Here's my best non-religious argument to vote against gay marriage. It's aimed at those who think homosexual relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual relationships, but feel that there is no logical reason to oppose them and that it's an issue of equality. In summary, I argue it's a slippery slope, all limits on marriage are arbitrary, all laws are based on morality, any marriage law will be based in arbitrary morality, those who favor gay marriage will vote based on their arbitrary morality, those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't be afraid to vote against it based on their arbitrary morality. Since I'm in California, I'll assume California's civil union laws are in force, which give homosexuals every legal right enjoyed by straight couples.
The most popular reason to support gay marriage is equality; I'll deal with others after the main argument. First, equality means equal treatment. Under California's civil union laws, gay couples have every legal right that straight couples have. The CA Supreme Court found that the only thing civil unions didn't have was the dignity that comes with the title "marriage." Government enforced dignity is a terrifying concept, but it also is not a question of equality. Equality requires giving both groups the same legal rights, to inheritance, hospital visits, etc. But deciding whether we, as a society, believe that gay unions are exactly equivalent to straight marriages is a purely moral issue. Those who support gay marriage, as opposed to civil unions with equal rights, base their arguments on the moral conclusion that the relationships are equal. This conclusion is entirely based on their morality.
Many of us think that allowing others to believe and worship how, where and what they may prohibits us from "legislating our morality on others." But all laws are moral. Laws against murder are based on the moral philosophy that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others. Laws against shoplifting are based on the moral philosophy that people can own property. Laws legalizing gay marriage are based on the moral philosophy that others should have to respect gay unions and straight marriages equally. In the end, any decision on gay marriage, for or against, will legislate someone's morality.
Those who favor gay marriage aren't afraid to legislate their morality. They understand that democracy is premised on allowing everyone to voice their morality and bind others to accept it under the law until the majority shifts. We do this with pornography laws, social security and its taxes, liquor laws, environmental protection laws, education taxes and distribution. You can't say my morality doesn't require me to support senior citizens, or to educate strangers' children, so I'm going to keep my taxes. The foundation of democracy is to allow majorities to impose the consequences of their moral beliefs on others. Nowhere is this more appropriate than in purely moral issues, such as whether gay unions and straight marriages are equal.
My final argument here is aimed at the younger generation who argue that many of their good friends are gay. We've somehow forgotten that believing homosexual activity is a sin DOES NOT mean you hate gays. Legally binding yourself in a sexually active homosexual relationship makes you a sinner, but we are all sinners. "Sinner" shouldn't be such a damning pejorative. Your unrepentant white lies will keep you from God just as well as homosexual activity. Any derision or negativity associated with the word "sinner" equally applies to you, to me, and to the best people you know (Yeah, your momma's a sinner; there I said it). Really great people aren't perfect, and when they aren't perfect, they are sinners. You can love your gay friends, recognize and celebrate their good qualities, and still believe homosexual activity is a sin. And if it's a sin, you wouldn't want your friend to be bound in a legal relationship to it.
Finally, arguments against gay marriage that are not based on equality are usually supported by reasoning that applies equally well to support legalizing polygamy, group-marriage, marriages between siblings, marriage to oneself for the tax benefits, or marriages between an elderly grandma and a financially supportive granddaughter, etc. The most common argument is: "If two people love each other, they should be able to get married." There are two are issues here. First is that there must be exactly two people. This number is arbitrary. There is no logical reason to suggest that two is the perfect number for all relationships everywhere. So if you use this reasoning, you are already drawing arbitrary lines based on your morality. (Note: gay marriage advocates usually oppose polygamy, so they are also putting arbitrary limits on marriage based on their morality---exactly what they tell us not to do.) The second issue here is the argument that "love plus desire to marry is sufficient to get married." This reasoning also supports arguments favoring polygamy, polyandry, sibling marriages, etc., which even gay marriage advocates oppose. So they can't believe that "love plus desire to marry" is entirely sufficient. The unspoken requirement is that they, too, will only accept relationships they see as morally acceptable or practical, even with their expanded view of what is moral.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Have you seen that 30 Days episode with the gay couple and the woman? You gotta watch it.
I haven't seen that show. From his background I think it's safe to assume a pro-gay marriage ideology, so I'll respond as though that's the case. If not, you can ignore this based on my confessed ignorance.
I'm assuming the show demonstrates how difficult it is to be gay in America. I can't agree more. It would be very difficult to be treated harshly by so many people. And I strongly agree that those who make gay peoples lives harder must repent or face the wrath of God themselves.
That said, I don't think legalizing gay marriage will end those problems. The idea behind the change is to give it the same dignity as heterosexual marriage. You just can't legislate respect. Those who don't respect gay couples now won't suddenly change their minds once the law passes. So any short-term solution is unlikely.
A long-term solution is a better argument: that if we legalize it now, we can teach that they are equal in schools and in a generation they'll have their dignity. For me, that goes too far. If the issue is really dignity, let's teach our children to respect everyone without going the extra mile of saying what is and is not right in schools. Keep the government as neutral as possible.
Now you may say, "If you want it neutral, why pass a ban on gay marriage?" That's because the government doesn't seem to want to stay neutral. The best option is to keep the government from teaching a morality. We aren't going to get that now, so second best is that if they are teaching a morality, let it be mine. Why is mine better than anyone else's? It may be or it may not be. But that's for democracy to decide.
