 |
| Photo credit: Atlanta Journal-Constitution Newspaper |
APOLOGIA
By
Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, April 30, 2015
Questioning
same-sex marriage
Same-sex
marriage has had legal status in Canada for a decade and is (at time of
writing) being debated in the U.S. supreme court. My question is this: Is granting
legal status to same-sex marriage wise?
It
seems to me that further thought is needed.
Granting
legal status to same-sex marriage is not merely a personal matter between those
of the same sex who wish to wed. It is, rather, a public policy matter that affects
others in multiple ways.
For
example, granting legal status to same-sex marriage changes the public's
understanding of the minimal requirement of marriage from (a) the union of a
man and woman who can (at least in principle) reproduce sexually via their
union and nurture their biological children to (b) a union of two adults
regardless of their sexual noncomplementarity, requiring new reproductive
methods and new family structures.
According
to political philosopher Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (2012),
this change centers marriage on "consenting
adult romance" instead of what's best for children. How? By emphasizing
adult wants so much so that men and women, mothers and fathers, are made
interchangeable when they're not.
Significantly,
Anderson argues, reliable studies from the social sciences strongly suggest
parenting by married biological parents—i.e., biological mother and biological
father—is ideal for the well-being of children.
But
same-sex marriage (along with divorce and single parenting) takes society
another step away from this ideal.
Also,
McGill University ethicist Margaret Somerville points out that same-sex marriage abolishes the
child's biologically-based moral right to know and be raised by both biological
parents.
Significantly,
according to Robert Oscar Lopez, president of the International Children's
Rights Institute, there are many adults who were raised by gay/ lesbian parents
now expressing discontent and concern over same-sex marriage. Lopez and others
defend this thesis in Lopez's recent book Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family 'Equality' (2015).
Moreover,
according to Somerville, same-sex marriage may normalize In Vitro
Fertilization (IVF) and thereby exacerbate
IVF's problems. IVF creates leftover frozen human embryos, i.e., human beings;
often requires "selective termination," i.e., abortion of unwanted
implantations/ fetuses; exploits women as surrogates and egg suppliers; plus
threatens to turn children into commodities.
Also,
same-sex marriage is conceptually wed to a non-fallacious slippery slope. According to Anderson, once we redefine marriage
broadly as committed adult intimacy instead of the union of a heterosexual
couple, why not accept a "throuple" (rhymes with "couple"
but involves three or more)?
The
rationale for "couple" derives from the one-man-one-woman sexual
union requirement—but this requirement has been abandoned. So why stop at two?
Why not polyamorous (see here, too) or polygamous relationships?
If
loving commitment is a sufficient condition for marriage, and if one man and
one woman are no longer a necessary condition, then if you love X, you should
be able to marry X. But X is a placeholder.
Finally,
religious liberty is affected. For deeply held religious/ moral reasons many
citizens believe same-sex sexual relations are wrong.
But
with same-sex marriage enshrined in law, public institutions must embrace
same-sex marriage as a good that's equivalent to heterosexual marriage. As a
result, many public school children are taught what their parents believe is
immoral. Is this fair?
Problems
also result for businesses and private schools that disapprove of same-sex
marriage, as wedding florists, bakers, photographers, and Trinity Western University Law School will attest.
Is
same-sex marriage wise? Are we being foolish in not thinking this matter
through carefully (as some of our grandparents were foolish in not thinking
through, say, Canadian Indian residential schools)?
Surely,
there are enough reasons at least to question the wisdom of same-sex marriage and
thus encourage careful, truth-seeking thought on the matter.
Surely
too—whether we end up favouring same-sex marriage or not—we can do this while
showing respect to those with whom we disagree.
