Same Sex Marriage: the Worst Argument in the World

Last week the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state must extend the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples. Their argument involved a determination that homosexuals constitute a quasi-suspect class -- a question the U.S. Supreme Court has gone to nearly incredible lengths to avoid addressing -- but I'm not really interested in that at the moment. Instead, it's the dissenting arguments that intrigue me. Debates about same-sex marriage seem to inspire really, really bad arguments, and I thought I would take a moment to review a couple of them.

One of these Really Bad Arguments is captured in the phrase "Defense of Marriage." The idea, of course, is that allowing same sex couples to marry threatens the marriages of mixed-sex couples. As a member of a mixed-sex marriage myself, I have to confess that I have never been able to ascertain the nature of the threat. (The only explanation I can come with, actually, is one that I call the "wow, I could have had a V-8!" principle.) An equally silly version says that I will take my own marriage less seriously if too many other kinds of people are allowed to have them. The idea, of course, is the idea of exclusivity: who wants to be a member of a club if just anybody can join? The further assumption is that the mixed-sex couples around me are all the Right Kind of People, while the same-sex couples clamoring to get married are not the sort of people with whom I would want to be associated. Okay, never mind any thoughts about the average intelligence, decency, and good will of same-sex couples seeking to marry. Trust me: as I look about the country, there is absolutely no danger that extending the prerogative of marriage to new classes of people can possibly diminish the regard I have for the class of Married Americans.

Then there is the argument from "nature." This one is bad on so many levels. For one thing, homosexuality is difficult to describe as "unnatural" given that animals practice it with some regularity. But another, more serious, argument is this: animals are governed by nature. Humans are governed by reason, and law. The Hebrew Bible God gives the Israelite a single injunction: "Justice, justice, you shall pursue," not "Nature, nature, you shall pursue" (a rather more Aristotelian position, and one forever diminished by Hume's demolition of the is/ought distinction. "There is a special place in Hell," said Bertrand Russell, "for those philosophers who have refuted Hume." It was in a different context, but Russell had a point.

But the Really, Really Bad Arguments are the ones that try to define marriage as being about having children and the reason from there. To see just how bad these arguments are, one has to go through it step by step, in each of its two iterations.

Version 1 -- the first Really Really Bad Argument -- goes like this: Marriage exists in order to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct." "The long-standing, fundamental purpose of our marriage laws is to privilege and regulate procreative conduct . . . [therefore] persons who wish to enter into a same sex marriage are not similarly situated to persons who wish to enter into a traditional marriage. The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry." Those are the words of Justice Zarella, dissenting in the Connecticut case. Note that he does not say "procreation," he says "procreative conduct."

What's odd about this formulation, of course, is that is not about childrearing, nor even about procreation. After all, same-sex couples procreate, they just employ different mechanics. In other words, this argument is not about either children or procreation, it's about sex. Which puts the proponents of this position in the extraordinary position of arguing that allowing couples to marry encourages them to engage in sex, and withholding the privileges of marriage will discourage sexual activity. Never mind anti-sodomy laws; to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct" would require laws against contraception fornication. (Otherwise one has the difficult task of explaining why this particular form of non-procreative conduct is the subject of regulation when all the others are not.) As someone once said of Rick Santorum, this argument reflects the finest minds of the 14th century.

But that's still not the worst argument! It is the second version of the argument about children that has the distinction of being the absolute Worst Argument in the World (with apologies to Keith Olbermann.) This is the argument that goes "it is better for children to have two parents of different sexes, marriage is about creating an environment for raising children, so that's why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry."

The reasoning in this argument is so bad I don't know where to begin. Take the arguments about the data. Proponents of this position cite data that they claim shows that the ideal child-rearing environment includes a mixed-sex couple (not a trio or a committee) of parents. The data is disputed: other data show that children raised by same-sex parents show no higher rates of social pathology than other children, and the studies that are cited tend to be mysteriously lacking in methologies. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is, indeed, the case that all things being equal the ideal environment for childrearing is a mixed-sex couple. The problem is that the claim absolutely has to include that implied clause, "all things being equal." Except that all things are never equal. We can take it as given that children are not better off with a man and a woman in the house than with two men or two women if in the case of the mixed-sex couple one of those adults is a child molester, a child beater, a raging alcoholic or drug addict while in the case of the same-sex couples none of those things are true. We can say the same thing about unwanted children, children born into families that cannot afford to care for them, children born to neglectful parents.

