Popular
actress Anne Hathaway, who recently starred as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, received an award in 2008 from the Human
Rights Campaign, an organization dedicated to the rights of the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In her acceptance speech,
Hathaway explained why she supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Read
carefully the reasons she offers:
“In my
household, being gay was, and is, no big deal. When my brother came out, we
hugged him, said we loved him, and that was that…Just for the record, we don’t
feel that there is actually anything alternative about our family values…I
don’t consider myself just an ally to the LGBT community, I consider myself
your family…if anyone, ever, tries to hurt you, I’m going to give them hell…There
are people who have said that I’m being brave for being openly supportive of
gay marriage, gay adoption, basically of gay rights. But with all due respect I
humbly dissent. I’m not being brave. I’m being a decent human being. And I
don’t think I should receive an award for that, or for merely stating what I
believe to be true, that love is a human experience, not a political statement.
However, I acknowledge that sadly we live in a world where not everybody feels
the same. My family and I will help the good fight continue until that long
awaited moment arrives, when our rights are equal and when the political limits
on love have been smashed.”
In
the last sentence Hathaway emphasizes two main points which are often appealed
to in the same-sex marriage debate: equal rights and love. Many who listened to
Hathaway found her speech worthy of praise, as evidenced by the many blogs,
tweets, and Facebook posts still circulating which commend the actress. As you
read her words, maybe you feel an emotional tug at the heart as well.
But
what exactly has Hathaway offered us? Has she offered us any substantial
reasons for supporting same-sex marriage or gay adoption? Or has she primarily offered
us emotional appeals and empty rhetoric?
To
answer these questions, imagine a different scenario for a moment. Suppose that
Anne Hathaway was invited to speak at an engagement for NAMBLA (North American
Man/Boy Love Association), an organization dedicated to defending and legalizing
“intergenerational” love. Couldn’t Hathaway have given essentially the same
speech in support of pedophilia?
“In my
household, being a pedophile was, and is, no big deal. When my brother came
out, we hugged him, said we loved him, and that was that…Just for the record,
we don’t feel that there is actually anything alternative about our family
values…I don’t consider myself just an ally to the NAMBLA community, I consider
myself your family…if anyone, ever, tries to hurt you, I’m going to give them
hell…There are people who have said that I’m being brave for being openly supportive
of intergenerational marriage, pedophile adoption, basically of pedophile
rights. But with all due respect I humbly dissent. I’m not being brave. I’m
being a decent human being. And I don’t think I should receive an award for
that, or for merely stating what I believe to be true, that love is a human
experience, not a political statement. However, I acknowledge that sadly we
live in a world where not everybody feels the same. My family and I will help
the good fight continue until that long awaited moment arrives, when our rights
are equal and when the political limits on love have been smashed.”
Most
of us (thanks be to God) still have enough moral common sense to see the
absurdity in such an attempt to validate pedophilia. The fact that an adult man
and seven-year-old boy love each other in no way validates the relationship,
establishes its morality, or argues for its legality and endorsement by
society.
But
the important thing to notice is this: the same justification for same-sex
marriage offered by Hathaway and many other same-sex advocates can just as
easily be used as justification for pedophilia. In fact, this is exactly what
organizations like NAMBLA are doing (along with promoters of polygamist,
polyamorous, and incestuous relationships).
Objection: “That’s Different!”
Some
may object at this point saying, “That’s different! Same-sex marriage is about
two consenting adult homosexuals. You are talking about child molestation.
Child molestation is clearly wrong and we have age of consent laws in place to
prohibit it.” I have three things to say in response.
First, this objection
completely misses the point. The point is this: appealing to the fact that two
people love each other and yet are legally prohibited from expressing that love
the way they desire is not substantial or weighty enough to justify
the morality or legality of any particular relationship. In fact,
same-sex advocates concede this very point when objecting to pedophilia: they
are acknowledging that love and equality alone are insufficient.
Remember,
it is Hathaway and other defenders of same-sex relationships who are appealing
to love and equality. What I am providing here is a counter-example, what might
be called a reductio ad absurdum, a
reduction to absurdity. If the concept of “love” and an appeal to “equal
rights” are sufficient in themselves to legitimize the morality and legality of
sexual relationships which are then subsequently endorsed by society, then
these reasons can just as easily be employed in favor of pedophilia. But (and I
am appealing to your moral common sense here) since pedophilia is a heinous
evil and its endorsement by society absurd, there must be something wrong with
the starting premise (or assumption) that “love” and “equal rights” are adequate
to justify a particular lifestyle. And if that is the case, neither are these
concepts ample enough to validate same-sex marriage.
Second, the “That’s
different!” objection begs some of the very questions under discussion,
including the morality of adult homosexual relationships. This is common among
defenders of homosexuality and same-sex marriage: they assume that as long as
two adults consent to a sexual act there is nothing morally wrong with it. But
this is one of the central issues under discussion and raises an important
point: debates concerning homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not
just about “love” and “equal rights.” They go much deeper than that. They must
include discussions about the nature of love, the grounding of morality, the
law, government, so forth and so on. Appealing to “love” and “equal rights” has
great emotional and rhetorical value but offers nothing in terms of real
substance and value in helping resolve the debate.
