![]() |
| 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)
