Image via Wikipedia
New York recently passed a law legalizing same sex marriage, which once again brought the matter into the public eye. Opponents trotted out the stock appeal to tradition and also made the slightly better argument that passing the law would have dire consequences.
Although I am in favor of legalizing same sex marriage and think that the arguments for it are compelling, as a philosopher I think I am obligated to consider the best possible opposing arguments.
One stock argument is the appeal to tradition: marriage has always/for a long time been between a man and a woman, so same sex marriage should be illegal. As noted above, this line of reasoning is fallacious. The mere fact that X has been around a long time does not make it right. After all, slavery was an accepted practice for a very long time, yet it hardly seems reasonable to accept that it is correct. Also, the “traditional” marriage that people point to is not, in fact, the traditional form of marriage. Marriage as practiced in 21st century western countries is rather different from what was practiced 100 or even 50 years ago, let alone in biblical times.
A second stock argument is the slippery slope argument: if same sex marriage is allowed, then people will then be allowed to marry turtles, dolphins, trees, cats or iPads. Since this would be bad/absurd, same sex marriage should not be allowed. Obviously, this slippery slope is a fallacy since the folks who claim these dire results do not make the causal link needed to infer, for example, that allowing same sex marriage will lead to people marrying goats. Also, a slippery slope argument could be made against allowing same sex marriage: if we allow different sex people to marry, the next thing you know, same sex couples will get married and then people will be marrying flying fish. Since this is absurd, by parity of reasoning the original argument would seem to be absurd as well.
A third stock argument is the religious argument, namely that God forbids same sex activities of this sort. One problem is that if the religious argument is accepted as the basis of law, then the same principle would need to apply across the board. So, for example, there should be laws against unclean foods (like lobster) and it should be legal to stone disobedient children to death. Imposing such religious laws would seem far more harmful than allowing same sex marriage. Another obvious problem is that God is a big boy and He gets what He wants. If he did not want people to be gay, there would presumably be no gay people. In any case, if God does exist, surely He’d pop in and let us know what He thinks about a matter so obviously important to Him. At the very least, He’d throw down a smite or burn a bush.
A fourth stock argument is the procreation argument: marriage is for procreation, same sex couples cannot procreate, therefore they should not be allowed to marry. The stock reply is that straight people who do not or cannot have children are still allowed to marry. Consistency would require that if same sex marriage is banned on these grounds, then straight couples who cannot or will not produce offspring must be denied marriage. This seems absurd.
A fifth stock argument is the moral argument: being gay is evil, evil people should not be allowed t0 marry, so same sex marriage should not be allowed. As with the procreation argument, the obvious flaw is that there are plenty of evil straight people and they are not denied the right to marry on this basis. A person who is a convicted rapist, mass murderer, serial killer, and arsonist can still get married. On a less extreme note, liars, cheats, bullies, and petty thieves can also get married. As such, this argument has little merit.
A sixth catch all argument is the consequence argument: allowing same sex marriage will have dire consequence D, inflicting D is wrong, therefor same sex marriage is wrong. This argument is the strongest of the lot and does have a certain appeal. After all, if same sex marriage were to cause dire harms, then it would seem reasonable to ban it on the same grounds that dangerous things like alcohol and tobacco are banned. I mean, rather on the same grounds that dangerous things like cars and junk food are banned. Um, I mean on the same grounds that heroin and driving drunk are banned.
The main problem with these sorts of arguments lies not with the reasoning or the moral theory (consequentialism). The main problem is that they all seem to suffer from false or dubious premises. Some examples include that it has been claimed that allowing same sex marriage will lead to anarchy, that it will destroy marriage, that it will harm children and so on. However, these claims never seem to stand up to scrutiny. That said, if a harm can be shown and this harm outweighs the benefits of allowing same sex marriage, then it could be argued that it should be banned on the basis of the harm principle. However, the harm has to be properly established and it needs to be the right sort of harm. After all, if some people claim that legalizing same sex marriage will make them very sad, that is not adequate. If it can be shown, for example, that anarchy and chaos will result, then that should suffice.
Good post. I’d just like to ask that, as a philosopher, you treat the term “anarchy” with more care. It is not synonymous with chaos and riots and rape, and has a tradition of thought which deserves respect.
Mike,
One argument you’ve overlooked—the one I find most difficult to rebut—is that gay marriage is just repugnant, and therefore immoral. The analogy is to consensual sex between an adult brother and sister who use birth control (and thus are not interested in, and actively trying to prevent, pregnancy). It’s very difficult to come up with a rational argument why this is wrong, or find a general principle under which such an act would be wrong, that couldn’t then be used by the opponent of gay marriage. Many people just find this “disgusting”, and therefore morally wrong. It’s not exactly an argument, but it’s also hard to counter.