Third, the “That’s
different!” objection is arbitrary and inconsistent. Remember, same-sex
marriage proponents are arguing for the redefinition of marriage. On their
view, marriage can be defined, and redefined, by a given culture or society as
they see fit. In other words, marriage is what we make of it. But on this view,
what holds true for marriage also holds true for the age of consent. If the
concept of “marriage” is a cultural convention with no moral or ontological grounding,
age of consent laws are likewise merely social customs which can be changed
with enough voting power (e.g., if NAMBLA were to gain enough political influence
and persuade enough voters, age of consent laws would be done away with). Herein
lay the inconsistency: you cannot assume that “age of consent” laws have real,
moral, cultural transcendence and foundation while at the same time deny this
very thing for the concept of “marriage.” Therefore, it is arbitrary and
inconsistent for same-sex marriage proponents to appeal to age of consent laws
as genuine, meaningful, moral distinctions between same-sex marriage and
pedophilia.
Conclusion
What
should we say then about what Hathaway and other same-sex marriage defenders
have offered us? Is the concept of “love” and an appeal to “equal rights”
enough to justify the morality, validation, and legal endorsement of any
particular relationship? Hardly. I leave it to supporters of same-sex relationships
to advance more compelling and persuasive reasons given the cultural and ethical
importance of this topic.
Posts
18 comments:
Pedophilia cannot be justified under the general rubric of "love and equal rights" because it involves the violation of someone's rights. Young people have the right to be left sexually unmolested until they reach the age of consent. For good reason, the "consent" of an immature person doesn't override this, which is why the protestation of many pedophiles that their sexual liaisons were "consensual" has no merit.
In the case of homosexual consenting adults, no rights are violated, so the principle of love and equal rights is in fact sufficient.
Hello Todd! Thank you for your comments. I think I largely addressed your point already in my essay. Remember, I am specifically addressing those who are arguing in favor of same-sex marriage based on "love" and "equal rights."
You stated, "Pedophilia cannot be justified under the general rubric of "love and equal rights" because it involves the violation of someone's rights.
Where are these "rights" grounded? In society? Then society can just as easily take them away. In God? Then why isn't God consulted when it comes to marriage. If homosexual behavior was outlawed, would homosexuality then be a "violation of someone's rights" and if so how would you justify same-sex marriage?
Young people have the right to be left sexually unmolested until they reach the age of consent.
Isn't it society who establishes the "age of consent"? Or is there some transcendent, ontological, moral grounding for these laws? If the former, why can't they be changed to involve minors who willingly consent? There is historical precedence for this in ancient civilizations such as Greece. If the latter, where does this moral grounding come from, and why isn't this transcendent moral law consulted by those who wish to redefine marriage?
For good reason, the "consent" of an immature person doesn't override this, which is why the protestation of many pedophiles that their sexual liaisons were "consensual" has no merit.
Who establishes when a person becomes "mature"? Again, if society can define marriage as they like, why not the age of consent? If it turns out that homosexual behavior is committed by those with an immature understanding of the natural function of the human body, should their consent be revoked as well?
In the case of homosexual consenting adults, no rights are violated, so the principle of love and equal rights is in fact sufficient.
Again, who establishes these rights? If love, equal rights, and adult consent is sufficient for you, do you also then hold that polygamist, polyamorous, and incestuous relationships should be recognized and validated by the state? If gender is not important when it comes to marriage, why is number?
Hi Aaron, and thanks for replying to my comment.
It seems to me that you've shifted the point of the discussion a bit, which is okay. My comment was narrowly focused on the claim that there is some useful parallel between gay marriage and pedophilia, because both are allegedly justified by appeal to "love and equal rights." I've explained why this claim has no merit. In your response, you raise the broader issue of where rights come from, so I'll say something about that.
Immanuel Kant famously said that two things filled him with awe: "The starry skies above and the moral law within." Like Kant, I believe that the moral law is etched into our minds and hearts. And like Kant, I think the moral law comprises general moral principles, which we then apply to particular situations.
You may argue that the moral law was written there by God, and I have no quarrel with that. So no, I don't think that rights are conventions grounded in society.
An example of a general moral principle that I think any human being would accept is this: Inflicting harm upon another person is not morally neutral; it is presumptively wrong and must be justified in every case. People can and do differ on what counts as justification, but the general principle is, I believe, universal.
It doesn't follow from this that where no one is harmed, no justification is needed. But it does raise the question of why acts that harm no one should be condemned.
In pedophilia, the risk of harm is very, very high. This is because children lack the cognitive and emotional resources to give true consent. Granted, all children to not mature at the same rate. Standard "age of consent" laws are an imperfect solution. There are no doubt some 15 year-olds who are more mature and more capable of true consent than some 21 year-olds, but we don't create laws based on such outliers.
So, in the case of pedophilia, society's laws are an imperfect reflection of our moral sense that children are very likely to be harmed by sexual contact with adults.
