Sherif Girgis and Alex Worsnip are having an online debate about same-sex marriage, beginning here with Worsnip’s less-than-glowing review of Girgis’ book What Is Marriage?
Girgis responded here, and Worsnip has responded in turn, and at length, here.
In my view this same-sex marriage debate – concentrated as it is on rather rarefied philosophical concepts like if there could be said to be an invariable “essence” to marriage – is both fascinating and besides the point. Fascinating because both Girgis and Worsnip are smart people who have been trained to argue well (although I think Worsnip has the better argument), and irrelevant because the crucial arguments about same-sex marriage, for the overwhelming majority of voters, are “God is against gay marriage” versus “lesbian and gay couples should have equal rights.”
Categories: Marriage
I’m not sure I’m willing to purchase this book, What Is Marriage, but I do wonder about the following:
Barry, Maggie, et. al., what does Sherif Girgis offer in regards to the above statement, if you know?
Mmmm, I think I’ve found the answer to my above comment question:
I find this compromise really worthy of consideration; especially, since I’m opposed to ssm. Speaking just for myself, I think this is a win-win for both sides. I think equity in some situations is what’s called for, rather than equality.
BTW, Barry, the cartoon heading your Post is spot-on funny. You’re creation, I’m thinking.
Most brilliant freaking cartoon I’ve ever seen.
That is me in the cartoon, me and everyone else here.
Marilyn, yes, it is freakin brilliant. One of my favorite cartoons ever.
Teresa, no, the cartoon isn’t by me (although i’m flattered you’d think so). It’s from a very popular webcomic called XKCD. I’ve edited my post so that the cartoon is now a link to XKCD.
Regarding the proposed compromise, thank you for finding and highlighting that. My thoughts:
1) I’d want to know if their alternative offer would include making people who are “civil unionized” into legally close kin, like husband and wife. In other words, would “civil unions” serve the same function of marriage, of legally making two people into a new family?
Without that aspect, their offer is worth less than nothing, imo. Regardless:
2) I’d oppose any compromise that includes pro-SSM folks giving up on pushing for SSM. A pro-SSM victory sometime in the next 10 to 20 years now seems inevitable. The younger generation is overwhelmingly in favor of equality. Legally recognized SSM has gone from a wild impossible dream to being supported by the President of the USA, and half of Americans, in less than a generation.
The point is, the pro-SSM side has all the momentum. There is nothing in our position which makes a compromise that includes giving up our primary goal, at all attractive.
3) I’d also oppose any compromise that involves pro-SSM folks giving up on pushing for SSM because I don’t believe that it will be possible for lgbt people to be fully equal without full legal equality, and until there is full equality lgbt suicide rates and other horrible consequences of inequality will be with us. Full marriage equality is a necessary (although not sufficient) part of full equality.
4) Compromise is not an inherently morally better position. In some cases, one side is just plain right, and compromising would be wrong.
5) I fully support the idea of a non-marriage legal relationship, called “civil unions” or something else, “to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care” but who either because of ineligibility or for some other reason do not get married. I think that’s a wonderful idea.
But I don’t accept that the price of getting that good policy should be that lgbt people give up having legal equality. If it’s a good policy – and I think it is – then George, Grigis and their supporters should be willing to support it, even if they lose on SSM. The two issues should not be joined.
Great cartoon! I should probably print it out somehow and hang it up.
@Barry Deutsch – I don’t actually think the anti-same sex marriage argument is just God is against it. I think for many people there is a feeling or belief that it is unnatural. I’ve also seen someone who thought it was okay, but not marriage. For some reason marriage meant something else to her (but she couldn’t explain it). And then there are just fears people have.
And oddly, for me the main argument isn’t equal rights. It’s that marriage is good and it would be good if same sex couples could have it. For me it starts with a more positive view of same sex couples and a general sentimentality about love.
I don’t think I agree that it’s good policy.
Consider three kinds of pairs of people who might seek such a domestic arrangement: (1) a parent and child living together; (2) two platonic friends of the same sex living together; (3) two romantic partners (on the model of marriage) living together who happen to be of the same sex.
Why would we think that these three situations should get the same legal treatment? All three might involve “commitment” in some form that the parties might even want to make “mutually binding,” but the nature of that commitment will probably be quite different. For example, even friends who have a commitment to mutual care are unlikely to want to go through a divorce process if at any point one of them decides the leave the arrangement. But that is probably exactly the right rule for the same-sex partners in the third category, who for functional policy purposes work like a married couple even if, according to Girgis’s bizarre view of what a marriage necessarily entails, they can’t “really” be married.
But Girgis doesn’t seem very interested in these kinds of policy questions, because his concern here isn’t to find a good, manageable way to deal with domestic arrangements other than different-sex marriage. His concern is altering the social meaning of civil unions so as to ensure that no one could possibly mistake them for a grant of equality to same-sex couples. The anti-gay valence of his proposal (the law must not ever entertain for a moment the idea that same-sex relationships might be relevantly analogous to marriages) is its motivating force, trumping more mundane policy considerations. And that’s no way to make good policy—not when it comes to marriage, and not when it comes to marriage alternatives.
I agree with JHW. I can’t see any couple who is not allowed to marry needing the civil union arrangement except for same sex romantic relationships. It seems like a very complicated arrangement just to not call same sex unions marriages.
I wish people with specific beliefs about marriage would argue why they think their version of marriage should be enshrined in law. That’s the crux of the issue. You can believe marriage is whatever you want it to be; no one can stop you for having your own beliefs on the subject, or get married according to your own rules. But tell us why the government should enforce your version on everyone else.
In my shoebox world, marriage does not have ‘versions’, is not versioned. It’s one man, one woman, with possible children, for life. And, yes, I know, that polygamy was, at one time, in that mix. But, let’s remember that the Mormons were only accepted into the United States by removing one of their basic tenets: polygamy. The United States imposition of significantly altering a faith beliefs major tenant to comply with accepted marriage standards was the DOMA of its time.
Diane: I can’t see any couple who is not allowed to marry needing the civil union arrangement except for same sex romantic relationships. It seems like a very complicated arrangement just to not call same sex unions marriages.
Diane, why does a same sex ‘couple’ have to have sex? Why is that always the default position for friends living together? Why is having sex always assumed for persons with same sex attraction?
Ah, but, now I see what I didn’t before. Where I saw gold in Girgis’ proposal, others saw lead. All about perception, it is. I saw the proposal as validating commitment for single persons (not an insignificant population anymore) in a social contract; having nothing to do with sex. A way for me to commit to another and have social recognition for that commitment.
Well, scotch that idea.
I suppose it’s an interesting academic exercise for them to be having a debate about the question, “what is marriage?”
But, I think the more relevant issue (and debate), from a pragmatic and legal standpoint, remains something more along the lines of, “does the state have a good enough reason to prohibit same-sex couples from civil marriage”?
Although it’s an entitled negation of reality for him to claim it, I don’t care that Sherif Girgis thinks that my marriage is not actually a marriage, from his “natural law” standpoint. Why grant him any semblance of legitimacy that either he, or “Robbie” George, are the Big Deciders of what constitutes an authentic marriage for all of humanity?
I care that the state recognizes my marriage, because it’s the state that has the power to grant me the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage.
@Teresa – I don’t think there will really be a lot of non-sexual couples who want to make the same lifetime commitment that sexual couples make in marriage.
It would mean two friends who were committed to the idea that they would always live together, so if one of them got a job in another city, they would figure out whether to take it and both leave or turn it down. It would mean commitment to sharing money so that if one friend became unemployed or disabled the other one would support them. It would mean paying each other’s debts. It would mean the other person inheriting from you and making decisions about your medical care if you became incapacitated. It would mean you might pay the other person money to support them temporarily or for the long haul if you split up.
And while it isn’t part of the law, marriage generally means you reserve holidays and weekends for each other and come home to each other at night.
I don’t see friends wanting to make that level of commitment.
Re: I fully support the idea of a non-marriage legal relationship, called “civil unions” or something else, “to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care” but who either because of ineligibility or for some other reason do not get married. I think that’s a wonderful idea.
I think that’s an interesting idea. Civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, not a replacement for them. Maybe cultural conservatives could shift our arguments to the ccultural arena, and make the case that gay couples may have the *right* to legally marry, but that the moral choice for them to make would be to settle for the civil union instead.
I think that could actually be really productive.
Diane wrote:
“I don’t think there will really be a lot of non-sexual couples who want to make the same lifetime commitment that sexual couples make in marriage.”
I understand your very explanatory reasoning, Diane. Very well stated, I might add.
However, for me and for some gay persons and older adults that I know, that’s exactly what we desire:
Persons are doing that now, Diane. I know it may be hard to understand; but, for some of us, so positioned, ‘commitment’ is food for our soul. And, how cool would that be, for some social recognition for doing our part, apart from marriage, in honoring commitment.
I, for one, would like to see both options available to couples both straight and queer. There are many people who would like to have non-marriage options for formalizing their relationship to ensure legal access of their partner(s) to benefits, etc. But I would only support this if marriage were also an option for those who wanted that pathway to relationship formalization.
And the intellectually-curious part of me would be FASCINATED to see what sort of response a conservative argument that gay peoples’ “moral option” would be to “settle” for a civil union would be. I honestly don’t care to wager how that would go over, and which demographics would be receptive to it and which not.
“In my shoebox world, marriage does not have ‘versions’, is not versioned. It’s one man, one woman, with possible children, for life.”
Teresa, that’s a personal version of what marriage is, and there are a great many exceptions to it, even before the same-sex marriage discussion. The exceptions are not insignificant, and include couples who divorce and couples who can’t have, or don’t want, children. That’s a lot of couples.
For your version of marriage to prevail, the government would have to ban divorce, and dissolve the marriages of couples who don’t produce a child after some period of time. Do you support the government taking these actions, in order to have society realize your personal vision of what marriage “really” is?
My personal version of marriage is less concerned with the genital composition of the couple but rather with sexual fidelity and marital longevity. To wit, no sex outside of marriage and no divorce. If I had my druthers, adultery would be criminalized and divorced would not be possible. I doubt I’ll convince the government to enact either and I wouldn’t really want to, because it’s not up to me or the government to decide what strangers’ do with their marriages, or what circumstances drive someone to commit adultery or get a divorce.
Rob, I’m not sure there’s a huge demographic of gay persons like me who choose to be celibate. In fact, I think the number is pretty small. But, I have no studies to prove that, it’s just me speculating.
As to your further assertion about being ‘self-hating’, certainly that can be the case for some of us. However, to link self-hating to celibacy should not be seen as a certain corollary. And, in fact, is an unwarranted supposition.
“Why grant him any semblance of legitimacy that either he, or “Robbie” George, are the Big Deciders of what constitutes an authentic marriage for all of humanity?”
Of the many fascinating aspects of the same-sex marriage debate, I’m particularly captivated by the admission that marriage is a creature of the state, not God, not “natural law” or any other source. If they really believed in their “God and natural law” theories of marriage, they wouldn’t much care what the government says is real, it seems to me.
What I really want to know is why this matters so much to these Big Deciders. I look at their tactics, like getting judges fired, making up fake parenting studies, forming voting coalitions among homophobes and religious extremists, etc., and I can’t help but wonder, “why does this matter to you so much?!”
It sure is the trainwreck you can’t take your eyes off, though!
” I can’t see any couple who is not allowed to marry needing the civil union arrangement except for same sex romantic relationships.”
What about that couple in the other thread, the half-siblings? Their marriage is null and void and they are not allowed to marry or have sex anymore. But they are raising children together and might want to continue to live together now, but non-sexually, and need the legal protections.
Thanks, Mont D., for including me in the company of Eve Tushnet. She’s, actually, someone I admire quite a bit.
Now, to the rest of your comment, thanks for adding to the list of my being self-hating, homophobic, a pedophile, and a paraphilliac mental case. Seriously, this is quite amusing.
@Manny – Perhaps the couple in the other thread could be treated like a divorced couple or perhaps the best thing is to just treat them like any other set of unmarried parents.
But what if they want the security and legal protections to raise their kids together, but now have no interest in having sex and don’t mind being prohibited from having sex and marriage.
There could also be lots of normal siblings that never had sex together, but are both single parents raising their kids together and pooling their income that would like the security of shared property and tax benefits of marriage.
But OK. mainly it would be same-sex couples who got Civil Unions, but that’s fine. They should be treated like siblings because they should not be allowed to marry or procreate.
I think their compromise is unacceptable though because shouldn’t be any states that still give same-sex couples the rights of marriage. They should all give these Civil Unions that are available to all couples that are not allowed to have sex marry or procreate, and marriage should only be for couples that are allowed to have sex and procreate.
I’m not a moderator, but as the originator of my thread, I really don’t like to read the insulting speculations about Teresa’s choices.
I don’t think this is the right forum for that, and I’ll thank people to cut it out. Please.
(And although Teresa has dealt with it with admirable humor and grace, it may be that another person lurking who stays celibate will choose to remain lurking because of the snarky comments.)
Also, there are any number of reasons someone might choose to be celibate for some or all of their lives. There’s nothing wrong with that choice, so long as it is freely made, as far as I’m concerned.
* * *
On another subject, I’ve been living with non-sexual friends in a committed, permanent lifetime partnership since the late 80s. It’s not a common choice, but it does happen.
@barry Deutsch – I don’t want to get too personal, so do you think people who choose a permanent lifetime partnership that is non-sexual need to make legal agreements? and would they benefit from a legal status?
Barry,
I agree. I was finding myself in sympathy with Teresa, even though I disagree with her on same-sex marriage.
My take-away from the debate is that the same-sex marriage side is really thinking in terms of a mystical union of souls, while the natural law side is focused on penises and vaginas. It’s rather ironic. I’ve been thinking of a medieval saints life I read years ago. I think it’s germane here.
A young Roman woman, a Christian, pledged herself to perpetual virginity. Her parents, seeking to thwart her, married her off to a nobleman. On their wedding night, the groom saw an angel with a flaming sword over their bed. The angel told him that if he attempted to have sex with his wife, he would be struck dead on the spot.
Worst. Honeymoon. Ever.
It goes on that they both pledge perpetual chastity together and were an example of Christian love and marriage to all around them.
Clearly, medieval Christians didn’t think that you actually needed sex to make a marriage.
If Teresa wants to be in a sexless relationship, married or unmarried, that is wholly her business. I would caution her, however, from deciding that what she wants to do is what everyone must do. That she would be happy with unmarried sexless companionship is not an argument against my being married (and having sex with my husband). It has the same moral flaw as those who from a position of married heterosexuality announce that gay people must be unmarried and chaste.
Yes, I think people should tune down their attacks on Teresa. At the same time, I think Teresa would go far in trying to understand other people’s arguments and realize that most of us, no matter what our sexuality, do not aspire to lives of sexless companionship. There is no angel with a flaming sword over my bed.
Setting aside Teresa’s views on homosexuality as an identity/orientation, I agree with Barry and John D. that it is in bad faith to attack her for the decisions she makes regarding her own life (although obviously we can be critical of her views insofar as they affect our own life choices, or the lives of others: it’s one thing to choose to remain celibate, but another to suggest an entire class of people is morally obligated to do so). I believe there is room within marriage for marriage-without-sex; poll folks within the asexual community and you’ll find that quite a number of them are seeking long-term relationships that may or may not involve sexual intimacy! We don’t interrogate couples upon applying for a marriage license re: their sexual habits, nor should we. So I think Teresa makes a very good point that by presuming that marriage is an institution particular to those with a sexual relationship erases all of those people within marriage who are not sexually active — much like the presumption that marriage is about babies, when many married couples cannot or choose not to procreate.
Re: much like the presumption that marriage is about babies, when many married couples cannot or choose not to procreate.
I think you’ll find many cultural and religious conservatives are highly critical of married couples who choose not to procreate.
Well, yes, Hector, I’m aware of that. But my point isn’t about peoples’ views it’s about what we actually do or do not enforce. We don’t require people to procreate within marriage, and we don’t interrogate them about how often / if ever or in what way they engage in sexual intimacy prior to allowing them to marry. There’s a difference between personal judgment and social proscription.
annajcook writes: “So I think Teresa makes a very good point that by presuming that marriage is an institution particular to those with a sexual relationship erases all of those people within marriage who are not sexually active — ”
I do not think this is Teresa’s point. She does not believe that people in sexless relationships should be able to marry. She believes that they might qualify for some lesser recognition to be determined by George et al.
Re: much like the presumption that marriage is about babies, when many married couples cannot or choose not to procreate.
But all married couples are certainly allowed to procreate whether they can or not. We don’t allow people to procreate with their siblings though. That’s what is cool about the civil union idea for couples that are not allowed to procreate.
Manny,
I have no idea what you mean by “all married couples are certainly allowed to procreate whether they can or not.” What kind of effective permission are those unable to procreate receiving? After all, no one is forbidden from procreating. If, for example, a woman became pregnant through incest, there is no way to force her to have an abortion (nor should there be).
I have yet to see a civil union suggestion that didn’t have some sort of fatal flaw. Worsnip makes it clear that Girgis and his colleagues seem intent on making an over-broad relationship classification just so they can de-gay it. The other problem, which I don’t think Worsnip addresses is that its proponents make it clear that it will have such benefits as they think worth granting. In other words, it may not (and probably won’t) meet the actual concerns of same-sex couples. It is another solution in search of a problem that ignores the actual problem.
Many same-sex couples find themselves in situations where opposite-sex couples have marriage as a bundle of problem-solving strategies. This is why the first key step for opponents of same-sex marriage need to listen to its advocates. Why do gay people want marriage? (Hint: it is neither to attack religion, nor to destroy the family, no matter what some opponents have said.)
By making procreation the supposed central core to marriage, I cannot see how anyone can avoid odd statements such as yours where the infertile are “allowed” to procreate, just not in any meaningful way. (If you mean they can have vaginal sex, just say it.)
Hector addresses the other side of this, saying that “many cultural and religious conservatives are highly critical of married couples who choose not to procreate.” Not when you compare their reaction to the reaction of cultural and religious conservatives to same-sex marriage. If conservatives are “highly critical” (and I don’t hear it) of those who choose not to procreate, why are there no laws against failing to procreate? Why does NOM never address this issue? Bring in a few state constitutional amendments nullifying marriages of the non-procreating, and I’ll grant your argument.
The facts on the ground simply do not support it. Most religious and cultural conservatives seem fine with the infertile and unwilling to procreate marrying, as long as they’re an opposite-sex couple. Maggie Gallagher has said it would be intrusive to ask about ability or intent.
Once again, we are left with opponents to same-sex marriage claiming that a view of marriage should be controlling when they show no desire to apply these standards to opposite-sex couples.
“Maggie Gallagher has said it would be intrusive to ask about ability or intent.”
But you don’t have to ask, you just have to post signs in marriage license bureaus to the effect, “Marriage is for couples who have, or want to have, and can have, and will have, children. Please do not apply for a marriage license if you are infertile, or intend not to have children.” People will opt-out privately, with no testing or inquiries required.
If the plan is to redefine marriage to be about procreation and/or children, how hard would it be to spread the word to that effect? A public service announcement campaign, some Facebooking, word of mouth, etc. It really isn’t that hard to exclude ineligible couples.
Kevin,
But it would be a very radical redefinition of marriage. I would be in agreement with those that it would be wrong to turn away those who don’t want to have children, and wrong and hurtful to turn away those who cannot.
What about the people who don’t know that they’re infertile? We’d have to institute fertility tests to screen them out. What about people who simply change their mind. “Oh, we first thought we wanted children, but put it off so many times that we’ve decided we really don’t after all.”
And they are not, currently, ineligible couples. Should we grandfather in the ineligible couples? The backers of Prop. 8 argued for voiding the marriages of same-sex couples. If marriage were truly, as they claimed, about “responsible procreation,” then I suppose the state should void marriages that fail to produce children.
The whole “marriage is about procreation” argument is a novelty designed to exclude same-sex couples. Nobody breathed a word of it until fairly recently. It’s not as clever as its proponents think it is. It can only be applied by making huge carve-outs for opposite-sex couples and not budging for same-sex couples. And a more recent post on this site shows that procreation lags badly behind love, commitment, and companionship as a reason for marriage.
“What kind of effective permission are those unable to procreate receiving?”
Permission to have sex, permission to try to procreate. The approval of society and their families for them to unite to make children together with each other. Obviously society doesn’t know in advance or even care if they have children, it only approves of them creating children together and raising them.
“After all, no one is forbidden from procreating. If, for example, a woman became pregnant through incest, there is no way to force her to have an abortion (nor should there be).”
Well, we do put people in jail for incest and take their child away from them. Incest is a crime even if no child is born, people are forbidden from procreating with people they are ineligible to marry. Being eligible to marry means being eligible to procreate together.
John D, I disagree wholeheartedly with the plan to redefine marriage as about procreation. I was merely addressing the anti-gays’ explanation for why it’s ok to include straight couples who can’t or won’t reproduce, but not include gay couples who can’t and won’t reproduce: that it would be unacceptably intrusive to the straight couples, who for all appearances, can and will reproduce.
My point was, you don’t have ask them personally, putting them on the spot (evidently, it would be shameful to ask on an official document if someone is fertile or not, or whether they want to have children or not); you just tell everyone the rules, and let individuals self-select out. In any event, it’s only really awkward in the beginning. As word gets out that marriage is now about procreation, and for procreators only, non-procreators will simply plan their lives around not getting married, since they would be ineligible.
Sure, some people won’t know if they’re fertile or not. That’s easy: let them marry, and if no kids appear after three years, the marriage is dissolved, since it’s unnecessary and the existence of married non-procreators is offensive to genuinely fertile married couples.
“….people are forbidden from procreating with people they are ineligible to marry”
Please tell that to the man and woman whose adulterous affair results in a baby. Try reporting such a “crime” to the authorities and see where it gets you. Forbidden? Hardly.
It is certainly forbidden to have sex and procreate with someone already married to someone else. It is indeed a crime. Society does not approve or allow people to have adulterous affairs. It is super disrespectful to tell every validly married couple that they have no more right to have sex and procreate than an adulterous couple does, or siblings do.
Manny,
Do you want to break the news to Adam Laxalt that he needs to die in order to preserve the sanctity of procreation within marriage? Mr. Laxalt is, through no fault of his own, the product of an affair that former Senator Pete Domenici had with the daughter of another senator. Domenici was married at the time Mr. Laxalt was conceived.
Do you really think they’re going to haul Pete Domenici off to jail?
Thanks, Barry, et. al., who been gracious enough and speak to some problematic comments.
John D. At the same time, I think Teresa would go far in trying to understand other people’s arguments and realize that most of us, no matter what our sexuality, do not aspire to lives of sexless companionship. There is no angel with a flaming sword over my bed.
John D., I do understand other people’s arguments, as far as humanly possible. I’ve taken great pains to do just that. Somehow, though, holding a contrary view is immediately taken as ‘not understanding’ someone else’s position. I find that troublesome.
annajcook (although obviously we can be critical of her views insofar as they affect our own life choices, or the lives of others: it’s one thing to choose to remain celibate, but another to suggest an entire class of people is morally obligated to do so).
AnnaJ, et. al., my position opposed to ssm, which is not uniquely mine btw (but y’all knew that) sees harm coming to traditional (sorry, Kevin, for using that word) marriage with approval of ssm. No need to beat a dead horse, even deader by explaining all that.
I’m assuming (bad thing to do) that few, if any, other FS Bloggers or commenters agree with the position I espouse. Well, so be it, if that’s the case; although, if would be kinda nice to have some company. Karen ??
So, now, we’re back to where we started with compromise, civility, and whatever else is lurking in the weeds. Is it stretching civility by commenting on an issue (ssm) in which one holds a contrary view from the majority of forum participants?
Re: Not when you compare their reaction to the reaction of cultural and religious conservatives to same-sex marriage. If conservatives are “highly critical” (and I don’t hear it) of those who choose not to procreate, why are there no laws against failing to procreate?
John D,
I’m not referring to the legal arena, rather to the cultural one. You’re right that cultural conservatives aren’t advocating for laws against married couples failing to procreate. nevertheless, I’m sure you’ve heard cultural conservative intellectuals, religious leaders etc. condemning childless married couples for being decadent, self-indulgent, etc. and arguing that the increasing rates of childlessness are symptomatic of an unhealthy society. I mean, I’ve made that case myself.
We don’t have to punish adultery, but we could. We used to. The point is that there is no right to have sex with a married person, and no right to procreate with a married person, and no right to marry a married person. Everyone who is prattling about infertile couples is on the wrong track, marriage is for couples that are allowed to procreate, and we aren’t allowed to procreate with someone already married to someone else, that is why you can’t marry a married person.
So SSM really means ditching the taboos against incest and adultery? I can’t believe you guys are saying that there is a right to commit adultery and incest. It is so disrespectful to married couples to say that they have the same right to have sex and procreate with each other that incestuous and adulterous couples have. Married couples deserve the respect of societal approval of their reproduction, not being equated to criminals.
Hector, that pressure to procreate so as to not be “selfish” is what makes couples use sperm donors and egg donors and buy children from overseas. It would be much better to have sympathy for childless marriages that are most likely just infertile, not selfish. We should be doing more to encourage younger marriages and fewer partners before marriage so that people don’t lose their fertility. But for many people now, it is too late, so please lay off the scorn.
@Manny
There is a clear and distinct separation between marriage and procreation. One can certainly be married and not procreate, and one can certainly procreate and not be married. There is no interdependency whatsoever (adultery is not a federal crime and states where it is a crime are in the minority). Further, as once we punished adultery, so did we condone incest.
Lastly, as an objective statement of fact, procreation does not technically require a partner, though ‘we’ are not ready to accept this.
Marriage certainly is a construct of society; it is not an accomplishment to be revered and respected. One can marry for any number of non-traditional reasons, many of which would not be condoned by a majority (further, the commitment is non-binding and the institution generally is not successful).
I would like to better understand why we should encourage younger marriages or fewer partners. I would instead suggest that we encourage selfless responsibility.
… and more on topic
I would assert that marriage has no value other than the benefits prescribed by law. If another legal remedy provided the same benefits, there would be no value whatsoever. Marital law incentivises civil stability (from the view of its proponents). Society has associated value as a matter of habit not as a matter of fact.
Girgis asserts that because married heterosexual couples historically provide a positive and nurturing environment to offspring, that only married heterosexual couples possess this quality.
There is no empirical evidence to support this position. This is subjective opinion as stated above (and therefore of neglible value).
Certainly it is possible for an unmarried human of any sexual orientation to produce ‘happy/healthy’ offspring, as it is possible for married heterosexuals to produce an ‘unhappy’/'unhealthy’ offspring. Childrearing is rather a matter of ‘process’ than ‘materials’, genetic anomalies not withstanding.
It certainly appears that proponents are leveraging SSM as a vehicle for general equality of homosexuals as an end to prejudice (e.g. marriage is equivalent to social acceptance). While I generally disagree with Girigis, I do agree that Marital law is a blunt instrument for this purpose though it would likely accomplish that goal.
There are alternative legal instruments which bind individuals. Corporations are refactoring policy to support ‘domestic partnership’. Time will certainly provide remedy as society evolves intellectually.
I would proprose rather to deregulate/deincentivise marriage all together.
Full disclosure: heterosexual unwed decadal dosmetic partner no children (by choice)
@Copperfield – I support same sex marriage, but I also support marriage as an institution and I think you’re missing a lot of things.
“Lastly, as an objective statement of fact, procreation does not technically require a partner, though ‘we’ are not ready to accept this.”
At this point in time, procreation always requires someone else to give you sperm or eggs in some way or other. Biologically, there are two parents contributing to your DNA. They may not both raise you, but many people who are raised by someone else still feel some connection to the biological parent or at least want to know about them.
“Marriage certainly is a construct of society; it is not an accomplishment to be revered and respected.”
The social construction or marriage is overall something I think we should be proud of having invented. It provides a way for two people who fall in love to work together to raise children. It makes things a little more fair so that you don’t have one partner doing it all. It keeps the village a little more peaceful.
“I would assert that marriage has no value other than the benefits prescribed by law.”
This is objectively not true. There are studies showing that married people live longer, are happier, and are better off financially. They even like their sex lives better! The researchers have looked carefully and the effects aren’t just because healthy, happy, rich people get married. People who get married become richer, etc. And the effects apply to women, too.
Furthermore, children raised by married couples who stay married are at less risk for various problems. Children raised by divorced couples are also at less risk for problems than children raised by never married couples. Children benefit from having married parents.
And, not surprisingly, married mothers are much happier and wealthier than single mothers.
The benefits to marriage probably come from staying together and having an attitude that you will stay together. No doubt having marriage be a social institution is one reason you get the benefits of marriage, but the benefits of marriage go way beyond things like Social Security or immigration, etc.
I also suspect that the benefits of marriage are generally even greater if you have children. Children are just a lot of work and anything that supports you and helps you stay together and get the job done is going to make you happier.
more @copperfield: I basically agree with this, although I don’t think it contradicts the possibility of same sex marriage:
“The stability of marriage, so understood, best ensures that children will know the committed love of those whose union brought them forth. This gives them the best shot at becoming healthy and happy people, which affects every other social good. That is why every society with the merest ambition to thrive has socially regulated male-female sexual bonds: to shore up the stabilizing norms of marriage, on which social order rests.”
There is a great deal of evidence that in general having married parents is good for children. For some children with rotten parents or parents who can’t get along, it will not be the best choice. But at a social level, promoting healthy, lasting marriages is good for children.
Marriage as a social institution probably evolved/was constructed because we needed a way to deal with the natural human tendency to fall in love and make babies that needed years and years of care. Having the people who made them care for them is a sensible arrangement and one that appears over and over again.
Without birth control, regulating male-female sexual bonds and sex makes a lot of sense.
However, as I said, I don’t think that means you can’t have same sex marriage. The fact that marriage probably evolved as a way to create families for children doesn’t mean that every marriage has to have children. As Barry Deutsch points out, same sex couples feel the same falling in love and bonding feelings.
Well, I suppose you can guess that I think this would be a thoroughly terrible idea:
“I would propose rather to deregulate/deincentivise marriage all together.”
Marriage is a great institution that is good for children. Most people will have and want to have children. Supporting marriage is a good thing all around.
Regulating marriage is unfortunately necessary because people do break up. They fall in love and don’t fill out contracts and legal forms because they love each other and trust each other. Someone needs to make sure people are fair to each other and that they don’t cheat each other when they are mad about breaking up.
Also, of course, so many couples have children who need protections when they break up.
Other regulations are good in preventing some marriages that shouldn’t take place and keeping people from taking advantage of each other.
And, if you are going to have benefits for marriage (like the assumption that you can make hospital decisions for each other or Social Security survivor benefits, etc.), then you get to set some ground rules about who can get the benefits, etc.
Theresa asks, “Is it stretching civility by commenting on an issue (ssm) in which one holds a contrary view from the majority of forum participants?”
It may not be stretching civility by commenting on an issue in which one holds a contrary view from the majority of forum participants, but it is certainly uncivil to imply that people with “same-sex attraction” (the code word tellingly borrowed from homophobic ex-gay religious organizations) should not have sex.
No one is disputing anyone’s choice to live a celibate life. That usually doesn’t work out very well, but an individual choice is no one’s business but the individual’s unless or until it impacts on others. However, advocating celibacy for those with “same-sex attraction” is profoundly uncivil. It is also dangerous, particularly for young people enticed or coerced into ex-gay therapy, who experience depression and sometime suicidal impulses.
There are serious problems with Girgis, George, and Anderson’s arguments against SSM. I’ll comment on one argument that seems to be one of the most important for their case: that the “revisionist” view of marriage can’t account for marriage’s permanence. I’ll show that the conjugal view is in no better a position to argue for the norm of permanence than the revisionist view. I haven’t read their book, so I’m going by what I’ve read in their paper.
The authors define the revisionist view of marriage as an emotional union. They say that this creates problems for the idea that marriage ought to be permanent. Emotions can decrease over time, so there’s no reason why married people should remain married after they are no longer that emotionally united.
If this is the case, then this is just as much of a problem for the conjugal view as the revisionist view. The conjugal view is defined as a comprehensive union. To be married to another person is to be united to them on all levels of their being. A couple must be united volitionally AND emotionally AND biologically. Not just united volitonally OR emotionally OR biologically. If a couple is not emotionally united then they are not in a comprehensive union. The authors seem to think that by adding other necessary conditions to marriage like biological union that they have somehow fortified it and made it more lasting than an emotional union. But as long as emotional union is a necessary condition for marriage, then a marriage stands or falls with it.
The conjugal view also faces the challenge of justifying the norm of permanence. Why should a relationship based on reproduction be permanent? Women lose their fertility as they age, and children are usually independent by the time a couple is in their 60′s. Why should they stay married after that?
@Diane
If I could revise the sentiment about cloning, replacing ‘procreate’ with ‘reproduce’ (as that was the intent of the statement). I of course agree with the definition of ‘procreate’ and did a poor job of editing my response. I disagree that traditional reproductive ‘material’ is a requirement of the creation of a human (as supported by scientific fact).
I feel that you are also creating a conclusion from ‘partial evidence’. The intent of my argument is that because something has shown to have a positive outcome, does not mean that it is the only method that produces a positive outcome.
There is enormous societal pressure for conformity (normality). I propose that the success of a traditional marriage is, atleast partially, the result of participants fulfilling the desires of their culture (as a method of achieving a goal/status). Certainly you would agree that ‘normal’ humans strive to achieve goals that society has created and the achievement of such goals provides a ‘health’ benefit to the participant (which, in this case, would be conveyed to their offspring)?
In the recent social climate (the last century), I do not see how alternate methods could be evaluated ‘fairly’. I see this argument much like argument of equestrianists at the turn of the 20th century – surely the automobile cannot be successful, as horses have been successful for recorded history. Such a sentiment could not be more narrow.
I also vehemently reject the notion that, today, without strict legally binding contracts, humans could not commence a monogomous long term relationship, engage in procreation and produce a successful outcome, or that humans would immediately revert to barbaristic primitive behavior the instant that legislation against it was abolished.
I’m hearing you argue that humans are grossly irresponsible and need careful and constant oversight and artificial goals for social stability. I think this is precisely why marriage is a bad idea. It is not natural, despite being good for civility. The emotions and external pressures that persuade the commencement are waning.
The permanence of any relationship is strictly the result of an ongoing renewal of the agreement between participants.
Selfless responsibility?