The Bosque Boys

27/05: Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage

Okie Gardener and I have been having a pretty interesting discussion in re his post, "Sex, Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage" in the comments section. So much so, I decided to extract the comments section and feature it as a free-standing post. I encourage you to read the original post in its entirety, and the acompanying article in its entirety; the discussion below begins with the premise that the institiution of marriage rests on three goods: procreation, fidelity and permanence.

A Waco Farmer wrote:
In re the "three goods:"
I understand that your central argument for marriage is protecting children, but we still believe in, as you note, marriage for heterosexual couples who do not/cannot procreate. Those barren unions are still allowed and seen as a positive good. How is that different from letting homosexual couples who will not procreate marry one another and enjoy the benefits available to opposite-sex couples without children?

an okie gardener wrote:
The short answer it that I encourage you to read the entire paper. The brief answer is that what is at issue is the definition of marriage. When one defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then procreation is the natural result of their union. The exceptions, barren couples, do not change the definition, but are simply an unfullfillment of the general case. Same sex unions are by definition barren, not by accident.

A Waco Farmer wrote:
I will read the paper, but my question is this: why cannot homosexual marriages be another exception? Again, staying with barren couples. Even if we know a man and a woman will not have children before they marry, we still see plenty of good reasons to encourage them to marry and offer them the same protections as a fruitful couple.

What makes the case of same-sex couples different?

A Waco Farmer wrote[continued]:
Okay. I'm back. I read the paper. I will probably go back and read it again.

Here is my summary:

1. In answer to my above question: the RCA does not recognize same-sex marriage because a rational reading of scripture, nature and tradition testifies against it.

Okay. I can accept that. In fact, from my own extremely inerudite theological perspective, I agree. Although I think there is a fundamental inconsistency in the position that places procreation as the sine qua non of marriage, and then favors birth control or allows barren marriages--but "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

2. Redefining marriage: the RCA argument completely satisfies me in terms of why the RCA is not going to participate or condone same-sex marriages. It rests, as I said, on a rational interpretation of scripture, nature and church tradtion.

On the other hand, the argument against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages falls a bit flat for me. I will need to read it again, but so much of that section seems to admit how little influence the church has on the definition of marriage. Why is same-sex marriage different?

an okie gardener wrote:
Definitions try to express the essence of something; looking to that which is unique about something is the heart of definition. The paper identifies 3 unique goods for marriage, of which procreation is one. To say that a same-sex marriage is essentially (that is, by its very nature) barren, is to say that it does not have this good. A marriage between a man and a woman is not essentially barren; by its nature it is procreative. Definitions are made in the abstract; one can have exceptional particular cases that still
fit. For example, particular animals are defined by genotype and its expression in phenotype. A dog with a genetic abnormality still can be a dog; an animal with the feline genotype cannot be a dog.

A Waco Farmer wrote:

I take your point. Certainly, in the abstract a definition can be (should be?) fairly circumsribed. But definitions also absorb nuance over time. For example, the barren couple example is a nuance that developed over time. No one at this point in time would argue that same-sex married couples incapable of bearing children are any less married.

Our fork in the road at this point in time, culturally, is whether we will embrace the exceptional same-sex relationship, which, arguably, might promote fidelity and permanence and, in some cases, provide homes for children without parents.

My thesis: taking the question from a religiously oriented point of view, the same-sex option seems manifestly unacceptable. However, if you take the religious component out of the discussion, which we do in our culture for most of our public issues, denying same-sex marriage becomes much more problematic.

Is it possible to exclude same-sex marriages without leaning on religious traditions? If not, how is a same-sex marriage different from civil laws that allow divorce and adultery?

an okie gardener wrote:
A lot of issues here in your last post. And not much time right now. To take the first: definition. While definition and description cannot be completely separated, they are not exactly the same thing. To offer some thoughts on the last point: removal of the religious component. First, tradition--I can't think of a human culture that has privilaged same-sex relationships in the same way as marriage. I may be unaware of some, but, I think the point stands that the general voice of tradition is against it, and not just the limited tradition of one culture. I want an overwhelming argument in favor of recognizing same-sex relationships as marriage, given the human tradition. Next, let's talk evolutionary biology. In this context same sex sex is an aberration; it offers no evolutionary advantage and indeed is a liability since it "dead-ends" the genetics of one so oriented. Do we want a social institution so at odds with our genetics? Finally, is it legitimate to remove religion from public discussion in the US. You know that is a recent phenomenon. The slavery debates were vary religious. Can you define slavery out of our society without some sort of appeal to religion?