As for consensual polygamy among adults (not all practiced polygamy fits this rubric), it's not clear to me that there is any moral objection. This is a case where, I believe the state has decided that it has an interest in limiting people's rights for reasons of its own. Polygamy can cause social problems that are a burden for the state: huge families that depend upon a single male provider. If something happens to him, the rest become a fiscal burden to the state, for example. The other mathematically inevitable consequence of polygamy is discontented males who can't find a wife. They have a way of causing trouble, which creates more social problems.
In contrast, homosexuals who want to get married are actually seeking official permission to renounce promiscuity and to be publicly and legally bound to a single partner. This is an arrangement that harms no one and is regarded by society as a good thing.
It's hard to see why this should be subject to moral or legal condemnation.
Hello Todd! Thanks for the continuing dialogue; I enjoyed reading your comments.
It seems to me that you've shifted the point of the discussion a bit, which is okay. My comment was narrowly focused on the claim that there is some useful parallel between gay marriage and pedophilia, because both are allegedly justified by appeal to "love and equal rights."
The “grounding problem” is not a shift in the discussion but an important and related topic which is why I alluded to it in the original essay. My response above was aimed at raising some questions which I think point out inconsistencies between those who want to appeal to a transcendent, moral law when it comes to pedophilia and yet deny that same law when it comes to marriage. We need to be aware of the logical slippery slope.
You may argue that the moral law was written there by God, and I have no quarrel with that. So no, I don't think that rights are conventions grounded in society.
Where are rights grounded in your view then? In God? If so, should God be consulted when it comes to sexual behavior and marriage? If not, why not? Again, remember I am addressing those who say that marriage can be redefined as society sees fit (i.e. there is no moral or ontological grounding) but then object to pedophilia on arbitrary and inconsistent grounds.
An example of a general moral principle that I think any human being would accept is this: Inflicting harm upon another person is not morally neutral; it is presumptively wrong and must be justified in every case. People can and do differ on what counts as justification, but the general principle is, I believe, universal.
I think you are right most people would agree with this. So is this merely a social convention because “any human being would accept this” or is there something deeper? If the former, there is no objective grounding to it and the fact that most people accept it now is no more relevant than most people accepting now that pedophilia is wrong. If the latter, we should be looking for the moral, transcendent, deeper principle guiding marriage.
It doesn't follow from this that where no one is harmed, no justification is needed. But it does raise the question of why acts that harm no one should be condemned.
Here you are assuming that homosexual behavior brings no harm. I think this is plainly false. This also raises the question of what constitutes “harm.” Are we talking about physical harm? Certain male homosexual practices are clearly physically harmful. This physical harm not only spreads disease and shortens life spans for homosexuals, but also harms society in general through increased medical costs, etc., which everyone must pay for. Why would government put their stamp of approval on an inherently dangerous lifestyle and say it is on equal footing with monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriage?
Are we talking about spiritual harm? Again, I would argue that a twisting of the Creator-creature relationship brings great spiritual harm, as Paul says in Romans 1. Again, this is why I said in the original essay that these discussions go far beyond simply “love” and “equal rights.”
In pedophilia, the risk of harm is very, very high. This is because children lack the cognitive and emotional resources to give true consent. Granted, all children do not mature at the same rate. Standard "age of consent" laws are an imperfect solution. So, in the case of pedophilia, society's laws are an imperfect reflection of our moral sense that children are very likely to be harmed by sexual contact with adults.
I agree! So the question is now whether society’s laws and our moral sense have any deeper, transcendent, meaningful grounding, or if they are simply that: our “society’s laws” and “moral sense.” After all, our “moral sense” and “society’s laws” have differed in different cultures and generations in the past (and there are some who argue that pedophilia isn't harmful at all but beneficial for children). If the former, then society’s laws and our moral sense should also reflect this in dealing with the topic of marriage, and marriage cannot simply be redefined as we see fit. If the latter, then society’s laws and our moral sense can change, making the objection arbitrary and inconsistent.
In contrast, homosexuals who want to get married are actually seeking official permission to renounce promiscuity and to be publicly and legally bound to a single partner. This is an arrangement that harms no one and is regarded by society as a good thing.
Very few homosexuals actually want to get married. And they do not need “official permission” in order to be faithful to one another and renounce promiscuity. This is about public endorsement, validation, and promotion of a lifestyle which in no way is equal to monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriages. The marriage certificate has more to do with the legitimization and validation of their lifestyle then it does with the right to be called a “married couple.” The government has no vested interest in endorsing and legitimizing same-sex marriage.
It's hard to see why this should be subject to moral or legal condemnation.
There is no moral or legal condemnation taking place through the government. Homosexuals are free to enter into relationships. This is about whether the government has any vested interest in promoting this particular lifestyle, which I don’t see that it does.
Hello again, Aaron. First, I want to repeat my reply that I do not hold the view that all rights are merely social conventions. I believe that rights are, for the most part, grounded in the moral law, which is written in our hearts and minds. I really do believe there are moral universals that are intelligible to all rational beings. And as a matter of personal theological conviction, I believe they are there because God put them there.