(Hendrik
van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
For
further thought:
- Gay Marriage: A Debate: Will Saletan vs. Shirif Girgis (DVD)
- Ryan T. Anderson lecture at Princeton University: What Is Marriage? (56 minute online video); Q&A (36 minute online video)
- Same-Sex Marriage: A Thoughtful Approach to God's Design for Marriage, by Sean McDowell & John Stonestreet (book)
- Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters, by Patrick Lee & Robert P. George (book)
- Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, by Ryan T. Anderson (book)
6 comments:
As you know, this is a topic that stirs strong feelings, and as a result it's difficult to discuss it rationally. Thank you for a thoughtful careful case, Hendrik.
One point at which we may disagree. One of the drivers for recognizing same sex unions as marriage is the way that such recognition has legal consequences for the surviving partner of such unions when one of the couple dies. A simple (and I think worthwhile) step is to say that if you want tax benefits, or legal benefits (such as automatically occur at death), and so on, you must register your union with the state -- in effect, a legal marriage, not consecrated by your faith community (whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other).
Then if you want a Christian marriage (for example), the church is free to consecrate the unions that fit within a Christian faith framework, and can have its own discussion without the state declaring what may or may not be in the church.
This problem is greater in the USA than in Canada, I think, since we have legalized same sex unions as marriage some time ago. But taking the further step would allow us to promote the civil rights of some and to promote the freedom of conscience that appears to conflict with those rights.
That kind of step does not replace the conversation you ask for. We have done better at thinking about health hazards such a smoking that discussing as a society our sexual identity and practices. In this latter area we accuse others quickly of homophobia or of paganism, when such charges simply derail the effort to understand each other.
Can you edit my comment -- or can I? The last paragraph should read: We have done better at thinking about health hazards such a smoking than discussing as a society our sexual identity and practices.
Please tell me you do not actually draw a parallel between allowing same sex marriage and the horrible historical fact of the murderous torture that was the residential school system. Let us not take that too lightly.
Of course careful thought and consideration are always recommended. I believe there are positions on all sides of this issue that are very well thought out and based on careful research. Sadly, there are also uncharitable attitudes on every side.
While we spend time thinking, we should also spend time caring, and consider the individual for whom this issue is a painful personal problem through no fault of their own, but as a result of how they are created.
There is always a slippery slope lurking. Making a decision either way is a slippery slope.
I believe more people who have thoughtfully considered the issue of same sex marriage would be tolerant or approving of it, than of threesome marriages, or inter-species "marriage", or any other out of the ordinary examples sometimes suggested by "slippery slope" arguments. I don't think those kind of situations are that likely to pose a problem.
Thanks, Daryl ("Climenheise"), for your kind and thoughtful comment. I appreciate our friendship—and all the more so because we can amicably disagree over various matters.
About the editing: I think neither of us can edit your comment, absent deleting it and re-posting. My blog is old school, technology-wise (and, probably, philosophy-wise).
About the driver you mention for recognizing same-sex unions as marriage, i.e., the tax or legal benefits that accrue to the surviving spouse in a marriage but not to the surviving partner in a gay couple: I think that this could be satisfied by changing the law to recognize the tax etc. benefits for the surviving partner/ significant other, not by redefining marriage. It's the legal redefining of marriage that has all the concerns I raise in my above article.
The question that seems to be missed (by many) is this: What is marriage? Is it merely a social construct, i.e., an agreement that can be rearranged as social consensus changes, or is it something deeper, i.e., a pre-political non-religious reality (often reflected by religion) which has an unchanging essential nature? If we treat it as a social construct when it's not (as, it seems to me, careful reasoning and evidence make clear), then what are the consequences? Enter: the concerns I raise above.
For further exploration of the question of what marriage is, I recommend the work of Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis, and Robert George (see links above).