We do not say that people who are child molesters, child abusers, drug addicts, or neglectful parents may not procreate. We don't even say that such persons may not marry, on the theory that this will dissuade them from procreating. Think about the case of unwanted pregnancies. One thing you know about the child of a same-sex couple is that their parents want them. That's in some contrast to children -- oh, how did Shakespeare put it? -- "within a dull , stale, tired bed . . . got 'tween asleep and wake." (It's the same thing with overseas adoptions. If you fly to China, spend three weeks, and then make that whole flight back with a baby screaming in your ear, when you get home you know you *wanted* that baby.)

Wait, though. The argument turns out to be even worse than that. The whole point of this logic is that if a certain class of people will be sub-optimal parents, we are justified in denying them the legal privileges of marriage, right? Which makes sense only if we assume that not being allowed to be married will make them less likely to raise children (just as the argument for "privileging and regulating" sex assumed that not being married cuts down on sexual activity.) The thing is, we are not talking about a pool of existing children who might be assigned to one set of parents or another, as in the case of an adoption regulation. If the idea is that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry so that they will be discouraged from having and raising children, the implication is that the children those couples might have if they were allowed to marry are better off NEVER HAVING BEEN BORN AT ALL.

Yup, I have thought about it carefully and I have decided. This really is the worst argument I have ever heard.

Comments

[SunDriedTomato]

Since 40% of gays are left-handed (only 10% of the general population is leftie) I think it is very important to forbid left-handed people from marrying. A left-handed parent could very well pass on their left-handed and homosexual genes to an innocent child. BeWaRe!!! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071130165501.htm

[roylmack]

It’s no surprise that some of us prefer cats and some dogs . . .
While some of us prefer cats and some dogs, most of us agree they are both domesticated animals that are to be tolerated and protected in our society. However, we all understand that dogs and cats are different, and it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that a cat is the same as a dog or that dogs have actually always been cats . . .
Similarly, while both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are to be tolerated and protected in our society, it is confusing and disingenuous to suddenly pretend that there is no difference between each relationship.
While I happen to prefer dogs, it neither makes me prejudice toward or intolerant of cats, nor does it require that I must now pretend that dogs and cats are exactly the same. In our home we have room for both dogs and cats. People can and Should Support Proposition 8’s clarification of marriage and still love, respect and tolerate everyone!!

[Barticus]

There was a puff piece on the news last week about two nonagenarians (of differing sexes) getting married. I am sure she was past menopause. Why aren't all these people who talk about "procreative conduct" campaigning to ban such marriages?

[citybythebay]

Because it's not about procreative conduct. It's about hating gays. That's why.

[katheyquilts]

that's good to know...otherwise you would have to provide proof of fertility in order to marry!

[citybythebay]

Great analysis. One point and one argument the author missed.

The point, whenever people argue that same-sex marriage is bad for children, the threshold question should be "how does allowing same-sex couples to marry causely increase the number of children?" Understanding the basics of reproduction, I can't see why it should. It seems the argument collapses.

As to the argument, the Worst Argument in the World: gay people already have equal access to marriage. They can marry an opposite sex partner any time they want. This despicable argument, designed to be a conversation ender. Of course, effective access to marriage means being able to marry someone with whom you want to make the long-term commitments marriage entails. I mention it only to note how desperate it is. To have some reason other than "I hate gays" to justify continued marriage discrimination, adovcates of this argument signal not only their contempt for the emotions and commitment of same-sex couples, they rip the heart and soul out of HETEROSEXUAL marriage. Gender of a spouse or affection for him or her is irrelevant, they imply, to the choice to marry. Marriage exists in a vacuum as a mere legal formalism without any emotional or spiritual purpose for heterosexuals. This, of course, is nonsense but it shows how desperate these people truly are.

[rjmiller]

You just gained a fan. There are not nearly enough logical breakdowns of the laughable arguments being thrown from the religious right, and you did a great job wrecking a couple of the worst.

[stayinsouth1981]

I think it comes down to our basic rights as citizens. I do not believe that sexual preference is a reason to limit rights. Get married, love each other... Get some good gifts!