Very few homosexuals actually want to get married. And they do not need “official permission” in order to be faithful to one another and renounce promiscuity. This is about public endorsement, validation, and promotion of a lifestyle which in no way is equal to monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriages. The marriage certificate has more to do with the legitimization and validation of their lifestyle then it does with the right to be called a “married couple.” The government has no vested interest in endorsing and legitimizing same-sex marriage.
Whether few or many homosexual couples seek marriage is irrelevant. The question is whether the state should permit them to do so or not.
You are correct to point out that no one needs official permission of the state to renounce promiscuity and be faithful. That applies to heterosexuals as well, and indeed many such couples don't marry--although many states eventually regard them as legally married anyway, under "common law marriage" statutes. But you omitted a key part of what I said, which is that married couples want more than the right to be faithful to one another. They want to be legally bound to one another, in a manner that is public and, well, binding. That bindingness is what distinguishes marriage from mere faithful cohabitation.
Analogous example: A person goes to church each Sunday and, without fail, puts $50 in the collection plate. But he never pledges or commits to giving that amount; he just does it. If, on the other hand, he does pledge to give that amount, the end result may be the same but the reality is different. He has publicly bound himself to do it. He has entered into a publicly recognized covenant. Marriage is like that.
Next point: Validation, endorsement, and promotion are not equivalent concepts and must not be used interchangeably. Endorsement means to support something; promotion means to encourage it. Validation means merely to recognize it as valid.
For the state to permit gay marriage is, at most, to validate it. It is not to endorse or promote it. There are many examples of behaviors that are recognized or validated by the state that are in no way endorsed or promoted. In many states, you have the right to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. In no state is this practice endorsed or promoted. In many states, you can get a license to carry a concealed firearm. This means only that the state permits you to do this, not that the state endorses or promotes it. So it is false to say that for the state to permit or recognize gay marriage is to endorse or promote it.
Here you are assuming that homosexual behavior brings no harm. I think this is plainly false. This also raises the question of what constitutes “harm.” Are we talking about physical harm? Certain male homosexual practices are clearly physically harmful. This physical harm not only spreads disease and shortens life spans for homosexuals, but also harms society in general through increased medical costs, etc., which everyone must pay for. Why would government put their stamp of approval on an inherently dangerous lifestyle and say it is on equal footing with monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriage?
I'll need more evidence before accepting the claim that homosexuality is inherently dangerous. There is, to my knowledge, no homosexual act that may not also be practiced by married heterosexuals. The main danger of homosexuality is, I believe, STDs, but this danger is linked to promiscuity, and it is true of heterosexual promiscuity as well.
Hello Todd! I put some of my thoughts below…
First, I want to repeat my reply that I do not hold the view that all rights are merely social conventions. I believe that rights are, for the most part, grounded in the moral law, which is written in our hearts and minds. I really do believe there are moral universals that are intelligible to all rational beings. And as a matter of personal theological conviction, I believe they are there because God put them there.
Fair enough, but then I also want to repeat that the original blog was not directed toward your position. It was directed toward those who are arbitrary and inconsistent in saying “marriage” is not anything in particular and can be defined as society sees fit, but then object to other groups who appeal to “equal rights” and “love” in an effort to see “marriage” defined as they want. Further, that “marriage” is not anything in particular and has no ontological or moral grounding, but “child consent laws” somehow do.
If you want to bring God into the picture, and if you hold that objective morality and concepts such as marriage are grounded in God and the created order, I would ask you what God it is you believe in, how you know this God exists, and why same-sex marriage would be sanctioned in His sight, because I would argue this is not the true God of the Bible.
Whether few or many homosexual couples seek marriage is irrelevant. The question is whether the state should permit them to do so or not.
The fact that very few homosexual couples desire to get married (and yet so many same-sex couples want same-sex marriage legal) is indeed relevant because it shows that the motivation is not marriage itself but the validation, endorsement, and promotion of their relationship and lifestyle. This is why I said that the marriage certificate has more to do with the legitimization and validation of their lifestyle then it does with the right to be called a “married couple.”
But you omitted a key part of what I said, which is that married couples want more than the right to be faithful to one another. They want to be legally bound to one another, in a manner that is public and, well, binding. That bindingness is what distinguishes marriage from mere faithful cohabitation.
First, the fact that same-sex couples desire to be “legally bound” does not entitle them to define marriage as they see fit or force the government to promote their relationship in a legally binding manner. They need to do a lot more work and argumentation than simply announce their desire to be “married.” Second, they don’t need government for this binding and public recognition. Many theologically liberal churches perform public ceremonies for same-sex couples who desire to publically proclaim their commitment to one another. They are held accountable by their church, friends, and family. Third, no-fault divorce and the like are so easy to obtain that it is hard to see how being “legally bound” is in reality any more of a “real” commitment.
