A brief reply to Professor Schaff

Professor Schaff responds to my comments, and as he has yet to follow my lead and allow comments, I reply here.

Jon says:

Prof. Blanchard does not find my argument in favor of traditional marriage convincing.  The question is not whether it is entirely convincing, but whether it is reasonable, which is the only point I was making (see the argument's juxtaposition with the comments of Frank Rich, et. al.). 

To the contrary, I think I said that I agreed with his argument in favor of traditional marriage. I certainly found it reasonable. I just didn't think that it amounted to a successful argument against gay marriage.

I endorsed his distinction between marriage as a set of mutual obligations and marriage as a set of claims for self-satisfaction (my terms), as well as his preference for the former. I think that he thinks that the battle against gay marriage is a losing one, and I think he is right. But we can still insist that marriage be about serving others rather than about what's in it for me.

Comments

[A.I.]

I just reread JS's piece. As you point out, his arguments for traditional marriage do not support a strong argument against same-sex marriage as acceptance of the latter does not constitute rejection of the former. In fact, the conclusion best supported by his arguments is that society will suffer because traditional marriage is superior to same-sex marriage and thus the benefits society gains from the former will be diluted by allowing the latter. But that logic too is faulty and worse, is sadly reminiscent of debunked arguments of yore that whites are somehow superior to blacks and thus blacks should be suppressed for the good of society. (The term “of yore” perhaps being a bit premature for some I have met and reminiscent not meaning the same as.)

JS asks: "Why does same-sex marriage not fully demonstrate self-giving?" He goes on to offer reasons why traditional marriage may inherently be more demonstrative of self-giving which he asserts is the primary reason traditional marriage is superior. But like the old white/black superiority canard, even if proven true, the conclusion is pointless. It makes little difference if traditional marriage as a concept is superior. What truly matters is the interaction between individuals in real marriages.

As there are certainly black people with intellects far superior to mine (I happen to be white), there are certain same-sex couples involved in relationships superior to those of certain traditional couples. A union of Ron and Joe might indeed be more self-giving than that of Ron and Jane. Assuming Ron is gay, the relationship with Joe likely would also be more self-fulfilling--which should be noted is not synonymous with "selfish" or "self-serving". In any case, what matters most is the interaction of the partners, which is determined less by the nature of the union (traditional or same-sex) than by the nature of the partners.

If one accepts JS’s notion that encouraging and establishing superior marriages is good for society, then sanctioning Ron and Joe’s union would be good for society. Conversely, denying their right to establish a union would at best be neutral and Ron marrying Jane might very well create a relationship harmful to society.

In fact, state sanctioning creates both good and bad same-sex marriages just as it does good and bad traditional marriages. To determine an overall plus or minus for society, one must determine the prevalence of the good and bad marriages and the degree to which they are one or the other when only tradition marriage is allowed as compared to when same-sex marriage also is allowed. The complications of deriving such data along with the subjective nature of the factors involved would, I think, give even the most gifted statistician a migraine.