Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Few People Can Defend Traditional Marriage--Too Many Try.

     It's been almost impossible to get away from talking about same sex marriage over the last week.  The discussion has flooded Facebook walls, profile pictures, Twitter feeds, television commercials, blogs, papers, every major news outlet, and even family dinner tables.  For the second time in a year, we've got a (pair of) Supreme Court case(s)  that are more highly publicized than a new season of The Bachelor (the other was Obamacare).

     It's rare that I see an argument against same sex marriage that is coherent, logical, and charitable.  Most are guilty of at least one major pitfall.  All of these pitfalls undermine their position, and actually end up creating advocacy for same sex marriage. There is an objective way to present the position, but it requires steadfast adherence to logic--and, likely, positions that most conservatives are unwilling to tend.  Finally, most are unable to address the role the government plays when considering the actions (not characteristics) of individuals.

Major Pitfalls
1. The individual uses an objective statement, but can't tackle comparisons/objections based on other circumstances that violate the statement.  This is largely a result of an inconsistent philosophy addressed later.

2. The individual uses relative truths.  Nothing is held to be objective, or self-evident.  Generally, relativists arguing against each other merely leads to a frustrating stalemate--because no matter what is said, it is merely opinion. Relativism is always doomed to failure when opposing same sex marriage--you just sound mean and unreasonable.

3. Instead of attempting to use logic, the individual resorts to name calling, ignoring their dissenters, and repeating themselves to no avail.  Instead of bridging gaps, the individuals burns bridges, destroys roads, and sometimes launches nukes at the other side.  Without charity (the virtue associated with love), we are nothing.

Objectively Presenting Marriage

Explaining Marriage
In order to present an objective viewpoint concerning marriage that can be followed and supported using natural law, you must first define marriage.  As often pointed out (usually to show that marriage doesn't belong to Christians), marriage existed long before any texts for Judaic religions. It was codified in Hammurabi's code. No scholar or historian doubts that the social institution of marriage existed prior to this codification. Marriage is deeply ingrained in the nature of humans--it is a natural response to existence and survival of our species.  What has marriage traditionally been understood to mean?

1. The lifelong union of a man and woman for the benefit of their children that is ordered toward unity and procreation.  Limiting either of these goals, limits your ability to defend traditional marriage--it's likely impossible.

Stop right here.  Most people have already messed up.  How does the person you are speaking with define marriage? You need to find out. Many people in society today view marriage as, "a public declaration of affection between (two) people that have romantic feelings for one another."  If you don't agree about what marriage "is", then you've got to at least understand each other's frame of reference. Once you do, you can explore them.

After that's established, you need to ask them to examine how their definition applies to 2 basic situations. This, generally, is capable of demonstrating the theoretical differences between the two positions.

    A. Unions involving more than two people.
If "marriage" is defined in the second sense, there's no rational objection to allowing multiple individuals to marry.  Can more than two people have a public declaration of their romantic feelings for one another?  Are those feelings somehow less than those of a homosexual couple?  What is different about the situation same sex advocates want and that of a polyamorous situation? As far as I--and most others--can see, there's no logical reason to deny one and allow the other.

    B. Unions involving related individuals
If two people are cousins (or siblings) and want to be married, what is stopping them under the second definition?  Doesn't stopping them violate their equal right to happiness and choice of life partner/sexual partner? In principle, there is little difference.  One might object to the offspring produced--however, marriage has nothing to do with offspring if same sex couples are allowed to marry.  Children are only part of the traditional definition.

If nothing else, press for a definition of marriage that can consistently limit other applications.  There's not one capable of doing it.

How 99.9% of Opponents to Same Sex Marriage Already Botched Their Case 
  A. Advocacy and Use of Contraceptives
Yup, you're reading this correctly.  If you advocate/use contraceptives, you've likely created self-defeating logic.  Sex is no longer fulfilling both of its purposes.  Sex between a man and woman naturally unites them as one and also generates a possibility for procreation.  When you remove the second as a possibility, sex becomes no more than an act which unites two people.  It's easy to slip that into the second definition above.  Same sex couples can easily participate in sex that is only oriented towards uniting individuals.  However, they cannot participate in a sexual act that causes reproduction (barring entry of a third party). I'll go ahead and say it, contraceptives are the #1 reason that same sex marriage and abortion are viable options in the United States.  Both are logical ends after its widespread use.