Analogous example: A person goes to church each Sunday and, without fail, puts $50 in the collection plate. But he never pledges or commits to giving that amount; he just does it. If, on the other hand, he does pledge to give that amount, the end result may be the same but the reality is different. He has publicly bound himself to do it. He has entered into a publicly recognized covenant. Marriage is like that.
This analogy actually supports my point above. Notice that the person donating to church is not “legally bound” but has only publically bound himself (perhaps to others or the church) and is therefore held accountable. Same-sex couples can do that as well, and in fact they already do. They don’t need government backing or “legal binding” unless they want something more: endorsement, validation, promotion, and government incentives, none of which they are entitled to.
Next point: Validation, endorsement, and promotion are not equivalent concepts and must not be used interchangeably. Endorsement means to support something; promotion means to encourage it. Validation means merely to recognize it as valid.
First, they can be used as synonyms according to the dictionary and thesaurus, even though there may be distinctions in how they are sometimes used, and I was not necessarily using them as synonyms here. But as I said, legalizing same-sex marriage the government would be validating, endorsing, and promoting the relationship (more on this below).
For the state to permit gay marriage is, at most, to validate it. It is not to endorse or promote it. There are many examples of behaviors that are recognized or validated by the state that are in no way endorsed or promoted. In many states, you have the right to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. In no state is this practice endorsed or promoted. In many states, you can get a license to carry a concealed firearm. This means only that the state permits you to do this, not that the state endorses or promotes it. So it is false to say that for the state to permit or recognize gay marriage is to endorse or promote it.
First, it goes beyond mere validation when the government gives benefits and government incentives to married couples. The government has three positions it can take: prohibit, permit, or promote. The case of marriage is one of promotion since there are government backed incentives, e.g., tax breaks, etc., for married couples. This is promotion plain and simple. It encourages, i.e. promotes, same-sex couples to get married.
Second, the analogies you offer are false analogies. The examples of riding a motorcycle without a helmet and carrying a concealed weapon are examples where the government permits certain behaviors. There are no government incentives, tax breaks, benefits, etc. for engaging in these activities as there are with marriage, so the analogies do not hold.
I'll need more evidence before accepting the claim that homosexuality is inherently dangerous.
Though there are issues both with male and female homosexuality, I was referring here to the danger of certain male homosexual practices which a majority of male homosexuals practice. There has been plenty of research and studies on this. NARTH has quite a few links to medical and research studies documenting this which you can find here:
Medical Issues
As well as clinical studies here:
Clinical Studies
Again, why would government put their stamp of approval on an inherently dangerous lifestyle and say it is on equal footing with monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriage? Or will the government endorse same-sex marriage but tell them not to engage in certain dangerous sexual behavior???
There is, to my knowledge, no homosexual act that may not also be practiced by married heterosexuals. The main danger of homosexuality is, I believe, STDs, but this danger is linked to promiscuity, and it is true of heterosexual promiscuity as well.
First, if heterosexuals engage in unhealthy and physically destructive sexual practices that doesn’t somehow legitimize homosexuals doing the same. What it does is demonstrate that heterosexuals should not be engaging in them either. Furthermore, married heterosexual couples are not nearly as promiscuous nor do they engage in destructive sexual practices as often as homosexual couples do.
Second, the danger is not only STD’s and promiscuity but also male homosexual practices such as anal sex which are physically destructive to the human body. The dangers of this practice are not cured by “safe sex” or “faithfulness to one partner.” In fact, the dangers can be even greater for committed homosexual couples since many of them testify to forfeiting the use of condoms in order to achieve more “intimacy.” This means that things like fecal matter and sperm have a much greater chance of entering the blood stream through the anal cavity wall which tears very easily since it is not designed like the vagina. Repeated anal sex only exacerbates the problem.
Third, I also noted that “harm” does not necessarily mean physical harm alone, but even more importantly, spiritual harm. I would like to know your own religious convictions (e.g., if you consider yourself a Christian) and how practicing homosexual behavior is not spiritually harmful on your religious view.
If you want to bring God into the picture, and if you hold that objective morality and concepts such as marriage are grounded in God and the created order, I would ask you what God it is you believe in, how you know this God exists, and why same-sex marriage would be sanctioned in His sight, because I would argue this is not the true God of the Bible.
My "bringing God into the picture" was simply a reply to your question about whether I think rights are mere social conventions. I don't think that. When Socrates said that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it, he didn't have to appeal to scripture. We don't need scripture to understand moral universals. You seem to think that the only way God can be relevant to morality is through scripture. I don't agree. I think a reasonable case for God's existence is available via natural theology, but that would be an extreme digression in our discussion here.
The fact that very few homosexual couples desire to get married (and yet so many same-sex couples want same-sex marriage legal) is indeed relevant because it shows that the motivation is not marriage itself but the validation, endorsement, and promotion of their relationship and lifestyle. This is why I said that the marriage certificate has more to do with the legitimization and validation of their lifestyle then it does with the right to be called a “married couple.”
Insofar as motivations matter, the motivations of the people in the movement to legalize gay marriage are no doubt different from those of the gay people actually seeking to get married. I've been more concerned with the latter than the former.
