Lecture 8 Gay Marriage

1
Lecture 8Gay Marriage
2
Homosexuality

• Until recently homosexuality was almost
  universally condemned and forbidden by law, but
  nowadays in developing countries the laws against
  it either no longer exist or are not enforced.
• The reason for this change in attitude is the
  belief about human liberty adult people should
  be free to live their lives according to their
  wishes, as long as they dont harm others.
• But this does not mean that all people now think
  that sexual orientation is just a matter of
  taste, and that any choice here is as good as any
  other.
• Many people still condemn homosexuality or regard
  it as unnatural and wrong but they
  nevertheless believe that the practice should be
  tolerated.

3
Homosexuals and equality

• Homosexual marriage is often regarded as a
  further step in the fight for equality between
  gay and straight people.
• Moreover it is represented as an extension of the
  fight for human rights gay marriage advocates
  picture the opposition as being as irrational as
  the prohibition of marriage between whites and
  blacks.
• It is claimed that both are cases of invidious
  discrimination.
• The argument if homosexual activity is
  permitted, why should homosexuals be denied a
  right to marry (one another)? Two big questions
  here
• Is marriage a social institution to which any
  pair of loving and consenting adults should be
  automatically entitled?
• Will there really be no damage if gays are
  allowed to marry?

4
Laws on homosexuality and gay marriage
5
Is there a bias in the debate about gay marriage?

• Public opinion is divided on the issue of gay
  marriage. In the U.S. the majority is
  consistently against it.
• 44 states in the U.S. have introduced laws
  protecting marriage as being between man and
  woman.
• 30 states amended their constitutions to the same
  effect.
• American Psychological Association, American
  Sociological Association, and American
  Anthropological Association issued public
  declarations in support of gay marriage.
• Canadian philosophers massively endorsed gay
  marriage.
• The opposition to gay marriage is often treated
  as just being the result of ignorance, prejudice
  and religious fanaticism.
• The case of Margaret Somerville.

6
Five arguments against homosexual marriage

• Argument from meaningMarriage entails that
  partners are man and woman.
• Argument from traditionMarriage was always
  between man and woman.
• Argument from procreationThe purpose of marriage
  is to foster procreation.
• Argument from a possible harm to childrenThe
  purpose of marriage is to create the best
  environment for raising children.
• Argument from a threat to the institution of
  marriageThe introduction of gay marriage will
  have bad effects on the institution of marriage.

7
Argument from meaning

• The word marriage logically implies that
  partners are of the opposite sex. Gay marriage
  is a contradiction in terms!
• Objection marriage is a legal term, and these
  terms often change their meaning. There is no
  reason why marriage should not also be
  understood in a different way, especially if one
  group complains about being excluded from it.
• Response The current meaning of marriage can
  indeed be modified, but it should not be done too
  easily.
• If what gays basically want are the rights and
  privileges that go with marriage, why not give
  them these rights and privileges but call their
  relationships differently (civil unions) in
  order to preserve the ordinary meaning of the
  word marriage?

8
Argument from tradition

• Marriage has historically been a heterosexual
  institution and this is in itself a good reason
  to keep it this way.
• Objection 1 The fact that something has always
  been one way or another isnt a conclusive
  argument for keeping it that way. If it were, no
  social change would ever be justified.
• Response The historical fact is not a conclusive
  reason for keeping marriage heterosexual, just a
  prima facie reason. Traditional social
  institutions are the product of distilled human
  wisdom accumulated through history and it is
  unwise to make radical changes without much
  knowledge of possible bad side effects.
• Unless we have very strong reasons to introduce
  the change, we should not do it.

9
Argument from tradition (2)

• Objection 2 Marriage hasnt always been the
  preserve of heterosexuals. The history of both
  Western and non-Western societies provides
  examples of same-sex marriages.
• Response Even if marriage was not always
  heterosexual, the fact that it was so predominant
  through history could be reasonably taken as a
  sign of its social importance.
• Second, there is no single example in history of
  a society in which heterosexual and homosexual
  marriage had the same social status, and this is
  actually the goal of the gay marriage movement
  today.
• Again, this is not a compelling or conclusive
  reason that gay marriage is a bad idea, just an
  additional reason to take the proposal with a
  dose of healthy skepticism.

10
Argument from procreation

• The state has a legitimate interest in
  procreation and therefore ought to withhold
  recognition from unions that will not produce
  children.
• Objection Procreation cannot be the purpose of
  marriage because the state would then also
  prohibit marriage in cases where heterosexual
  couples cannot have children.
• Response The reason why marriage is introduced
  as an institution does not have to exist in every
  particular case of marriage.
• It may be that the goal of marriage as a social
  institution is to support procreation but that,
  nevertheless, this goal is achieved effectively
  by the state allowing marriages to some
  heterosexual couples that clearly cannot
  procreate.