  B. Accepting Divorce as a Viable Solution to Marital Issues
Most divorces in America occur because one, or both, of the parents are inwardly focused and not focused on their children.  Many marriages end in divorce before they have children (a result of contraception). If there aren't children, and if we aren't focusing on the children when making our decisions--we aren't fulfilling what traditional marriage upholds.

  C. Believing Sex outside of Marriage is Okay, but Same Sex Marriage isn't
This one is more rare, but it happens.  If part of marriage involves sex, and part of sex uniquely unites (bet Ron Burgandy practices that alliteration) individuals, then sex outside of marriage violates your principle.  An adherence to this practice, or apathy towards its occurrence results in changing the definition of marriage.

Roles and Capabilities of the United States Government

The 3 P's
The United States is capable of doing 3 things with any action. It can promote, permit, or prohibit.  Generally, actions that are beneficial to the welfare of people are promoted.  Actions that are not beneficial, or would violate an individual right if prohibited are permitted.  Actions that damage the welfare of society are prohibited, unless such prohibition violates a fundamental right found in the Constitution.

Currently, heterosexual sex is promoted through marriage and homosexual sex is permitted.   I want to reiterate that--permitted.  Both groups can have sex whenever and wherever (read privately) they want.  Both can get married.  Only heterosexual couples receive benefits from the government for doing so.   The difference between their wedding ceremony (in most states) is that they are given a piece of paper entitling them to various benefits.

The benefits are given to promote longevity of relations that may create children.  The government promotes heterosexual marriage because those marriages often lead to children, and children are better raised in households where a mother and father are present. There is a much lower risk of growing up in poverty, being exposed to abusive relationships, committing suicide, and depression.  Children are only a result of sexual relations between a man and woman.  To encourage longevity in the sexual relationship of a man and woman, the state offers benefits associated with taxes, transfer of assets in life and death, and several other minor benefits.   The same characteristics are not associated with homosexual sex, so they are not--and should not be--promoted by the government.

It's all about the Children

In natural law and under the current role of the United States government, the emphasis is on the children.  They are the ones that benefit from the current arrangement.  By shifting the focus from children, to the people in a relationship, we've already drifted away from the reason we recognize marriage.  The people being married aren't the point of government recognition--the welfare of their posterity is.

All of that said, Justice Kennedy (the man likely deciding the case creating all the noise) made some interesting statements during oral arguments today. He believes all of this is what actually makes the case compelling, "there is an immediate legal injury … and that’s the voice of these children [of same-sex parents].… They want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”  The irony of this is, most proponents of same-sex marriage scoff at the idea that children have anything to do with marriage--and it might be the very thing that provides legal standing to address the issue. Make no mistake, Kennedy realizes that, "We have five years of information [about same-sex marriage] to weigh against 2000 years of history".  It seems likely to me that the court will punt the issue and make no decision at all.  It may wait for more evidence regarding the results of same sex couples parenting children to examine the implication. (Of course, my prediction to Obamacare was also horribly wrong.)

If anything changes, the traditional definition of marriage will likely be construed in this way:  The lifelong union of a man and woman for the benefit of their children is ordered toward unity and child rearing. This is slightly different than the first definition presented by the individual claiming the natural law.  It still does not prevent the slope into polyamorous relationships, relationships between siblings, or relationships between vastly different ages (past the age of reason).  If the ruling comes out that way, many states will begin changing the way their laws work with these other situations. It is the only logical consequence.

How to Change This Result
1. Immediately stop using and advocating for contraceptives.
2. Begin taking measures to drastically reduce the number of divorces.
3. Lift sex up to be an act limited to marriage.

If you aren't doing these things, you've already begun redefining marriage--how can you blame same sex couples for attempting to do the same?  If you can't defend the position, or if your theory is inconsistent, you shouldn't try to defend it. It does more damage than good.  Sometimes there is wisdom in silence.

11 comments:

  1. Hey Brock,
    I really appreciate your stepwise manner of explaining the issue. Sadly, it has become a bit of a rare sight to see a well thought out argument, especially on this issue. I was wondering how you would incorporate a discussion of sterility into your thought process.