First, the fact that same-sex couples desire to be “legally bound” does not entitle them to define marriage as they see fit or force the government to promote their relationship in a legally binding manner.
It entitles them to challenge the existing legal definition of marriage and to demand justification for why that definition should not be extended to include them. And that's what they're doing.
Second, they don’t need government for this binding and public recognition.
They need it for it to be legally binding. And that added dimension means something to them. That's the whole point.
Many theologically liberal churches perform public ceremonies for same-sex couples who desire to publically proclaim their commitment to one another. They are held accountable by their church, friends, and family.
Yes, and some have argued that perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and deal only with civil unions, leaving marriage as a kind of religious overlay for the various religious bodies to deal with as they see fit. Is this a view that you would defend?
Third, no-fault divorce and the like are so easy to obtain that it is hard to see how being “legally bound” is in reality any more of a “real” commitment.
This is much an argument against state involvement in heterosexual marriage as it is an argument against gay marriage.
First, it goes beyond mere validation when the government gives benefits and government incentives to married couples. The government has three positions it can take: prohibit, permit, or promote. The case of marriage is one of promotion since there are government backed incentives, e.g., tax breaks, etc., for married couples. This is promotion plain and simple. It encourages, i.e. promotes, same-sex couples to get married.
Okay, I'll concede the point. Tax breaks provide an incentive to marriage, gay or straight. So the question is, Is there sufficient reason to deny this incentive to gay couples?
Though there are issues both with male and female homosexuality, I was referring here to the danger of certain male homosexual practices which a majority of male homosexuals practice. There has been plenty of research and studies on this. NARTH has quite a few links to medical and research studies documenting this which you can find here:
I had a look through these resources, almost all of which deal with the dangers of promiscuity. But I'm not disputing the point that promiscuity is dangerous. It's not, however, very relevant to this discussion of marriage.
Interestingly, there is a single reference to an alleged correlation between anal intercourse and rectal cancer. That source is cited in http://narth.com/docs/healthrisks.html. The source is a single paper by J. Diggs, published in something called the "Corporate Research Council." The supplied link doesn't work, but I was able to find the original article, which cites Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing
patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology,
139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994) as its source. I'm so far unable to find the original article to see what it has to say. The fact that it's published in an epidemiology journal, however, suggests that's it's an observational population study, which would be useless for reaching conclusions about the admittedly small number of monogamous gay men.
I don't dispute the claim that the "gay lifestyle" as practiced by many (probably great majority) of gay men poses serious health risks. But we're discussing the small number who actually want to follow a different kind of gay lifestyle. So the question is: Why wouldn't the state, or anybody else, want to recognize and incentivize that?
Third, I also noted that “harm” does not necessarily mean physical harm alone, but even more importantly, spiritual harm. I would like to know your own religious convictions (e.g., if you consider yourself a Christian) and how practicing homosexual behavior is not spiritually harmful on your religious view.
I don't claim to know much about spiritual harm. I suppose many homosexuals would say that they find it very spiritually damaging to be told that the kind of attraction that feels natural to them is an abomination. But you'll have to ask them.
I'm pretty sure it's not the business of the state to legislate against spiritual harm. I respect the right of religious bodies to make their own determination about such things. When Catholics get divorced (civil), the Catholic Church doesn't recognize them as divorced. That's their right, to treat marriage as they see fit. Likewise, if civil gay marriage is legal, many churches may refuse to recognize the marriage, and I have no problem with that.
Let me ask this: What exactly is it that you, personally, would like those gay people who seek legal marriage to do? Is it your view that they should simply get a blessing from a liberal church and live together monogamously as if married? If not that, then what?
Hello Todd! Thank you again for taking the time to write out your thoughts. This has been an interesting discussion and I enjoy reading your comments. I am actually surprised there have not been more comments on this blog considering its controversial nature.
My "bringing God into the picture" was simply a reply to your question about whether I think rights are mere social conventions. I don't think that.
I realize you don’t think that Todd and I believe that is a good thing. But I think you are still missing the point. The point was that my original post was not a critique of your position, as I mentioned in my last reply. So appealing to God to ground morality is fine if that is your position, but in doing so you have effectively prevented yourself from offering any substantial response to my critique. Remember, it was directed toward those who are arbitrary and inconsistent in saying “marriage” is not anything in particular and can be defined as society sees fit, but then object to other groups who appeal to “equal rights” and “love” in an effort to see “marriage” defined as they want. Further, that “marriage” is not anything in particular and has no ontological or moral grounding, but “child consent laws” somehow do. As of yet, you have not provided any reasons that my original critique is not sound, you have only made clear that my original critique does not apply to your view, which I readily concede.
When Socrates said that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it, he didn't have to appeal to scripture. We don't need scripture to understand moral universals.
I agree, but here I think you are confusing epistemology and ontology. The question is not whether or not we can know or recognize “moral universals” apart from Scripture. We certainly can, whether Christian or not. The question is how we ground these “moral universals.” The only appropriate ontological grounding, as I see it, is God. Otherwise we are left with ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism.
