Originally posted by Man-Thing
Questions and Answers:
Whats Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?
Peter Sprigg
Whats wrong with letting same-sex couples legally marry?
There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.
The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to existnamely, the union of a man and a woman.
The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.
Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.
Lets look at the first argument. Isnt marriage whatever the law says it is?
No. Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.
But isnt marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?
If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny marriage to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.
All rightbut if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isnt that what most people would consider marriage?
Its getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.
In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) to be unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this decision paves the way for same-sex marriage. But in an ironic way, the Courts rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.
Sowhat IS marriage, then?
Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval
of a couples engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children.
Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.
Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.
Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival,
every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively .
Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it. [emphasis in original]
Are you saying that married couples who dont have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) arent really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they cant reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?
A couple that doesnt want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an elderly man from conceiving children outside of marriage with a younger woman. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.
It must be admitted that societys interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couples privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.
There is no reason, though, to extend marriage to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapableever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intentof producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.
Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your best friend? Nowhich reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.
Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce safely, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on ones choice of marriage partnerjust as they are central to the restriction against marrying a person of the same sex.
But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?
The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy and successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage servesthings that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that children need mothers and fathers and marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.
But why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else?
Homosexuals already have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a persons sexual orientation.
However, the freedom of homosexuals to marry is subject to the same restrictions as anyone else, as well. No one is free to marry simply any willing partner. Every person is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex.
The fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have homosexual marriages does not mean that they have a right to them, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans gives them a right to pedophilic marriages, incestuous marriages, or polygamous marriages.
Isnt prohibiting homosexual marriage just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?
This analogy is not valid at all. The purpose of laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation) was to protect the social system of racial segregation, not to protect the nature of marriage. Preserving racial purity was an unworthy goal, and certainly not one of the fundamental purposes of marriage common to all human civilizations. Uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and one fundamental to the nature of marriage.
Hasnt the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending traditional marriage, arent you defending something that no longer exists?
Its true that American societys concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriageand their consequences:
· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, theres been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, theres been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, theres been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a mans sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, theres been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.
And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?
Why does defending marriage and defending the family require opposing same-sex unions? How does a homosexual union do any harm to someone elses heterosexual marriage?
It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than you would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that nearly 40 percent of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into civil unions in Vermont have had a previous heterosexual marriage.
Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed homosexuals have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.