Philosophers have a long history of not taking the world's bullcrap excuses (See Immanuel Kant, W.K. Clifford) just as much as we have a long history of making up just as much bullcrap (See Thales, Anaximander, Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Freud, Lewis, etc.) This entry is about the former, because when it comes to marriage, who better to ask than a bunch of single white men in coats?
*For the essay I will disregard any non-social arguments about the topic. You can believe
what you want to, but for a society that is religiously free to
function, religion must not be a factor in making the law. All things must be utilitarian in nature.
Both sides agree that marriage is meant to be not just a promise between two people, but a social acceptance and support of this union. Someone who is married is saying they will be exclusive to their partner in all ways, but the most often referenced way is sexually. It is safe to say that, as far as society is considered, marriage is a sex contract between two people AND that those two people will be exclusive to each other for the rest of their lives. It is important to mention that marriage allows for young people to satisfy their sexual urges in a safe, accepted manner with far less consequences than sex outside of marriage.
The Traditional Defense
The majority of defendants of traditional marriage focus on the biological aspect of sex. Men and women have sex to produce children. They see marriage as putting the round peg in the hole. Have you ever tried to put one peg into another? You're welcome for that mental image. There is a certain amount of merit to this argument; if all marriages were same-sex and, based on the societal contract that people in marriages remain sexually exclusive, then the human race would die out within a generation. This is only a hypothetical stuation as it is nearly impossible for EVERY marriage to be same-sex. There is a sort of nobility in defending the traditional definition since it shows you are worried about future generations and the advancement of our species.
The second argument from the traditionalists is that it is a slippery slope to allowing people to marry anything they want. For instance, read this story. If we allow people of the same sex to marry then people will start marrying toasters or the moon. Anything can marry anything! Like that story in the link I just posted....
For further reading in defense of marriage, see Maggie Gallagher's essay, "What Marriage Is For," as well as Jeff Jordan's essay, "Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?"
The Equality Approach
People who argue for same-sex marriage to be allowed are focused on the individuals who are "in love." I personally don't believe in love anymore thanks to a very destructive relationship I had, but people who do still believe in love want those same-sex couples to receive all of the protections from the state for being married. They view the opposition to same-sex marriage as being just as ignorant as opposing inter-racial marriages. (Btw, remember the freak-out that happened over this commercial a few weeks ago?)
Marriage is meant to be a connecting tie between a couple, specifically in the legal realm. Take a gay man who goes into a coma after an accident. His partner will not have the same rights as a heterosexual man's wife would in the same situation. This is the main portion of the debate, in my opinion, that the progressives are interested in reforming. If you need an example of this, watch the movie, "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry." Even if you don't, you should watch it anyways. Adam Sandler hasn't lost his touch yet, although "Click" and "Grown-ups" are terrible movies.
The second argument that progressives put forward is that homosexual partners are viewed differently than a married couple is in society. There are much stronger connotations with the term "married" than with the term "partners." I may have a girlfriend, but she can still cheat on me and break my heart, no matter how much in love we were. Unrelated. Not only does this reduce sexual promiscuity from the partners and people they interact with, but also makes people look at the couple more seriously. They aren't just dating anymore; they're married!
For further reading see David Boonin's essay, "Same-Sex Marriage and the Argument From Public Disagreement," and Jonathan Rauch's essay, "Who Needs Marriage?" You should really read Rauch just for the quotes.
So these are the basic arguments people make. As any philosopher will say, it is important to be able to view arguments from all sides in order to make the best decisions. If someone disagrees with you, they may just be ignorant or a douchebag, but they may just as likely have thought about their position for days on end. If you want to debate someone on this topic, remember one thing; you are not debating THEM, you are debating the IDEAS they put forth. We should be civil in these debates, because if we lose our humanity then nothing can be gained.
10 second version: Traditional, "Marriage is about the kids! And it's what the Bible says is right!" Progressives, "Marriage is about people being in LOVEEEEE! And tax breaks."
Steve
No comments:
Post a Comment