You seem to think that the only way God can be relevant to morality is through scripture. I don't agree.
I don’t agree either. That is not my position.
I think a reasonable case for God's existence is available via natural theology, but that would be an extreme digression in our discussion here.
First, yes, I think it would be a digression. And I also think there are certain truths we can glean from general revelation, namely that God exists and we are guilty before Him.
Second, if you acknowledge that we can know something of God via natural theology, why don’t you also acknowledge we can know something of the proper function and role of male/female sexual unions via a natural teleology? Isn’t it obvious that not all sexual unions are created equal?
Third, I don’t think your responses given here show my original question to be irrelevant. Since you ground morality in God, and since homosexuality and same-sex marriage are real moral issues which involve moral behavior, I would still ask you, “If you hold that objective morality and concepts such as marriage are grounded in God and the created order, I would ask you what God it is you believe in, how you know this God exists, and why same-sex marriage would be sanctioned in His sight, because I would argue this is not the true God of the Bible.”
It entitles them to challenge the existing legal definition of marriage and to demand justification for why that definition should not be extended to include them. And that's what they're doing.
First, they are not merely challenging the legal definition of marriage, but the natural definition of marriage which our legal definition is based on. Our legal definition of marriage as between man and woman is really a description of the most basic institution of our society. “Marriage” and “family” must exist before society can exist, and since they are logically prior, it is not society’s prerogative to define marriage or family as they see fit. Marriage is a description of man and woman because it is man and woman who produce children, and it is children which make society able to exist and persist. Our legal definition of “marriage” describes this natural institution, and it is this institution which government has a vested interest in protecting because heterosexual, long-term, monogamous marriage are the best environments for raising children.
Second, because what they are doing is seeking to redefine the institution of marriage, the burden of proof is not on the government to argue against every possible conception of “marriage” imaginable so that same-sex couples can “demand justification.” The burden of proof is on same-sex marriage advocates as to why their relationship should be considered “marriage” and on equal footing with monogamous heterosexual marriage. The government has a vested interest in monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriage because they produce the next generation (children) and are (in general) the healthiest environments for raising children. This is why I said they need to do a lot more work and argumentation than simply announce their desire to be “married.” Furthermore, the definition of marriage does extend to them in the sense that any homosexual can get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no unequal protection under the law.
Third, your position seems to be inconsistent. On the one hand, you say you believe morality is grounded in God and so you deflect my critique regarding the inconsistency and arbitrariness of most same-sex marriage advocates. On the other hand, you seem to be defending same-sex marriage advocates who want to redefine marriage as they see fit. Concepts such as morality and marriage are either grounded in God and His created order or they are not. If they are, what is your basis for defending same-sex marriage advocates? If they aren’t, how do you escape the critique of inconsistency and arbitrariness?
They need it for it to be legally binding. And that added dimension means something to them. That's the whole point.
You are right! This is the whole point. It means something to them because a “legally binding” marriage is one which brings with it “society’s approval.” It brings legitimization, validation, and endorsement. But again, the fact that this “means something to them” is in itself not substantial enough to justify the redefinition of marriage for all. There is no legal inequality here, only an inequality of desire, and desire is not a concern of the state when it comes to marriage.
Yes, and some have argued that perhaps the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and deal only with civil unions, leaving marriage as a kind of religious overlay for the various religious bodies to deal with as they see fit. Is this a view that you would defend?
This I think would be a digression, and there are different views even within the Christian community. What we are dealing with now is the fact that government is in the marriage business, whether we like it or not.
This is much an argument against state involvement in heterosexual marriage as it is an argument against gay marriage.
No, it is an argument against no-fault divorce, not government involvement in heterosexual marriage. Government has a vested interest in monogamous, long-term, heterosexual marriage, and because they do, they should not at the same time permit things which too easily allow the breakdown of the family unit, such as no-fault divorce.
Okay, I'll concede the point. Tax breaks provide an incentive to marriage, gay or straight. So the question is, Is there sufficient reason to deny this incentive to gay couples?
I think your question here is again worded incorrectly. You are again attempting to place the burden of proof on government, as if government needed to bear the burden by arguing why every conceivable view of “marriage” should not be extended marriage incentives. In your comments to this point I don’t think you have even begun to actually build a positive case for why government should acknowledge same-sex marriage as on equal footing with heterosexual marriage. Instead, you have continually asked the question, “Why not same-sex marriage?” The answer is simple: because unequals should not be treated equally, and calling same-sex unions “marriage” would be communicating the idea that there is no meaningful difference between them and long-term, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
I had a look through these resources, almost all of which deal with the dangers of promiscuity. But I'm not disputing the point that promiscuity is dangerous. It's not, however, very relevant to this discussion of marriage.
I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion unless you only took a cursory look at some of the links and resources. Promiscuous gay sex is certainly more dangerous, but there is inherent danger in monogamous gay sex as well. I don’t think this should be controversial at all. This is basic anatomy/physiology. Remember, this part of the discussion started because you brought up the concept of “harm.” You stated that pedophilia was harmful while homosexuality is not. In response, I would again argue that homosexuality is harmful, physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc, and so it is relevant to marriage since government would be endorsing these harmful effects by calling it “marriage” and offering incentives.