    A Fan

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was hoping somebody would ask that question. I deleted the segment on rebuttals from my blog because it was just too long.

    Men and women, even sterile, are naturally ordered towards procreation. There is always the possibility of children (even if medically diagnosed sterile or past childbearing years). I'll refrain from posting articles of sterile people conceiving and/or very old couples conceiving (unless you ask). It might be uncommon that it occurs, but it can and does occur.

    Because they are naturally oriented in that way, and procreation is possible, it does not violate the principle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To push this further, what about a 20 year old who gets a hysterectomy or double orchiectomy? There's clearly no chance that this couple will ever procreate if one of them has had these procedures.

      You backpedaled a bit and said that "they are naturally oriented that way," but that's not the government interest, is it? The interest under your definition of marriage is 'promoting procreation,' not 'encouraging relationships between people who are naturally oriented toward procreation.' But both morally and legally (in light of the EPC), if you use that definition, the determining factor as to whether someone can get married can't be that they're straight, but must be that they able to procreate.

      With this definition, you necessarily come to a result which not even most churches would support; our hypothetical 20 year old couldn't get married because she has no uterus.

      I think you just barely missed the government interest in marriage. It's not promoting the creation of children, but the raising of them in a family. It doesn't matter where the kid comes from; mom's uterus, adoption a stork, doesn't matter. Regardless of the sex of the parents, children perform better in school and have fewer social problems than their peers in single parent families. http://reut.rs/WGNXa8.

      To use your framework, the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children in two parent families, and an interest in permitting procreation.

      Now, personally, I would say marriage has many purposes beyond raising children that give society a reason to support it (for opp and same sex people). Married people tend to be more productive at work, are less likely to commit crime or be the victim of crime, are healthier and live longer. http://bit.ly/J7Oeho.


      Regards,

      Some random dood on the internet.

      (PS - This was a very interesting post, and I would honestly appreciate a response that makes me look silly).

      Delete
    2. JFK51, thanks for the charitable replay with a lot of good questions and objections! I took the liberty to respond to a few of them 

      Claim one: The interest under your definition of marriage is 'promoting procreation,' not 'encouraging relationships between people who are naturally oriented toward procreation.'

      Response: It’s rather easy for the couple to make a prima facie showing that they are capable of having children—one that could never be shown by same sex couples. There is a governmental right to privacy in relations. Inquiry and determination into the issue of fertility after a prima facie case would be both expensive and intrusive; therefore, the government would not need to do it. It would still be over inclusive, you’re correct—but not to the same degree.

      Claim two: With this definition, you necessarily come to a result which not even most churches would support; our hypothetical 20 year old couldn't get married because she has no uterus.

      Response two: This isn’t about “most churches”. I merely presented the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. There are serious questions that infertile individuals ought to tackle before feeling their vocational call to marriage—there are alternatives.

      Claim three: I think you just barely missed the government interest in marriage. It's not promoting the creation of children, but the raising of them in a family.

      Response three: I didn’t actually. The government already extends almost all benefits to be same sex and heterosexual couples raising children. However, same sex couples don’t create a possible situation in which procreation might occur. Heterosexual relations carry that possibility. That means, if they are going to have relations, the government has an interest in creating a stable environment in which children may occur. It is very easy to differentiate the two.

      Delete
  3. May I point out where your arguments fall flat?

    (1) The government promotes heterosexual marriage because those marriages often lead to children, and children are better raised in households where a mother and father are present.

    (2) There is a much lower risk of growing up in poverty, being exposed to abusive relationships, committing suicide, and depression.

    (3) In natural law and under the current role of the United States government, the emphasis is on the children. They are the ones that benefit from the current arrangement. By shifting the focus from children, to the people in a relationship, we've already drifted away from the reason we recognize marriage. The people being married aren't the point--the welfare of their posterity is.

    (4) After that's established, you need to ask them to examine how their definition applies to 2 basic situations. This, generally, is capable of demonstrating the theoretical differences between the two positions.
    A. Unions involving more than two people.
    B. Unions involving related individuals

    Let me first ask for your sources on (1). What is their control? What are their other groups? Are they comparing traditional households specifically with households involving a same-sex partnership? Or are they comparing against a single parent? Your argument hinges on the reader accepting on faith that whatever uncited research you've referred to is done in an unbiased manner. And since same-sex couples are not even fully recognized by their governments (state and federal), and thus don't see similar benefits, we can't rightly claim that we have a pristine testing environment.