11
Argument from procreation (2)

• The law is a blunt instrument, and it is
  therefore often more convenient to achieve the
  goal by formulating the law not in terms of
  targeted category A but in terms of category B
  that largely coincide with A but is easier to
  apply in practice.
• A couples that can have kids B couples of
  opposite sex
• If the basic goal of the law is to give marriage
  to A-couples, it is very difficult and intrusive
  to verify the A-status. But it is very easy to
  verify the B-status. Now if most B-couples
  actually end up by having children (i.e., turn
  out to be A-couples), there are evident
  advantages if the legal prerequisite of allowing
  marriage is connected with B-status, rather than
  A-status.
• So, the fact that infertile heterosexual couples
  are allowed to marry does not show that
  procreation is not the reason behind the
  institution of marriage.

12
Argument from a possible harm to children

• The purpose of marriage is to create the best
  environment for raising children.
• Objection If having parents of opposite sex is
  best for kids, it would mean that the state
  shouldnt allow the creation of single-parent
  families. It should also forbid artificial
  insemination of, or adoption of children by,
  single parents. Couples with underage children
  should be denied divorce.
• Response These implications do not actually
  follow.
• If the state regards the opposite-sex-parents as
  the best for children and so limits marriage to
  these couples, this does not imply that the state
  should prohibit other (suboptimal) arrangements
  for raising children.
• Dont let the best be the enemy of the good!

13
Argument from a possible harm to children (2)

• Many people believe that it is best for children
  that they are raised by their biological parents.
• If this is accepted, consider the difference
  between (a) heterosexual and (b) homosexual
  married couples.
• In (a), most couples will raise their biological
  children.
• In (b), however, the laws of biology guarantee
  that the childs link to one of the biological
  parents will be broken.
• In other words, in (a) the ideal will be a
  statistically expected result, whereas in (b) the
  ideal will be a natural impossibility.
• So, there is some basis for preferring
  heterosexual marriage.
• Also, according to the UN document, children have
  a right to know who their biological parents are,
  the information that gay parents are not always
  happy to provide.

14
Argument from a threat to the institution of
marriage

• Legalizing same-sex marriage would pose a threat
  to heterosexual marriage.
• Objection This is a very general and indeed
  puzzling claim we are never told just how this
  is supposed to work.
• Response Actually we are told how this would
  work.
• The main fear of opponents of gay marriage is
  that gay marriage is just a first step in the
  process that would bring many changes and that
  would eventually transform family relationship in
  a very radical and unacceptable way.
• What is the slippery slope here?
• Two main concerns
• The elimination of sex differences in family law
• Opening the door to new forms of family

15
The elimination of sex differences

• In Massachusetts, the marriage ceremony is ended
  with words I pronounce you spouse and spouse.
• Also, gay activists are requesting (in the name
  equality) that birth certificates do not name
  father and mother, but instead parent A and
  parent B.
• This change has already been introduced in Spain.
• What is the next step prohibiting the use of
  these words in schools, newspapers? How about
  husband and wife?
• If gay couples cannot be a father and mother, why
  are they offended by others using these terms?
• If gays cannot marry, why are they offended if
  others can?
• Especially if they get all privileges of
  marriage, except the name?

16
New forms of family

• Why should anyone be concerned if gays and
  lesbians were given a right to marry? If they
  love each other and want to have a wedding why
  should we (heterosexuals) care?
• The case for allowing gays to marry begins with
  equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of
  loving, consenting adults be denied a right that
  other such adults have and which, if exercised,
  will do no damage to anyone else? (The
  Economist, February 2004)
• Lets call this the argument from love those
  who love each other should not be stopped from
  being married for entirely irrelevant reasons.
• The problem is that if love plays such a central
  role in the argument, most other factors fade
  into irrelevance.

17
New forms of family (2)

• Marriage a social institution in which two
  persons of opposite sex, who are not very close
  relatives and who declare to love each other vow
  to live together forever.
• Let us break this definition into four key
  elements
• Two persons
• Opposite sex
• Not very close relatives
• Love each other
• The decision to live together and to enter
  marriage is essentially connected only with love
  (iv), and all other elements are just
  accidentally connected with it.
• Gay marriage advocates want to break the link
  between marriage and (ii). But can they stop
  there?

18
New forms of family (3)

• Take factor (i). If it is irrelevant for the
  purposes of marriage that the partners are of
  opposite sex (they love each other!), it is
  unclear why would it be relevant if there are
  more than two partners (say, if there are three
  or four persons in a relationship). After all,
  it may be true that they are in love!
• The logic of the argument seems to force us to
  accept polygamy after we say that gay marriage is
  OK.
• The same reasoning applies to factor (iii) if
  mother and son fall in love (and they make sure
  that they will not have children) would it not be
  discriminatory to prohibit this couple to marry.
  On what grounds could we do that, if they
  genuinely love each other?
• Some argue, even marriage with pets would be a
  possibility!

19
New forms of family (4)

• Some gay marriage advocates complain that the
  idea that legalization of polygamy and incestuous
  relations would follow is completely ridiculous,
  and that this kind of objections should not be
  taken seriously.
• Others, however, explicitly support these
  implications
• The struggle for same-sex marriage rights is
  only one part of a larger effort to strengthen
  the security and stability of diverse households
  and families. LGBT communities have ample reason
  to recognize that families and relationships know
  no borders and will never slot narrowly into a
  single existing template. (NYT, July 26, 2006)
• Queer couples who decide to jointly create and
  raise a child with another queer person or
  couple, in two households.