Like you, I think gay marriage should be legal, and the arguments for it are compelling. But I take this to be the best argument against it.
That’s a good point, Corey. On the ‘disgust’ point I think a good example is the thought of your parents having sex.
Now, visualise that as vividly as you can and it would seem rather disgusting. But that disgustingness is distinguishable from thoughts about it being ‘wrong’. You couldn’t wish that as your parents having sex is wrong that they never had sex as you’d be wishing yourself out of existence.
Also I suppose, some racist persons might have appealed to feelings of disgust as a reason to outlaw interracial marriage. Nevertheless, we dismiss it as an insufficiently weighty reason. I think the real problem with showing that disgustingness isn’t a good reason for banning gay marriage is when you’re trying to reason with people in a community where the vast majority do in fact find it disgusting (e.g. highly religious states).
Mike
‘being gay is evil, evil people should not be allowed to marry, so same sex marriage should not be allowed’
Is the fact that “there are plenty of evil straight people and they are not denied the right to marry on this basis” any kind of flaw in this argument, never mind the obvious one? The ‘oughts’ aren’t defeated by the “is”, that is, the normative claims aren’t disproven by the factual one. Noting that some evil people can presently marry does not argue for allowing even more ‘evil’ people to marry. Consistency does indeed require the proponent of such an ‘argument’ to commit to the claim that the rapist, mass murderer and serial killer should be deprived of the right to marry that he presently enjoys. But proving that Bigot Bob should also actively campaign against the rights of serial killers to marry does not show Bob is wrong to campaign against gay marriage. And commitment to “rapists and serial killers must be denied marriage” is quite unlike commitment to “straight couples who cannot or will not produce offspring must be denied marriage.” – the former does not show that the ‘logic’ behind banning gay marriage leads to absurdity in anything like the same way.
Absolutely the ‘moral’ argument has little (I’d say “no”) merit, but surely “being gay is evil” is a much more obvious flaw than the consequences of assenting to “evil people should not be allowed to marry”?
Corey
Who says you need a rational argument for why what goes on consensually between two (closely related) adults is wrong? That it is ‘disgusting’ to all but the two adults involved is no argument – at all – for the claim that their private actions are morally wrong. There are arguments that can be raised regarding the morality of incest but ‘yuk’ isn’t something you need ‘counter’.
I consider this a question for the religiously inclined to debate in their religious arenas.
As far as a civil partnership goes, it only needs sanctioning if there is a legal status attached to the married state.
I say who cares, and repeal all legal benefits of marriage at the same time.
At least gay couples won’t burden the world with yet more unwanted children..unless they can afford very expensive medical style conceptions. In which case the child will be very much wanted, one supposes.
In response to Mike, the counter attack to the argument shouldn’t be that one replies to an ought with an is. Rather, the argument should be a charge against the consistency and scope of their argument. If they say that evil people shouldn’t get married, then they’d have to write off marriage for cheats and liars too. Rather, the anti-gay marriage folks just focus on gay marriage, not anti-evil marriage. Therefore, they’re being inconsistent in their application of the law since the scope of the argument proves much more than they’d probably like.
“If they say that evil people shouldn’t get married, then they’d have to write off marriage for cheats and liars too.”
Only if they say “cheats and liars” are evil people, as opposed to saying that lying and cheating are evil.
I think you are ignoring more sophisticated arguments against gay marriage. While the arguments you listed are the criticisms one is most likely to encounter watching pundits debate on cable news or in an op-ed written by a politician opposed to gay marriage, they are also the easiest to counter because they tend to lack substance and appeal to popular misconceptions, as you noted.
The Catholic Church (through both its clerical leadership and its lay advocates) has been very outspoken in its opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. The Church considers homosexuality a natural condition, given by God. However, the Church is opposed to all forms of sodomy and sex purely for pleasure, so homosexuals are encouraged to embrace chastity. That’s just a theological position, and not really part of what is being discussed here, but it gives the context for the Church’s position on homosexuality in general.
In essence, the Church is opposed to modern marriage. The notion of marrying for the love of an individual, as opposed to marrying to procreate and raise a family, does not fit into traditional Catholic theology very well. Catholic teaching states that people are called to marriage by God so they may have children. If a spouse is found to lack the ability to have children, the marriage may be annulled.
This is consistent with Plato’s view of love: that it must not be focused on an erotic attraction to the other, but on a spiritual orientation to the divine. In the case of Catholic marriage, that orientation is achieved through parenthood and the experience of agape within the family.