    Furthermore, I have been witness to hetero couples that certainly are not fit to be parents. Would you call these exceptions to the rule? Would you claim that same-sex couples are unfit parents? What about situations of adoption? What about a child with a homosexual parent, who has custody of that child (for whatever reason)? Would you claim that the child is better off with just one parent rather than two parents, even if they are of the same sex? Ergo, your argument is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (3) If the posterity of children is so important, then why are you making an argument about the sex of the parents? Simple solution: If the couple doesn't have children, no benefits. If it does, it can have benefits. No need to worry about the sex of each parent. And yes, same-sex couples DO often bring in children from previous relationships. I can attest to this fact, and many other people also can, I'm sure. So by disallowing benefits to same-sex couples that have children by any fashion, are you not proposing to legally injure these children? Your argument is invalid.

    Let's look at (4). What exactly are you arguing about here? It looks like you're falling victim to a slippery slope. While I'm pleased that you didn't fall victim to the next step, which is usually marrying a horse/dog/toaster/self, you clearly didn't note that sex =/= marriage. The key here is "consent". Let us ask "Why may two adults not consent?" This is the rational basis test. Does the state have a rational reason to disallow something? If not, then that law is subject to hightened scrutiny. Now, let us ask this question...it is absolutely clear from Lawrence v Texas that gay people DO have the legal ability to consent to relations with each other. So please tell me what the rational basis is for disallowing marriage for them? Please keep in mind that traditional marriages aren't affected in any way by allowing or disallowing same-sex marriages, and the children that gay people bring into the world are also affected. Thus, your argument is invalid.

    I can keep running circles around this all night, but I need to go to bed. But I will leave you with this thought. In 1967, the SCOTUS heard the case of Loving v Virginia, on the matter of interracial relations. The very same sorts of arguments were made in that era as you are making now. The SCOTUS found that laws forbidding interracial marriage were unconstitutional. This is really no different. If you would like to see exactly what I mean, I encourage you (I can't force you to, as that would be a violation of your natural rights) to watch this video on youtube, during a city council meeting in Springfield, Missouri, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtN9JSxsmzE

    Please feel free to reply to me if you want to continue this. But please remember, just because something is "traditional" does not mean that it is good, or right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JD, thank you for responding to an issue in which you are obviously passionate about. I’ll attempt to address some of the issues you raised below:

      Claim 1: Let me first ask for your sources on (1) . What is their control? What are their other groups? Are they comparing traditional households specifically with households involving a same-sex partnership? Or are they comparing against a single parent?

      Response 1: (1) was improperly worded. It would have been better phrased, “Heterosexual sex often leads to children, and children are better raised in households where a mother and father are present.” This means that the government promotes marriages to promote stability in relationships where children might occur. The interest is compared against heterosexual relations that produce children outside of a stable home.

      Claim 2: I have been witness to hetero couples that certainly are not fit to be parents. Would you call these exceptions to the rule? Would you claim that same-sex couples are unfit parents? What about situations of adoption? What about a child with a homosexual parent, who has custody of that child (for whatever reason)? Would you claim that the child is better off with just one parent rather than two parents, even if they are of the same sex? Ergo, your argument is invalid.
      Response 2: Absolutely not. It’s a shame that some people don’t do a great job parenting. However, this is not about one’s ability to parent—it’s about one’s ability to procreate. The government wishes to create a stable environment in which children might be created. I would not claim that same-sex couples are unfit parents; however, I would say they are unfit to procreate with one another. There are certainly studies that show the children struggle more than those from heterosexual couples, but the causation of that is largely a question—the fact they have same sex parents or is that society disapproves of their parents and they struggle with that—I don’t know the answer.

      Claim 3: If the posterity of children is so important, then why are you making an argument about the sex of the parents? Simple solution: If the couple doesn't have children, no benefits. If it does, it can have benefits.

      Response 3: Currently, benefits are given to promote a stable household in which children may occur. Additional benefits are given if they do occur. Both are incredibly important. Same-sex couples get many of the same benefits that heterosexual couples do when they adopt. I’d be interested in which benefits you are most concerned with, though.