Also, Daryl, you might find Ryan T. Anderson (at 51:50 in the Q&A of this video presentation) to be of interest. Anderson is asked this question: Shouldn't we retire marriage to religion? Anderson answers as follows: "If marriage was only a sacramental or covenantal ordinance or something like that, then we could do it. Let’s say marriage was like baptism. We don’t have government in the baptism business. Baptism is something that the churches get to do on their own, according to their own theologies, largely because baptism doesn’t bear on the political common good. But marriage—I’m catholic, so I’ll speak more specifically from a catholic tradition—marriage is both a sacred and a natural institution. Baptism is just a sacred institution. There’s no natural baptism, in that sense. So the government is not in the baptism business. But they need to be in the marriage business, because while as a catholic we believe Jesus elevates the natural institution of marriage to the sacramental level, we think it first exists in nature. It’s built into us as embodied creatures, male and female, which is why we see that marriages take place not just among Christians, not just among Jews, but all across the globe, all across history—the ancient Romans, the ancient Greeks, the Chinese—more or less everyone has been engaged in this institution. Why? Because the sexual union between a man and a woman can be fertile, it can produce a child, and that child needs a mom and a dad. And that’s why the state recognizes marriage in a way that it doesn’t recognize baptism."
Hello "poetreehugger." Thanks for your comment. You've set out many points that should be carefully considered, so I'll reply point by point.
"Please tell me you do not actually draw a parallel between allowing same sex marriage and the horrible historical fact of the murderous torture that was the residential school system. Let us not take that too lightly."
The parallel I draw (parenthetically) has to with the foolishness of not thinking through the consequences of what seems to be a good idea, but isn't. The residential school system was thought by many in yesteryear to be a good idea, but now we see the horrible consequences that went unnoticed. Are there unnoticed consequences to what seems to us today to be a good idea? My article points to some consequences and asks for further examination of those consequences. Some of the consequences seem quite horrible, as my article points out, so I believe I'm not taking the horror of the residential school system "too lightly."
"Of course careful thought and consideration are always recommended."
Yes! Amen! Hallelujah!
"I believe there are positions on all sides of this issue that are very well thought out and based on careful research."
Yes, there are positions on all sides of this issue. In my careful research over the past few years, however, I've come to believe that they're NOT all very well thought out and based on careful research.
"Sadly, there are also uncharitable attitudes on every side."
I agree. It saddens me, too. And I believe such attitudes are wrong. That's why I'm trying to encourage and model (albeit fallibly) careful truth-seeking thinking coupled with respectful attitude to those with whom I disagree.
"While we spend time thinking, we should also spend time caring, and consider the individual for whom this issue is a painful personal problem through no fault of their own, but as a result of how they are created."
Thinking and caring are not mutually exclusive, definitely. But, as I'm sure you agree, thinking and caring also do not preclude speaking truth in love. I think that the truth is that people are born with various propensities (positive and negative) and many propensities can be developed by upbringing and culture, which might exacerbate or mitigate the propensities and how one responds to those propensities. About the born/created-that-way argument, see my column "Lady Gaga and moral reasoning".
(Continued below)
"There is always a slippery slope lurking. Making a decision either way is a slippery slope."
It's important to keep in mind that just as some opinions are better than others, depending on the quality of the supporting arguments, some slippery slopes are slipperier than others, depending on the logic of the connections. Also, some slippery slopes can be made more slippery by adding gobs of philosophical grease to them! For further discussion of slippery slopes, look here: Slippery slopes part 1, Slippery slopes part 2.
"I believe more people who have thoughtfully considered the issue of same sex marriage would be tolerant or approving of it, than of threesome marriages, or inter-species 'marriage', or any other out of the ordinary examples sometimes suggested by 'slippery slope' arguments. I don't think those kind of situations are that likely to pose a problem."
With respect, I disagree. Once the logic is in place, slippage seems very much to be inevitable with time. Why? Because there will be no principled way to resist the love-is-enough justification of "marriage" once you've accepted that justification as fundamental apart from the one-man-one-woman essential nature of what marriage is. Slippage is already occurring. Polygamy is being touted on television. The polyamorous throuple is being taken more seriously in recent years, too. Just as same-sex marriage used to be seen a few years ago as "out of the ordinary" but is ordinary today, I strongly suspect that today's "out of the ordinary" will be tomorrow's ordinary.
Again, I suggest a careful look at the logic of the non-fallacious slippery slope.
Best regards.
Post a Comment