A Waco Farmer wrote:
Your points in reverse order (and this will be way too quick, but hopefully somewhat coherent):

1. No. I do not think religious tradition should be ignored in American politics. But, again, you also know that we are very selective on what traditions we transfer to social and cultural canon. Again: the examples of how lax we have become on adultery and divorce as of late.

2. In terms of evolutionary biology: are you arguing that we are at risk as a species if we privelege homosexual unions? If so, I disagree.

3. Granted, there is little historical foundation for same-sex marriages, but we are a nation predicated on experiments in liberty. Saying that something is out of the norm has never been the end of the argument in the American political tradition.

Okie Gardener has a fairly serious Sunday gig, and I don't expect him to weigh back in for a while. How about some help from the rest of the Bosque Boys community? What say you? Tocqueville, are you out there? Gossenius? Portia? I am interested in knowing what a lot of you think on this one. Bueller? Anybody?

Comments

an okie gardener wrote:

Reply to Waco Farmer: RE: #3. My point in regard to the weight of human tradition was that any thing that goes so radically against a nearly universal tradition should face a heavy, heavy burden of proof. I want to see a full-spectrum brief in favor of same-sex marriages, not simply an assertion of "rights." I need to see a "Common Sense" for same-sex marriage. RE #2 I was responding to your earlier post about my needing a foundation for my thought about marriage other than religion. I sought to provide one. Evolutionary biology is one of the most powerful explanatory paradigms in the sciences--it is the theory that ties together all thought in the life sciences. My point simply is that a claim (same-sex marriage) that goes counter to evolutionary biology is an extraordinary claim and must bear, again, an extraordinary burden of proof. RE #1 I understand the relation between religion and culture in the US as a dynamic relationship. I do not take the current situation as necessarily prescriptive. I still maintain that many of our most basic cultural assumptions rest ultimately on religious foundations, such as the worth of the individual, the need for justice, the demand for fair treatment under law, the obligation to aid the unfortunate, etc. I will continue to argue regarding marriage from a religious foundation.

30/05 11:47:05

A Waco Farmer wrote:

Reply to an Okie Gardener:

I agree that tradition is the standard, and deviations should be considered with due skepticism and studied deliberations before accepted. That is the essence of conservatism.

On the other hand, as Americans we are who we are because we are not overly tradition-bound. To paraphrase Jefferson: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that traditions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, but...."

As for the case for same-sex marriage, the proponents for reform have argued that same-sex unions will promote fidelity, stronger families, stability, individuals more connected to communities, legal efficiency, etc. Basically, proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the age-old reasons why the institution of marriage is a fundamental good apply in their case.

There is also the question of fairness. In the face of the case for marriage, the proponents have a right to ask the opponents: why not us? And that is where the opponents of same-sex marriage seem to falter.

From my experience, the case for the defense usually comes down to procreation. The obvious follow-up question: why are some who do not meet the procreation criterion excepted and not others?

The last point is that religious thought is fundamental to good republican government (I agree with G. Washington). On the other hand, the story of American religion in the political arena has always been the story of conflict. As you know, religious people were divided over slavery and women's rights. Mark Noll (who I am currently reading) calls the division over slavery in America a conflict between "Christian humanitarianism and Christian traditionalism."

My point: Your religion should inform all your political view points, but at what point in the public debate is it necessary to differentiate between what is right for you and your church and what is fair to impose on the community as a whole?

30/05 15:10:27

an okie gardener wrote:

Here are arguments similar to mine made from a non-religious perspective.

http://article.nationalrevi...

31/05 11:54:33

Tocqueville wrote:

I keep hearing conservatives criticized for "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system," for instance by trying to change the law to ban abortion, or by trying to keep the law from allowing gay marriage.

I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? Many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?

My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they'd acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.