      Claim 4: Let's look at (4). What exactly are you arguing about here? It looks like you're falling victim to a slippery slope.

      Response 4: There is no falling victim to a slippery slope, merely a question for the other side to present a principle that people can apply to other situations to achieve results that most would agree with. The point is, the principle promoted by those in favor of same sex marriages equally applies to related individuals and groups of more than two.

      Claim 5: The key here is "consent". Let us ask "Why may two adults not consent?" This is the rational basis test. Does the state have a rational reason to disallow something? If not, then that law is subject to hightened scrutiny. Now, let us ask this question...it is absolutely clear from Lawrence v Texas that gay people DO have the legal ability to consent to relations with each other. So please tell me what the rational basis is for disallowing marriage for them?


      Delete
    2. Response 5: This is one of the most frustrating things same-sex marriage advocates do when arguing for this position. They refuse to believe that same-sex couples can marry in society today. They can. It’s not illegal. If two males are in front of a church saying their vows, the police can’t come in guns blazing. This debate applies merely to the benefits afforded to those individuals. Is there a rational basis in which to differentiate between same sex couples and heterosexual couples? Absolutely, the answer is procreation. Feel free to consent to the relations, however that doesn’t entitle same sex couples to the same benefits other relations have because they don’t come with the same characteristics.

      Claim 6: I can keep running circles around this all night, but I need to go to bed. But I will leave you with this thought. In 1967, the SCOTUS heard the case of Loving v Virginia, on the matter of interracial relations. The very same sorts of arguments were made in that era as you are making now. The SCOTUS found that laws forbidding interracial marriage were unconstitutional. This is really no different.

      Response 6: This is very different than that issue. For one, the result of the marriage is entirely different. Is there any way to differentiate a heterosexual interracial couple from one of the same sex? No, not other than skin color. Does one, in any way, provide a reason not to provide benefits to them that doesn’t apply to the other? No.
      The same can not be said of same sex couples. They are easily distinguishable and there is a rational reason that can be said of one that can not be said of the other—the ability to procreate.

      Delete
  5. I missed this one when I copied from the file I used to edit it.

    Point number (2) involves some sort of statistic, which you clearly haven't cited any sources for. You claim to be involved in the legal field, so you should know better than that. That aside, did you clearly consider any confounding factors in the statement of suicide, depression, and so on? There are reasons for these things. I don't think children are likely to grow up depressed just because "my mother likes girls" or "my daddy likes boys". If someone is prone to depression, hateful people tend to excaberate that. And when do people tend to be most hateful? When someone violates their chosen standard of morality. So your argument falls absolutely flat, since it tends to be people outside of the nuclear family causing conflict. And if people inside of the family unit are causing conflict, then you have the very same issues as in a family with a heterosexual couple. Ergo, your argument is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JFK51, thanks for the charitable replay with a lot of good questions and objections! I took the liberty to respond to a few of them 

    Claim one: The interest under your definition of marriage is 'promoting procreation,' not 'encouraging relationships between people who are naturally oriented toward procreation.'

    Response: It’s rather easy for the couple to make a prima facie showing that they are capable of having children—one that could never be shown by same sex couples. There is a governmental right to privacy in relations. Inquiry and determination into the issue of fertility after a prima facie case would be both expensive and intrusive; therefore, the government would not need to do it. It would still be over inclusive, you’re correct—but not to the same degree.

    Claim two: With this definition, you necessarily come to a result which not even most churches would support; our hypothetical 20 year old couldn't get married because she has no uterus.

    Response two: This isn’t about “most churches”. I merely presented the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. There are serious questions that infertile individuals ought to tackle before feeling their vocational call to marriage—there are alternatives.

    Claim three: I think you just barely missed the government interest in marriage. It's not promoting the creation of children, but the raising of them in a family.

    Response three: I didn’t actually. The government already extends almost all benefits to be same sex and heterosexual couples raising children. However, same sex couples don’t create a possible situation in which procreation might occur. Heterosexual relations carry that possibility. That means, if they are going to have relations, the government has an interest in creating a stable environment in which children may occur. It is very easy to differentiate the two.

    ReplyDelete