ARE ALL COUPLES ALIKE? Dale responds to Dan

There are two types of arguments that do not work, at least not by themselves. The first is definitional: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so it cannot be the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman." Believe it or not, a fair number of courts have offered this as an argument against gay marriage. The problem is that, as soon as the definition is challenged, it cannot without circularity be offered to sustain itself. There are a lot of "to be" verbs at important points in Dan's recent postings that function as authoritative declarations of a definition ("Marriage is sex-inclusive.") or as descriptions ("Opposite sex unions are the only social union that can become a procreative biological union.") Yet it's this very definition that is under discussion. And descriptions are not arguments.

The second insufficient argument is historical: marriage has always been heterosexual, whether monogamous or polygamous, so it must remain so now. (There is actually some historical evidence to the contrary, and current practice includes gay marriage in some countries, but let's put that to the side for now.) The fact that something is traditional, coming from historical practice, is enough to lay a presumption in its favor for a Burkean conservative, but not enough by itself to sustain it against attack. Again, Dan's posting appears at points to try to preempt further debate by arguing from history ("marriage has always been . . . ."). But that is not enough, either. I will not begin to catalogue all the traditional, historical practices we have abandoned when we were given good reason, based on experience and learning, to do so.

So Dan offers an argument from uniqueness: heterosexual unions are uniquely procreative and therefore merit a unique status. We agree on the premise; it's the conclusion that's troubling and, I think, still unsupported.

Two problems I see with the conclusion. First, if heterosexual unions merit unique status by virtue of their procreative capacity, then why do we grant this unique status to sterile heterosexual unions? It is not an idle question; there are many such marriages, and they may well outnumber gay marriages. St. Augustine, not exactly slave to the latest academic fashions, suggested we recognize sterile marriages because of the companionate function they serve. Thus even when the procreative goal of marriage cannot be met, we allow marriages that serve the unitive goal of companionship and communion. Gay unions can serve the companionate, unitive function of marriage in ways similar to straight unions, as common experience and the studies I have cited suggest.

The second problem with Dan's conclusion is that it simply doesn't follow from the premise. No gay marriage is going to prevent a straight couple from marrying, procreating, and raising children, any more than the existence of sterile heterosexual marriages do now. So what will be lost? Marriage may be an important support for heterosexual procreation within marriage, but this is no argument for why it cannot also be given to other bonds that help accomplish other important social goals, like raising kids in gay families.

The existence of numerous childless marriages has not caused straight couples to throw up their hands and say, "See, the connection between marriage and procreation and mother-father-raising-kids has been forever severed. It's now just about love. So why need we get married?" If that has not happened for sterile and other childless marriages, there is no reason to believe it will happen when a tiny number (according to Maggie) of gay marriages are performed.

Dan comes closest to an answer to this point when he asserts: "Opposite sex relationships . . . need a distinctive form of cultural support and affirmation if they are to develop into truly humane forms of human flourishing." It's a fine assertion, and it may be correct, but it's not an argument. The question is, why must the support be "distinctive" in order for straight couples to flourish? The powerful urge to procreate, to start a family of one's own, to bond with another person, will surely continue. The small number of gay marriages aren't going to repeal all heterosexual yearnings. Marriage, with all its entitlements and benefits, will still be the superior and normative way to have and raise children, including for gay couples.


posted by maggie at 9:28 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home