to The Captain and Tenille, love will NOT keep most people together for the long haul, at least not love defined as emotional attachment.
I read somewhere that the divorce rate is declining, which sounded like good news, but then I kept reading. It seems that fewer people are bothering to get married to begin with. Who can blame them? Everywhere they look, marriages are falling apart. The popularity of pre-nups is a pretty good indicator of how couples view their chances. No-fault divorce might sound like a good idea at first, but it greatly reduces the incentive to work things out that couples used to have. Im not suggesting that divorce should be outlawed. Not even the Catholic Church holds that position (Catholic belief is that a valid sacramental marriage ends only with the death of one spouse, but civil divorce is permitted in certain cases, like physical or emotional abuse, or one spouse running off with someone else). Im just saying that our current divorce laws reflect our anemic vision of what marriage is. Many couples still use wedding vows that say until death do us part, but ten years down the line, the husband discovers that his wife doesnt seem to understand him any more, but his secretary does, or the wife meets someone who fills her once more with the thrill of being alive, and pretty soon the rationalizing starts. People want to feel loved and respected, they want harmony, they want fulfillment in their relationships, but in even the best of marriages these things are going to be missing at least some of the time. As my uncle facetiously says Men and women are not compatible. Get over it. He and my aunt have been married for 55 years, because they have been able to accept the level of happiness and harmony that is possible between two people with very different but complementary natures.
Now to the big question, Why not let gays join the party?
1) Two homosexuals living together is not and never has been a social institution, i.e. it is not an arrangement that has any special implications for society. It involves no special duties toward society, and for that reason it has no special legal sanction or legal rights. At one point before I got married, I lived with another man in an apartment. The fact that we shared living quarters did not elevate the status of our relationship beyond friendship. Even if we had been in love and inclined to have sex together, in terms of our relationship to society it would not have changed the fact that we were just two men living together.
2) If sex between men and women never led to babies, the situation of a man and a woman living together would be the same as the two examples above as far as the interest that government would have in it. Society would never make a big deal out of it, and governments would have no more interest in promoting or regulating it than they would in the case of any other roommates. The nature and intensity of the feelings between two people, the sex they have (or dont have), the vacations they take together, and, in a word, all the shared aspects of their lives, are of great interest to the couple in question, but do not have any social ramifications that would cause the government to promote, sanction, or regulate such a relationship.
3) Some heterosexual couples cant have children, some choose not to have children, and gay sex never produces children (barring some cases involving surgery that I think I read about in the National Enquirer; who knows what may become possible through science). On the other hand, legitimate government interest in marriage is due to the fact that most marriages between men and women produce children, and the children need stable, nurturing families. So what about cases where a heterosexual couple cant have children, or choose not to? Should their unions be recognized as marriage by government? Yes, because a) it would involve intolerable government intrusion in order to ascertain the facts, b) sometimes couples change their minds and decide to have children after all, c) sometimes infertile couples find out that they arent actually infertile, and d) infertile couples can adopt.
4) So, why not let gay couples adopt? If you disagree with what Ive written so far, then believe me, THIS is the true impasse. What seems blindingly obvious to those who take my position may be totally denied by those who disagree, namely that the family situation which is has always been the norm among human beings is also the situation which is the best for children. What it takes for a boy to become a well-adjusted man, and what it takes for a girl to become a well-adjusted woman, is largely determined by socialization, and a child needs a father and a mother in his or her life in order to be properly socialized. Other arrangements have always existed due to necessity, such as when children are raised by a mother and grandmother, or a father and an uncle, but who would argue that such arrangements should be positively encouraged by government, enshrined in law as having a status equal to marriage? And yet this is exactly what the proponents of gay adoption argue for, with the added complication that the two men or two women have a sexual relationship with one another. This raises serious questions as to how the children will be affected. Will the parents try to raise the children as straight? How successful are they likely to be in this attempt? Or will they try to raise them as gay? This seems unlikely, since from what Ive heard, most gays would have found life much easier if they were attracted to the opposite sex. Will they allow the children to find their own way? In any case, is it fair to allow this sort of social experiment to be performed on children?
This post has gotten quite lengthy, so I'd better stop soon. But I hope that even those who disagree with me will find my position "qualitatively different" from that of people who scream "God hates f_gs!" at people mourning the death of a family member.
So, that's about as far as Joey and I got with the matter. I will now put up a separate post containing Autodidact's criticism of my argument, and my replies to each point.