I personally think that this is all fine and well for the Catholic Church, but that Catholics are wrong to advocate for laws defending a view of marriage that has been on the decline since the Enlightenment. I suppose they would counter that their responsibility is to protect their religion and encourage others to accept it.
It’s an archaic argument, and it is often quickly dismissed as the Church trying to tamper in areas where it does not belong in American society. Nevertheless, it is an argument worth considering because it touches on the antipathy many feel toward modern culture, which I think is the real reason that inspires most people to oppose gay marriage. They reach for the other arguments because the debate is taking place in a post-Enlightenment society, where medieval ideas won’t resonate.
Maybe I’m branching from Will’s point, but let’s say I want gay couples to have all legal rights that married couples have with the exception of being called married. Do the church(s) and religious married couples required to call gay couples married by law? If so, why is that right or wrong?
Gay marriage should not be allowed as it overlooks the religion, religion if forbids to eat pork and people don’t abide it does not mean that another curse be legalized…i.e. allowing 2nd violation on the basis of 1st violation, further cigar and alcohol consequences have medical cure but same sex marriage AIDS is still without cure which spreads in all around but not cigar & alcohol, Slavery was not allowed although not disallowed as well but gay is disallowed. Allowing legal marriage with animals is also going away from religion like gay marriage which is absurd according to you not according to one getting married…like gay is absurd for me…couples who can’t procreate is having one of them physically deficient,,,keeping it legalizing is helping physically deficient people like helping blind, deaf and dumb which religion do not forbids but gay is what it forbids however religion do not enforce to get married with such physically deficient person. What evils does straight couple is forbidden in religion while gay is on wrong path with positive thinking a total violation of religion. Marriage is for having children to contribute in society and not to enjoy sex with wife or husband while gay can’t produce further sex between them is having only one purpose enjoyment knowing this act will produce nothing for society.
Curious,
I’ve enjoyed following this discussion. I’m just curious about the arguments that you say can be raised against incest (‘yuk’ not being one of them). Since, as in the example mentioned in one of the comments, it is between two consenting adults, who take the requisite measures to prevent pregnancy, what are the possible arguments?
well from a personal perspective, I really don’t fancy my sisters..and never did, and as for mother..Ye gods. No way.
I think one can discount it on the basis of sheer bad taste…
Lata,
To be honest I can’t think of any good argument for prohibiting consensual sexual relations between adults who happen to be related by blood. To religious objectors we could point out that there is plenty of incest in the Old Testament. Indeed I suppose, there’s no good reason to stop brothers and sisters marrying – this was fine in the royal families of Rome and so on. And given the equal rights we give to homosexuals why indeed shouldn’t brothers marry each other. The rationale behind the ban on polygamy eludes me too. As long as its all between consensual adults why not?
So it turns out that most of our distaste for something comes from earlier practice (or tradition), which when it began must have had some basis in some rationale, probably lost over time.
There are sound medical reasons why not.
Is it immoral to perpetuate weakness? or to breed idiots?
Autre temps. Autre moeurs.
Leo
Sorry I didn’t see your comment, yes I guess that just the fact that most people did not find their siblings attractive (but why not? animals do) might have played a part.
Occasionally I have come across stories in the paper of adult siblings who have been prosecuted for conducting consensual sexual relations. This has always struck me as wrong. Beyond the birth defect argument, I have heard vague arguments against incest along the lines of it destroying family structures and so on. Nothing I personally found very persuasive but I think i meant to nod to the existence of those arguments earlier. But I don’t think I’ve come across anything that justifies sending adults who engage in consensual sexual relationships to prison (as used to occur to homosexual men in my lifetime). I can see there being societal benefits and evolutionary advantage in the general disgust towards incest but I see no cause for today’s legal system to jail consenting adults for engaging in sexual activity.
The ‘birth defects’ argument may work in the absence of birth control, and for those who remain persuaded by the force of that argument there are a range of people with genetic disorders who should, by that rationale, be banned from copulating or marrying either generally or with persons who also carry such and such a gene. ‘Is it immoral to perpetuate weakness? or to breed idiots?’ Is Eugenics a good idea?
Leo,
I mentioned just the sex part, not the reproduction. Why would that be wrong?
Curious
I agree with you. As you say it might have had an evolutionary advantage. But on ethical grounds I simply cannot see a reason to stop people from doing it for the very same reasons that we allow gay sex.
Hi Lata,
I wondered if this might interest you.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3061
regards,
Curious
@Corey:
“It’s very difficult to come up with a rational argument why this is wrong, or find a general principle under”
Well did you ever think that it just isn’t wrong?
I for one don’t really care who people have sex with so long as they aren’t raping anyone. Sure I’m not into that, but so what if you are?