MARRIAGE AS NORM: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie G. [at end of post]: Does that help?

Mark B.: No. It's terminally evasive: it tells me at length for the umpteenth time that you think marriage as a norm is important, but it adds only one trivial data point about what sort of norm you think marriage is not, and is entirely silent on what sort of norm it is. Of course it appears from your writings elsewhere that you're a proudly doctrinaire Catholic, and I fancy I could write the doctrinaire Catholic answer for myself, but since I anticipate making harsh criticisms, I very much don't want to put words in your mouth.

Maggie G.: 1. Marriage, in my view, is a key social institution.
By this I mean (to put it more strongly)
2. It is necessary for the survival of any society: if a society doesn't manage procreation successfully it doesn't survive.

Mark B.: Certainly, if a society doesn't manage procreation successfully it doesn't survive. Certainly, particular conceptions/implementations of marriage have been used historically to manage procreation. And certainly, particular conceptions of marriage will have a useful role to play in the future. But it doesn't follow from this that any particular conception of marriage is remotely optimum. The devil is in the details, and you're not being forthcoming about important details.

Maggie G.: 3. In addition, children and communities suffer various harms when marriage norms erode;

Mark B.: This can hardly fail to be true to some extent for at least some conceptions of marriage as a norm and at least some departures therefrom. At the same time, some conceptions of marriage or parts thereof cause harm as well as or instead of preventing it, such as conceptions that trap women in abusive relationships. The tradeoffs need to be carefully considered and publicly debated. In particular, if your views are at all similar to standard Catholicism then, as I will argue, they entail considerable harm to gay people, and I submit that the readers and I have a right to know the details, so we can judge how much harm will be
involved, and whether it's a good tradeoff.

Maggie G.: 4. Everyone ought to support the norm of marriage, as it is in their interest and the common good to do so.

Mark B.: What, exactly, is everyone supposed to support, how are they to support it, and how strongly are they supposed to support it? See below for elaboration.

Maggie G.: However
5. Not everyone "has to" get married or have children.

Mark B.: That's the one negative clue I spoke of above. It still leaves things very vague however. If someone doesn't get married, is it of no consequence whatever? Is it of no consequence provided there are enough other couples getting married that society is meeting its procreation quota? Is it mildly regrettable but not worth making a fuss over? Is it a serious matter that calls for everyone to redouble their "support"? Is it a tragedy that requires every form of persuasion short of a shotgun? Is the answer the same if the couple is sexually active?

Further, is the answer the same if the couple is sexually active and same-sex? Do individuals in same-sex couples have to be "supported" to marry opposite-sex partners, or does it suffice if they just break up? If either of the preceding, how exactly is this to the individual interest of gay people?

Maggie G.: [...] Moreover
6. Supporting marriage as a norm does not necessarily requires hating, disliking, or punishing people whose lives do not conform to this norm.

Mark B.: I'm afraid I don't quite see how this is supposed to work. The carrots at my disposal seem awfully limited compared to the other forces involved. Will it suffice to offer congratulations and buy wedding presents for couples who get married? That's not how it worked in the old days, or so I hear. Not getting married before having sex was met with severe disapproval at the absolute minimum, and having a child out of wedlock could get you banishment from polite society. Gay sex came with prison terms.

Maggie G. [Second part of item 5, taken out of order]: The necessity is social not individual.
In this sense marriage is not a norm to be "imposed" on anyone. It requires consent.

Mark B.: Now you're really not serious! The one thing we know with total certainty about your idea of marriage as a norm is that it's opposite-sex only. But you don't propose to encourage same-sex couples to consent not to get married to preserve the pristine opposite-sex nature of the institution, you propose to legally prevent them. Similarly, you don't propose to let couples consent to stay married, you propose to eliminate no-fault divorce and legally require them to.
posted by Eve at 4:37 AM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home