Now some particular legal proposals may well be wrong. Perhaps banning abortion, or setting up welfare programs, or abolishing the death penalty violates people's rights, or is bad social policy, or what have you. But if that's so, then these proposals would then be equally wrong whether they're suggested by religious people for religious reasons, or by secular people for secular reasons. And conversely, if particular legal proposals are morally and pragmatically right, then religious people are just as entitled as secular people to advocate them.

So people should certainly criticize the proposals of the Religious Right (or Religious Left or Secular Right or Secular Left) that they think are wrong on the merits. But they would be wrong to conclude that the proposals are illegitimate simply on the grounds that the proposals rest on religious dogma. Religious people are no less and no more entitled than secular people to enact laws based on their belief systems.

And they would be quite inconsistent to (1) say that religious people ought not enact law based on their religious views, and nonetheless (2) have no objection when religious people do precisely that as to abolition of slavery, enactment of antidiscrimination laws, abolition of the death penalty, repeal of the draft, and so on.

31/05 15:15:57

Tocqueville wrote:

The problem with the broader notion -- that it's somehow illegitimate to justify one's decisions about how society should be run based on assumptions one cannot defend with pure reason -- is that ultimately most of the moral principles that each of us has can't be defended purely reasonably. Should people be barred from abusing animals? There's no purely reasonable answer to that; at some point, it comes to down to a moral axiom, such as "people shouldn't be allowed to pointlessly inflict pain, even on animals" or "people should be free to do whatever they please with their property." And if you think this claim isn't an axiom, but can be defended reasonably through some other principle, that just means there's some other moral axiom lurking in the background.

Likewise, should abortion be legal? Pro-life people say personhood, and entitlement to moral rights, begins at conception. Pro-choice people select some other line. There's no way of proving it using pure reason; even if one makes an argument such as "a woman should be free to do what she likes with her own body" (which would, incidentally, allow abortions even at 8 1/2 months), then that becomes the axiom that you may believe but can't prove.

Or what about protecting endangered species? Many people want to protect them purely on moral principles -- humans shouldn't exterminate other species. That too is a moral axiom, or at least rests on moral axioms. Others argue that there's a pragmatic reason for it, for instance that protecting endangered species is needed in case the species may yield some useful biotech products some time in the future, or in case they fill an important ecological niche. But even such pragmatic reasons rest on unprovable moral judgments, such as that a small and incalculable chance that the species might prove useful in the future justifies the real costs to real people that saving the species would involve. Now these judgments may well be right -- but they aren't reasonably provable. And ultimately, the same is true, I think, for moral judgments even about matters such as the wrongfulness of murder, rape, robbery, and so on, and certainly for more contested matters such as race discrimination, breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, moral rights in published works, and so on. All these moral and legal claims rest on unprovable moral assertions.

Of course, these assertions may be supportable, though not provable -- one can come up with plausible arguments that might influence people to accept one or another (for instance, "dogs can feel pain and emotions just like humans do, it's bad to needlessly inflict pain on humans, and it's therefore bad to needlessly inflict pain on dogs"). But these are appeals to intuition, aesthetics, and emotion. They aren't reasoned proof.

In this respect they're similar to religious people's arguments that, for instance, homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and because the normal uses of our various organs reveal that God intended us to use them one way and not another way. Now the former arguments may be more persuasive to you or me than the latter. (I find the unnaturalness argument quite unpersuasive, for reasons I mention here.) But it's not because the former involved reason proof and the latter don't. Neither involve pure logic; both involve attempts to appeal to intuitive senses of right and wrong, though intuitive senses that vary among people.

So we are certainly free to say that certain arguments, whether arguments from the text of the Bible, arguments from the perceived will of God as expressed in the way the world works, arguments from church teachings, or what have you, are unpersuasive. And then if someone uses those arguments to support a law that we think is immoral, we can criticize him on the grounds that the arguments are unpersuasive and yield immoral results.

But I don't think that we can argue that the only legitimate laws are ones that can be defended using pure reason -- most important judgments about what the law ought to be ultimately rest on some unprovable moral assumptions.

31/05 15:18:31

Tocqueville wrote:

On the question of marriage:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

01/06 00:19:01

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

27/05: Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage

Comments

an okie gardener wrote:

A Waco Farmer wrote:

an okie gardener wrote:

Tocqueville wrote:

Tocqueville wrote:

Tocqueville wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar