A Pair of Deuces, Revisited. Part II: Marriage

Part of the ongoing conversation.

Devin says: "Same-sex marriage is not asking for special recognition to gay relationships. It is simply asking for them to be seen as equal. At this junction, we have a separate but equal idea of marriage in this country. This has been the case throughout history whenever social issues have come to the forefront. When interracial marriage was introduced, it was seen as the bane of people's existence."

This seems to be a favorite line of reasoning of the proponents of gay "marriage", that of comparing it to racial inequality. Frankly, I just don't see the comparison.

Under the proposition that "all men are created equal" (and remember that is the gender-neutral definition of the word man, since context does not require it to refer to males-only)—a proposition unique to Christendom, I might add—racist actions are contrary to truth. Treating people as unequal contradicts this idea known through reason.

But the debate over gay "marriage" isn't about whom, it's about what. It's not about equality of persons, it's about equality of relationships. I have never heard it proposed that "all relationships are created equal," and to do so would be absurd. No one would (or could) argue that the relationship I have with my cat is equal to the one I have with my son, which in turn is not equal to the one I have with my wife, or the one I have with God. Each one of these relationships is different, unique, and inherently unequal.

So in order to justify gay "marriage" as an equality battle, one first has to demonstrate, contrary to common sense and empirical evidence, that homosexual relationships are equal or equivalent to heterosexual ones. Lest we forget how they differ, there is this. In order for a homosexual relationship to be equal, they would have to be capable of producing, at least in principle, something of equal value to a human life.

"Homosexuals do have the rights of everyone else except in this one. And I suppose we can take the route that marriage is not a right but a privilege, but then we get into hegemony and privilege and that becomes a controversial topic and this one is controversial enough, so let's not go there."

What? Devin avoiding controversy ;-)

Funny thing: prior to a year or two ago, I had never heard the phrase or concept "fundamental right to marry". It almost feels like I stepped into a parallel universe where this concept is one that has been taught for centuries.

But again, the thing being debated here is not the "fundamental right to marry", but rather "the fundamental right to marry whomever I wish." Slippery slope arguments apply here, as this same line of reasoning can be used to justify polygamy, incest, and really whatever other type of sexual perversion we wish.

"So I suppose the main question is why does anyone get married in the first place? Some would say love, other say for security (marriage protects the woman, the man and the children) and other say that the purpose of a marriage is to raise a family."

As I have stated before, the institution of marriage, and governments involvement in it, is to ensure that children are raised by their parents by positively encouraging people not to engage in procreation until they are ready to deal with the consequences; to positively encourage spouses to stay together; and to negatively discourage spouses from abandoning each other and their children. If marriage is simply about love, then there is no reason for societal involvement in it.

"So simply because gay people cannot have children naturally they should be unable to wed? What does that say about people who happen to be infertile? Shouldn't they follow the same rules?"

Aha! Finally, in my opinion, the only good argument against child-bearing as the reason for marriage: infertility. However, I have heard too many good arguments to consider this a promising line of reasoning for gay marriage.

Firstly, how does the couple know there infertile? It would have been impossible for the Murloc and I to know that before we got married. Secondly, if they think they're infertile, how certain can they be? Couples who have thought they were infertile have still gotten pregnant. Even if they honestly believe they can't conceive, I would prefer people act prudently and act as if they could, lest a surprise occur. This also applies to people who get married with no intention of ever having children.

But the big point here is that these infertile couples can still conceive in potentiality, even if the specifics of their situation don't permit it (technically every woman is infertile about 75% of the time). Heterosexual sex, even when infertile, is still a different kind of sex than homosexual sex, since the latter does not even have that potential. To equate homosexual relationships with infertile heterosexual relationships is to confuse the general with the specific.

"What about people who abuse their children/each other? If the purpose is for security and there is no security, should the marriage be invalidated? What about if love goes out of the equation?"

This argument is a specific type of logical fallacy. There is probably a name for it, but I only know it as "the abuse does not nullify the use."

Examples of this logical fallacy in other contexts.

Proposition: Jews are good people.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Bernie Madoff was a Jew and he swindled people out of millions of dollars.
The specific example here does not counter the goodness of every other Jew.

Proposition: The Catholic Church has been one of the driving forces for scientific progress over the last 1000 years.
Fallacious counter-argument: But Galileo Galilei was persecuted by the Church for his scientific teachings.
The specific example here does not counter the hundreds of other ways in which the Church positively encouraged the development of the scientific world view.

Proposition: Marriage ought to be between one man and one woman to provide security for the rearing of children.
Fallacious counter-argument: But a small percentage of marriages do not provide security.
The specific example here does not counter the vast majority of marriages that do, nor even the ideal form of marriage.

John C. Wright, great opponent of gay "marriage" that he is, once wrote a piece where he shot down the argument that gay marriage should not be allowed because gay marriages were not as healthy as straight ones. His words: "no one would argue that if everyone in the neighborhood but me and my bride were fornicating like bigamous weasels, a prudent magistrate would forbid legal recognition of marriage to me and my bride. How is my right to get married barred, or even influenced, by the misuse others make of their rights? If I lived in a neighborhood of slanderers, would a prudent lawmaker take away from me the right to freedom of the speech? Or would he merely punish slander?"

No, because some marriages are not the ideal in no way means that any marriage ought not try to be.

"It seems to me that there exists the idea that we should be picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't."

In a word, duh. We ought to be incredibly picky about what we will allow to happen and what we won't. We won't allow murder, rape, theft, arson, prostitution, perjury, slander, scams, speeding, double-parking, false advertising, or medical malpractice. To name a few. The purpose of the law is exactly to be picky about what we will and won't allow to happen.

"I don't disagree that we live in a society of instant gratification and entitlement. And perhaps there are far too many easy ways out, but what does this have to do with marriage."

In brief, the prudent use of sex requires self control, which is contrary to the philosophy of instant gratification. The desire for instant gratification as it pertains to sex requires that sex be consequence-free and marriage be unnecessary. Both of those in turn lead to permitting gay "marriage" and the need to do away with the consequences of sex.

"Because one person might consider being homosexual to be a sin does not mean that that person does."

Largely irrelevant. I could substitute just about anything in place of homosexuality and still have a true statement ("Because one person might consider slavery/racism/murder/child prostitution to be a sin does not mean that another person does.") The universality/commonality or lack thereof of a belief has no bearing on its truth value.

Also, a point of semantics (which I think you knew) is that the Catholic Church does not consider being homosexual to be a sin. Sin is an act of volition. Homosexuality is a condition and therefore cannot be a sin. Acting on homosexual desires can be a sin. We will sometimes call homosexuality a disordered inclination.

"You are more than willing to call me all sorts of horrible names (although I know that you never would - that's the thing I honest and truly love about Jesus), but it doesn't mean that I would call myself them nor accept your titles."

I hope you meant the first part rhetorically. If I ever gave the impression that I want to call you names or think ill of you, I sincerely apologize. It is not my desire or intent to insult or denigrate you.

"The attitudes of sex in this country are off, yes it's true. The attitude of sex should be: Here is the situation. Here are the possible consequences. Here's why you should not do it before you are ready/married (however you choose to put it). Here's the best way to not have to deal with them - Have respect for your body. Have love for yourself. Have trust and faith in your decisions and your intuitions. Have enough self-respect and self-confidence to ignore what the media/peers tell you. Surround yourself with like-minded people or have enough chutzpah to tell those you choose to surround yourself with to piss off. However, just because that is how we should raise our children does not mean that our ideal has the potential to come true."

Applause! A beautifully written paragraph, it perfectly expresses my thoughts and warms my heart to know we agree so perfectly on at least this one thing.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Teaching self respect and prudence are extremely important to combating the dangers of unwanted pregnancy and STIs. The difficulty is that when society, the media, and peers have nothing but contempt for those values, it is extremely difficult for parents (who, remember, are often the epitome of un-cool to teenagers) to teach this message. I worry that a society that embraces consequence-free sex will make the parents' job that much harder.

I think that one reason you may have difficulty understanding this (if you do have difficulty), is that from what I know about you, you were unlike most teenagers. You respected yourself and loved your parents. You put on the role of a wholesome person with the ease that post people put on a shirt. This is not so easy for many other people. Many, if not most, teenagers struggle with this. The teenage years are when kids begin to question the wisdom of their parents and open themselves to dangerous influences. In order for these teenagers to not fall into dangerous pits, society has to help the parents by not doing everything it can to undermine them.

"I cannot see how same-sex marriage would weaken marriage. I have never been able to see how love can weaken marriage."

You might have a point here if any kind of love were sufficient for marriage. But that is not the case. I love Damien, my mother and father, and my brother and sister, but not with the kind of love required for marriage. Marriage requires a special bond of conjugal love, the kind that physically manifests itself in the person of the child it creates. Changing marriage so that it involves another type of love, no matter how true or real, threatens to change society's idea of the institution so that people no longer think the special conjugal love is required.

"The institution of marriage has been challenged by lack of respect for our spouses, lack of love for our spouses, lack of conviction, enthusiasm in temptation and lack of condemnation from friends."

I could not agree with you more. A brilliant observation. Brava!

"I can see what you mean about the separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the realm of responsibility for their actions regarding the possible consequences of sex. However, you cannot negate the fact that things just don't work any other way. I like the analogy, but it doesn't work the biology department."

You are, of course, correct. The consequences of an instance of homosex are minute compared to the consequences of imprudent heterosex. The homosexuals haven't irresponsibly risked the creation of a life for which they are unprepared to care and love. This is why I harbor sympathy and perhaps a bit of pity (but not in a condescending way) for homosexuals. They don't appear to harm anyone with their acts, but yet I can't condone it simply because doing so would condone the separation of sex and procreation.

"I agree that the choice is between all those things, but I cannot understand how homosexual unions equal sorrow."

If the equation were true, if homosexual unions always and inevitably lead to sorrow, then gay marriage would not even be an issue. It would be plain for all the world to see that this type of relationship could never be good. But that is of course not the case.

Perhaps one of the greatest definitions of sin I have ever heard was one given by Fr. Robert, a resident priest at our parish. "Sin," he says, "is a love of the good in the wrong way." If all sin automatically lead to misery, then no one would ever do it. It would be too obvious and no one would take the risk. But sin, as Father points out, involves love of something good. Since love is involved, the harm of the sin may be blurred or obfuscated by the love, and the sinner may get away with his sin with no harm. This is sin's greatest strength. But the good of love can still work through the sin, and that is sin's greatest weakness.

Of course, this is a theological discussion and has no place in a discussion of political ramifications. I understand your frustration with this seemingly false dichotomy that gay marriage automatically leads to unwanted pregnancy. I myself have difficulty seeing the connection, which is why I humbly defer to the wisdom of others; my Church, my parents, the philosophers, and other wise men and women who see the connections between the philosophy that permits gay marriage and the one that breaks down the sexual boundaries protecting women, men, and children.

It would be wonderful if human nature was pliable enough that we could completely disassociate these two philosophies. If gays behaved as perfectly as chaste Christians, saved themselves for their spouses, practiced the virtues of prudence and self-mastery, and discouraged fornication amongst themselves and others, then I would have no argument. But this is not the case. There is a connection between acceptance of homosexuality and unchastity in heterosexual relationships, even if it is only a non-causal correlation. They seem to come together. Perhaps it is a false dichotomy to say that you can either do away with gay marriage or unwanted pregnancy, but history appears to tell us otherwise. When the world turned away from chastity, it opened itself to both homosexuality and the behaviors that lead to sorrow and tears for the women sitting in the doctor's office, awaiting the results of their pregnancy test. Maybe these two can be separated. Maybe we can create world where women are always loved, children are always embraced and never thought of as a punishment, and homosexuality is accepted. But sad human experience indicates otherwise. I simply cannot see how fallen men are capable of such a world.