Interestingly, there is a single reference to an alleged correlation between anal intercourse and rectal cancer.
Rectal cancer is not the only inherent danger associated with male homosexual behavior. Remember, these are inherent dangers of homosexual sex, not only promiscuous homosexual sex. There is harm being done in numerous ways. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover goes into more detail in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth:
"Even if condoms are used, anal intercourse is harmful primarily to the “receptive” partner. Because the rectal sphincter is designed to stretch only minimally, penile-anal thrusting can damage it severely…Thus gay males have a disproportionate incidence of acute rectal trauma as well as of rectal incontinence (the inability to control the passing of feces) and anal cancer.
Furthermore, anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of rectal lining. These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass as it is prepared for expulsion by the slow contractions of the bowel and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream. Although relatively monogamous gay couples are at lower risk for AIDS, they tend to engage in unprotected anal intercourse more frequently than do highly polygamous single homosexuals. As a result, they are at higher risk for non-AIDS conditions.
Because receptive anal intercourse is so much more frequent among homosexual men than among women, the dangers of this kind of sex are amplified among homosexuals. Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom.
As a result, homosexual men are disproportionately vulnerable to a host of serious and sometimes fatal infections caused by the entry of feces into the bloodstream. These include hepatitis B and the cluster of otherwise rare conditions, such as shigellosis and Giardia lamblia infection, which together have been known as 'Gay Bowel Syndrome'" (67-68).
Again, this is basic anatomy/physiology. Is this not obvious to you Todd? Is it not obvious that when you place the sexual organ designed to create life into an orifice that is designed to expel poison from the body, bad things can happen? Is it not obvious to you that same-sex relationships and the sexual behavior it involves is not equal to heterosexual sexual behavior where the reproductive systems are actually complimentary and are designed for a goal or purpose?
The fact that it's published in an epidemiology journal, however, suggests that's it's an observational population study, which would be useless for reaching conclusions about the admittedly small number of monogamous gay men.
I think you are missing the point here. You need to look at the science behind the studies as well as the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Again, the danger of such behavior has to do with the act itself, not promiscuity. Satinover lists quite a number of references for the information in the above quote:
See Miles, Allen-Mersh, Wastell, “Effect of Anorecptive Intercourse on Anorectal Function,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86, no. 3 (March 1993), pp. 144-147; (See Fenger, “Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies,” Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3 (August 1991), pp. 190-201; Daling et al., “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 16 (15 October 1987), pp. 973-77; Holly et al., “Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 22 (November 1989), pp. 1726-31; Daling et al., “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (9 April 1982), pp. 1988-90; Cooper, Patchefsky, Marks, “Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases,” Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8 (1979), pp. 557-558; McKusick et al., “Longitudinal Predictors of Reductions in Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Gay Men in San Francisco: The AIDS Behavioral Research Project,” American Journal of Public Health 80, no. 8 (August 1990), pp. 978-983.
I don't dispute the claim that the "gay lifestyle" as practiced by many (probably great majority) of gay men poses serious health risks. But we're discussing the small number who actually want to follow a different kind of gay lifestyle. So the question is: Why wouldn't the state, or anybody else, want to recognize and incentivize that?
First, what is this “different kind of gay lifestyle” that you are referring to and why isn’t it harmful? And who is following this lifestyle? “Monogamous gay sex” is not equivalent to “safe sex.” Second, why should marriage be redefined for all based on this “small number”? And how is same-sex “marriage” equal to heterosexual marriage in that they should both be classified as “marriage”? Third, what vested interest does government have in promoting these relationships as it does with long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationships? As I mentioned earlier, as of yet you have not built a positive case for same-sex marriage.
I don't claim to know much about spiritual harm. I suppose many homosexuals would say that they find it very spiritually damaging to be told that the kind of attraction that feels natural to them is an abomination. But you'll have to ask them.
I am sure that pedophiles, polygamists, polyamorists, etc., would also say that they “find it very spiritually damaging to be told that the kind of attraction that feels natural to them is an abomination.” But what follows from this? Certainly not the legitimization or morality of the lifestyle. You should be concerned with spiritual harm Todd, and what God has to say about issues such as this, especially if you are going to ground morality in God, as you say you do.
I'm pretty sure it's not the business of the state to legislate against spiritual harm.
The state is not legislating against spiritual harm by denying same-sex marriage. What they are doing is choosing not to promote it. That is a very big and very important difference.
Let me ask this: What exactly is it that you, personally, would like those gay people who seek legal marriage to do? Is it your view that they should simply get a blessing from a liberal church and live together monogamously as if married? If not that, then what?
To be honest I don’t think this question is very relevant. They can do those things if they so desire, the government permits them to do so, and I’m certainly not going to stop them. Of course my ultimate hope would be the same for them as for all people: that they would repent of their sin, seek forgiveness from God, and become a new creation in Christ Jesus.
Post a Comment