Below I will post the American News piece Ken Blanchard references in a previous post.
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.). If you want a detailed argument in favor of traditional marriage go here.
Prof. Blanchard argues, "But many traditional institutions get adapted to new purposes without the old ones being undermined." To be sure, we have altered the institution of marriage. Through legal and cultural changes such as easy divorce, the near eradication on the taboo on extra-marital sex, readily available contraception and abortion, the explosion of single-parenthood marriage is not what is once was. In this sense, the traditional institution was already altered in the direction of making personal gratification the center of the institution rather than fidelity, children, and self-giving. This illustrates my point: the habit of marriage was already weak and same-sex marriage almost naturally follows.
Prof. Blanchard, citing Andrew Sullivan, think that same-sex marriage will "promote more responsible sexual behavior among gay males." Again there is no evidence that this is true, all the evidence from Europe (with a longer experience with legal recognition of same-sex unions as in the U.S.) says the opposite, and even Sullivan, in almost the same breath in which he makes this "conservative" case for same-sex marriage, says that a looser definition of fidelity will be needed for homosexual men. Sullivan doesn't believe his own argument. But perhaps hope will triumph over experience.
Why does same-sex marriage not fully demonstrate self-giving? I should think the piece made it quite clear, but perhaps I was too subtle. First, same-sex marriage cannot create new life, a profound act of self-giving. Second, same-sex unions involve someone of the same sexual nature, another self. Traditional marriage involves the adventure of discovering someone who is profoundly different from you. Of course, this assumes that men and women have differences that go beyond how they pee, or put differently, that the differences in our bodies represent a difference in our natures. Surely there is a common human nature, but perhaps there is also a male nature and female nature in addition and the differences in these natures are socially and politically relevant in ways skin color is not. But perhaps I am all wet and male/female biological differences are meaningless and with the right social arrangements all male/female differences can be eliminated.
All this is discussion is moot. I could give the most sober, well thought out, deeply evidenced, logically indisputable argument in favor of traditional marriage possible. As my piece suggests, the position in favor of same-sex marriage has one important virtue: it is hip.
Here's the piece with one egregious typo fixed:
Virtue depends on habits learned over time. When a thing becomes a habit it is not perceived as a burden. No one thinks of laws against murder as burdensome, but this is precisely because the moral proscription on murder is so habitual to us.
Our culture is moving steadily towards recognizing same-sex marriage. The habit of marriage as between one woman and one man is being eroded, which is why that definition of marriage increasingly is felt as a burden. It is only a matter of time before the law catches up with opinion.
In its recent decision validating same-sex marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court argued only hatred could explain opposition to same-sex marriage. Frank Rich of the New York Times calls opposition to same-sex marriage “the bigots' last hurrah.” Recently Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was denied the Miss USA title, reputedly because she openly opposes same-sex marriage. It won't be long before opposition to same-sex marriage is a position as embarrassing to hold in polite company as support for racial prejudice.
Is there a rational defense of traditional marriage? Marriage teaches us to love someone who is truly an other, as someone of the opposite sex is of a different sexual nature. Further, traditional marriage, open to children, is obviously necessary for the continuation of a civilization. Finally, marriage and family are the best institutions to raise responsible citizens.
Same-sex marriage will perpetuate disconnect between marriage and children. Forty percent of all children in America are born outside of marriage. Children born in this situation are statistically more likely to be poor, struggle in school, get involved in drugs and crime, and suffer a number of other pathologies. Having a mother and a father in the home divides the work of parenthood and brings complementary gifts to raising children. When society endorses a view of marriage as self-fulfillment rather than self-giving, these familial habits get that much weaker.
The modern American starts with a different set of assumptions. As Patrick Deneen puts it, “Begin with a belief in human beings as naturally autonomous and free, and after a time...that belief will act as a corrosive agent that will destroy all forms of culturally transmitted and embedded restraints.”
Skeptical of any moral constraint on our autonomy, marriage is increasingly seen as an individual good, not a public good. Given these assumptions, it is hard to see the objection to same-sex, plural, or incestuous marriages. If society's duty is to affirm love genuinely felt, why limit the number of people in a marriage or the prohibit marriage between close blood relations?
Law professor Eugene Volkh, a same-sex marriage supporter, argues that promotion of same-sex marriage will potentially lead to restrictions on religious liberty. If opposition to same-sex marriage is mere bigotry, then the state should deny certain benefits to or place heavy burdens on religious groups that oppose homosexuality just as it does with groups that promote racial inequality.
Perhaps the law should enhance its already strong endorsement of radical individualism and punish those who resist. If society suffers, perhaps the greater freedom of individuals is worth it. And regarding religious liberty, the Christians who oppose same-sex marriage believe that the persecuted are blessed. If this is the case, then Christians in America will soon find themselves well blessed.
Recent Comments