Summary: We should give them dignity without a law because a law won't do it anyway and will have other overreaching results.
Your whole argument rests on the idea that equality means equal legal rights. Without that, the whole thing falls apart.
Constitutional equality only requires equal legal rights, not equal dignity. For example, I'm a male and I couldn't sue to have the word female on my driver's license instead of male because I feel females have more dignity. All I can ask is for all the legal rights of a female. Governments are free to apply arbitrary labels all they please as long as the government treats them equally.
A simple yes or no would've been enough dude. Geez.
Paul, your premise is based entirely on morality without defining it first? Is morality a set of beliefs? If so, then all laws are based on morality inasmuch as the people that pass/approve the laws believe in what they have done. My contention is that the best way to legislate is that there are, and should be, legitimate rational backings to any law/restriction (although, I will admit that there still exists in many laws an external moral component, i.e. malum in se vs. malum prohibitum legislation). That is to say, what are the effects brought about...are there third party effects/restrictions? If so, are they deleterious to the third party, and does the third party have recourse under the Constitution (their day in court, or due process) to address the effect? In this case, the third party did not have a way built into the law to address the third party effect (the banning of homosexual marriage) and took it to court. This rationale is the underpinning behind many laws. It does provide a slope (I hesitate to call it slippery, since I don't think that the consequences should be connoted in a pejorative fashion) to allow further inquiry behind arbitrary restrictions, including but not limited to, number of spouses. I am perfectly comfortable with this. Polygamy, if it is indeed somehow detrimental to society, will have a rational argument why it should not be practiced. As for sibling marriage, this has a genetic reason for not allowing marriage...as many marriages result in procreation, and sibling marriage has a high possibility of genetic problems arising in the offspring. As for your "dignity" argument, see Brown v. Board of Education. The US S.Ct felt the same queasiness about providing government mandated "dignity" but felt that the wrongs perpetuated on the minority were so great, that any queasiness needed to be set aside to address the wrongs. This case is similar in that you have "separate but equal" privileges. If you really want to reserve marriage between a man and a woman, and you have no rational reason for it, then make everyone who gets into a contractual situation invoking certain legal rights pertaining to a joint status call it a "civil union" and allow any other religious activity beyond such civil unions to be called "marriage". Otherwise, I see no rational reason to deny equal treatment.
I think, maybe, your response bolsters my argument. You ask for a definition of morality. Fair enough. Websters defines morality: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct." "Moral" conduct is conduct "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior." Simplifying, morality is a system of beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong.
It seems it would be helpful to give a few examples of moralities here. The morality that you suggested in your response is that "no law should harm third parties." If I've misstated it, forgive me, and just take it as an example instead. Another example is one I've been thinking about lately, which I call "I will be my brother's keeper." That is, you pass laws that help society avoid situations where they will be unhappy. You could also have a morality that says "all laws are bad and we should live without government." Or "property can't be owned by an individual, but only by the greater collective."
My point is that: 1) the government will not be neutral as long as it allows some type of marriage. 2) Eliminating government marriage isn't on the ballot, so my vote will put someone's morality into law. 3) If we're putting a morality into the law, why not let it be mine?
Your response focuses on putting your morality, "no harm to third parties" out as the only acceptable morality in legislation. I don't think this is true as a general principle, or in practice.
Many of our laws follow an "I will be my brother's keeper" theory of morality. In contract law we have consideration requirements, unconscionability, violation of public policy, artificial consent limitations (age, for example). The entire welfare system is an example of "I will be my brother's keeper" morality. So are our drug laws. So "no harm to third parties doesn't have a lock on legislative practice, regardless of whether it should or not.
Finally, I don't think it is the best morality for one to choose. It works fine in many situations, but why should we leave our brother out there to harm himself in his ignorance? Shouldn't we care more for one another?
Two notes:
1) I realize I could just attack your argument by pointing out potential third-party effects of gay marriage. I'll do that in another post.
2) I recognize that another part of your morality dictated that everything should be supported by logical reasoning. There's really no reason to believe that logic is superior to other means of knowing something. For example, I can logically guess where a door might be or I can open my eyes and look for it. In turn, revelation is a source of knowledge that a person can reasonably rely on. A more fatal flaw with the "all things must be logically supported" is that with each explanation you are implicitly stating an unsupported rule. For example, you shouldn't kick puppies because it's wrong. Why? Because it hurts them? Why? Because they feel pain? Why shouldn't you cause pain? Because you should only do things that you'd want others to do to you. Why shouldn't I do things I wouldn't want done to me? Because it's wrong. In the end, you'll always end up with a morality that rests on an assumption. That or you'll have a math proof, because everything else will eventually lead back to unsupported principles. A morality that limits what can be legislated to what can be logically proved leaves little left in the law but algebra. Finally, democracies aren't designed to be ruled by philosopher kings who reason out the best solution and impose it on the unwashed masses. Running on unverifiable feelings and unprovable assumptions is part of the experiment that reveals what works and what doesn't.
I leave this blog alone for a couple of months and what happens? We start talking about morality? Am I gonn' have to buster out some Nietzsche?
Sebi, this is all your fault...leaving comments and what not.
Post a Comment