I'm a debater. I like debating. Ask anyone that knew me at any point of my public education career. I was on the debate team in high school. I have made much progress in moving from the immature mindset of arguing with anyone about anything (even when I am made to argue against the position that I personally hold) to the slightly more mature stage of only arguing things that I feel strongly about. Also, I try not to make it a personal thing anymore, allowing emotions to take a large part of the debate, but to argue the points themselves and use mostly logic rather than sensation to debate.
At any rate, a friend of mine posted this article on Facebook today. I read it and would like to post my rebuttal here.
First off, the author states that "It is a mistake, however, to think that the same-sex marriage movement is aimed primarily at acquiring the material benefits and legal prerogatives that accompany publicly recognized marriage. The aim, rather, is equality of public recognition or approval." and uses as evidence to support this claim the fight in California over Proposition 8. In California, gay couples in domestic partnerships have all of the same legal right and benefits that straight couples in marriages have (I have to admit here that I have not done my due diligence in the matter to ascertain whether this claim is true, but even if it is not true, I will concede the point for the sake of this argument). Therefore, since no legal benefit is to be gained by allowing same-sex marriage in California, gay rights activists can only be after equality of recognition. This argument makes the hasty generalization that since this is the case in California that therefore it is the motivation for all activists and for the effort being made in all states. It is also quite possible that it is only some of the activists in some states, such as California, that have this as their main motivation. In many states, laws such as those that exist in California are not in force and therefore pushing to have the same legal rights and privileges would then become part of the push for legalizing gay marriage.
The next issue that I would like to rebut is what I feel is the main argument in this article. The author points out that the statement "homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law" is either true or it is false. If it is true, then making homosexual marriage have equal recognition with heterosexual marriage only damages society by recognizing something that is in fact immoral. If it is false, then equal recognition of homosexual marriage contributes nothing to a same-sex couple, since happiness comes not by social recognition nor appearance, but rather by obedience to natural law. The issue that I have with this is not the logic (since this logic is sound), but with the author's conclusion. The author concludes from this argument that therefore efforts to legalize gay marriage are fruitless. I propose a more logical conclusion.
The same argument applies to heterosexual marriage. Let us repeat the argument with "homosexual" or "gay" replaced by "heterosexual" in every occurrence. That is, the statement "heterosexual activity is contrary to the natural law" is either true or false. (I am completely willing to concede that this statement is false, but for the sake of parallelism I will consider both cases.) If it is true, then social recognition of heterosexual marriage (which is what we have now) does nothing but damage society by recognizing something that is in fact immoral. If it is false, then socially recognizing heterosexual marriage (as it is currently recognized) is meaningless, since happiness comes not by social recognition but rather by obedience to natural law. Therefore, it should also be concluded that social recognition of heterosexual marriage is meaningless. So, the conclusion should be that marriage itself is meaningless--if a couple wish to join together in commitment and dedication, they should do so without any worry of what society thinks of them, but rather be content in knowing that each partner is dedicated to the other.
So, if the argument in this article against the quest for equal social recognition for homosexual marriage is to be accepted, then the same argument for heterosexual marriage must also be accepted and therefore marriage should be deprecated.
At any rate, a friend of mine posted this article on Facebook today. I read it and would like to post my rebuttal here.
First off, the author states that "It is a mistake, however, to think that the same-sex marriage movement is aimed primarily at acquiring the material benefits and legal prerogatives that accompany publicly recognized marriage. The aim, rather, is equality of public recognition or approval." and uses as evidence to support this claim the fight in California over Proposition 8. In California, gay couples in domestic partnerships have all of the same legal right and benefits that straight couples in marriages have (I have to admit here that I have not done my due diligence in the matter to ascertain whether this claim is true, but even if it is not true, I will concede the point for the sake of this argument). Therefore, since no legal benefit is to be gained by allowing same-sex marriage in California, gay rights activists can only be after equality of recognition. This argument makes the hasty generalization that since this is the case in California that therefore it is the motivation for all activists and for the effort being made in all states. It is also quite possible that it is only some of the activists in some states, such as California, that have this as their main motivation. In many states, laws such as those that exist in California are not in force and therefore pushing to have the same legal rights and privileges would then become part of the push for legalizing gay marriage.
The next issue that I would like to rebut is what I feel is the main argument in this article. The author points out that the statement "homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law" is either true or it is false. If it is true, then making homosexual marriage have equal recognition with heterosexual marriage only damages society by recognizing something that is in fact immoral. If it is false, then equal recognition of homosexual marriage contributes nothing to a same-sex couple, since happiness comes not by social recognition nor appearance, but rather by obedience to natural law. The issue that I have with this is not the logic (since this logic is sound), but with the author's conclusion. The author concludes from this argument that therefore efforts to legalize gay marriage are fruitless. I propose a more logical conclusion.
The same argument applies to heterosexual marriage. Let us repeat the argument with "homosexual" or "gay" replaced by "heterosexual" in every occurrence. That is, the statement "heterosexual activity is contrary to the natural law" is either true or false. (I am completely willing to concede that this statement is false, but for the sake of parallelism I will consider both cases.) If it is true, then social recognition of heterosexual marriage (which is what we have now) does nothing but damage society by recognizing something that is in fact immoral. If it is false, then socially recognizing heterosexual marriage (as it is currently recognized) is meaningless, since happiness comes not by social recognition but rather by obedience to natural law. Therefore, it should also be concluded that social recognition of heterosexual marriage is meaningless. So, the conclusion should be that marriage itself is meaningless--if a couple wish to join together in commitment and dedication, they should do so without any worry of what society thinks of them, but rather be content in knowing that each partner is dedicated to the other.
So, if the argument in this article against the quest for equal social recognition for homosexual marriage is to be accepted, then the same argument for heterosexual marriage must also be accepted and therefore marriage should be deprecated.
I'm the friend in question, and I'm a reluctant recruit in the culture war. Still, I feel it's my duty to stand and try to clarify the issue, not in hopes of converting those on the other side, but in hopes of strengthening those on my side.
ReplyDeleteI can point to one flaw in the reasoning, and that is that societies and individuals both benefit from following the natural law. Traditional marriage, which establishes a stable home with gender-diverse parents is a clear, proven benefit to society, and it is in the interests of society to uphold it.
You may argue that homosexual relationships are of equal value, and should be sanctioned and celebrated by society. That we could debate separately; you know that my position is that homosexual behavior violates the natural law, deprives children of their rights to be raised by their natural parents, and is destructive to those who participate in it.
You're correct in your final point; as an individual, my marriage does not need society's sanction to have value, and I fear that the end of the sexual revolution may be no secular recognition of marriage in any form.
I agree that there is benefit to society for encouraging not only same-sex relationships, but also stability in those relationships. Hence, the benefits on society of encouraging (heterosexual) marriages that last are quite obvious--or at least, the fact that there are benefits is obvious. I also agree that the benefits on society of same-sex relationships, if any exist at all, are less obvious and would be more difficult to evidence. However, that is a different matter for a different discussion. The article in question doesn't so much as touch on that matter. It discusses only the benefit on a specific relationship of recognizing that particular relationship equally with a different type of relationship (in particular, recognizing gay couples as equal with straight couples). Insofar as that argument is concerned, the same logic applies to any individual relationship regardless of the genders of its constituents.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, rather than requiring the benefit of proof go lie on gay rights activists to show that there is societal benefit in allowing gay marriages to be recognized as equal with straight marriage, why not require that opponents of gay marriage provide evidence of the benefits on society of banning gay marriages, or at least denying them equal recognition with straight marriages?