ARE ALL COUPLES ALIKE? Dan Cere

Dale’s alleges that I merely assert whereas he argues. Nice try.

I suspect the disagreements between Dale and I go deeper than the marriage question. Dale wants to dismiss my arguments by appealing to some epistemological distinction between argument and description.

When one deals with fundamental choices in the organization of human society there is no stark distinction between description and argument in establishing a case for the pursuit of certain goals. This marriage debate cannot be resolved by the application of some form of legal casuistic reasoning. Particular accounts of human anthropology and sociality are integral parts of any public controversy about fundamental features of human society. These descriptions have a telos or intentionality--they imply and articulate a vision of social goods. The best arguments will be the ones that offer richer accounts of the complex goods of human experience.

This cuts to the heart of this current debate. Does the reduction of marriage to an adult close relationship with sex (or without--there are sexless marriages) offer a richer account of the goods intended by this institution? Over the last few decades the movement of legal theory seems to be plodding towards an ever thinner concept of marriage. This latest debate proposes the reduction of marriage to a bond between consenting adults. This one-shoe-fits-all-sizes approach to marriage offers a flatter and more one-dimensional reading of human experience.

Opponents of the existing definition of marriage want to promote the basic human goods of equality and non discrimination. Those on the other side of this debate maintain that pursuit of these goods should not be predicated on the social deconstruction of other human goods: the unique public affirmation and support for the critical role of male/female bonding, procreation, the good of the intact family, etc. Marriage is the distinct institutional home for these goods. To assert that this deep shift in the public meaning of marriage would have little or no impact on this social institution repeats the same flawed mantra that experts employed at earlier stages in the evolving marriage debate.








posted by maggie at 5:27 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home