[narcolepticjenn]

Thank you! I once got in an argument with my boyfriend's dad over this issue. Keep in mind he's on his third marriage! He's a big fan of the "it's unnatural" argument... Ugh. It's maddening. There was no rationalizing with him. He'd just decided it was wrong and that was that.

I wish there was a better way than each state slowly legalizing gay marriage, either by an amendment or through law or the court system. It just doesn't make sense for a couple to be married in one state but not in another. But unfortunately there isn't enough support for gay marriage everywhere yet, and a federal ban on it would prevent individual states from being able to prove how non-disastrous legal gay marriage is.

[maribelle1963]

Gay marriage affects my hetero marriage--it makes it more just. Gay marriage means my union in no longer a het privilege that is denied to my gay friends, my lesbian minister and my gay teenage daughter.

Thanks to the State of Connecticut for recently making my marriage mean so much more than it did before.

[markofucity]

Further thoughts on the "marriage is for the raising of children - gay couples make less than ideal parents ergo no gay marriage" argument.

It is patently obvious that marriage is NOT an institution based upon raising children. If it were then we would not allow infertile couples marry; we would not allow elderly couples to marry; we would not allow couples with no intention to procreate to marry and we would dissolve the marriages of those who choose not to have children. We don't do any of these things because marriage has absolutely nothing to do with "raising children." Of course raising children often takes place within the context of marriage (it often takes place elsewhere as well), but so does wearing blue jeans. it would make just as much sense to say that people who don't wear blue jeans can't get married because many married people wear blue jeans.

[RocDG]

One absurd argument that I've heard many times is;
Children raised by same sex parents are more likely to grow up to be Gay adults. Now, I cant speak for for all Gay people, but just like our heterosexual brothers and sisters, most of us were had, and raised, by two people of the opposite sex. Personally, I feel very confident in saying that my Mom and Dad are strait.

[rjmiller]

That argument falls into another trap, in that it hinges on the assumption that being gay is somehow "worse" than being straight. From the government's point of view, "good" and "bad" primarily mean the ability to pay more taxes and/or fight in a war. Considering gay people's trigger fingers are just as good as mine, and gay people on average are far ahead of the US average per capita income, the argument doesn't hold up.

[dcg4mn]

Of course the whole idea is absurd anyway, but existing studies actually prove that children raised by same-sex parents are NOT more likely to grow up to be gay.

[NationalTreasure]

Why don't people call it for what it is, simply codified discrimination.

Any and every American must be afforded the same protection and equal rights as proscribed by the Constitution.

Americans need to stand up and stop allowing republicans to victimize one class of humans simply to mainitain political viability as a party.

Americans need to vote against any discriminatory state constutional amendments that would disenfranchize GLBT or any other Americans regardless of their sex, race, creed, color, sexual identity, religion, age disabilities ...

VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN 2008 FOR RESPECT AND EQUALITY

[AnotherTry]

Too bad Obama/Biden believe marriage is between a man and a woman. they won't be getting this gay guy's vote.

Cynthia McKinney '08

[dcg4mn]

I've heard many say that neither Obama nor McCain support gay marriage.
But it is only this sound-bite that is true, if you dig only a little deeper there is NO equivalency whatsoever: beyond using the word "marriage," Obama supports 100% of gay rights, while McCain supports exactly Zero.
I believe Obama is wise to pre-empt the inevitable attacks from conservatives, and I believe once elected he will not push against using the word marriage.
While we may not like this detail in Obama's campaign position, there is all the difference in the world between him and McCain, and gays refusing to vote for Obama only hurt our cause.
With respect, I ask you to reconsider your vote.

[TaylorB95]

Personally, I think straight people are just afraid that if gays marry and have children...we might just do it better then them. =))

Please, someone tell me how my gay marriage has negatively affected straight marriage in Massachusettes?

[dwatkins9]

Once the standard arguments against changing the institution of marriage have been debunked (and I believe that even Plato could not establish that marriage exists by nature), then there remains no reason to be against polygamy. If it is arbitrary, and hence unjust, to restrict marriage to opposite sex partners, it is equally arbitrary, and hence equally unjust, to restrict marriage to just two partners. What makes two the sacred number? So, expect - and sooner rather than later - arguments and legal challenges from polygamists similar to those that have been made by homosexuals.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[seatea1967]

Hmm... a good point. I guess I don't see any inherent reason why polygamy is bad as long as everyone participating is consenting. I'd have to think it through more thoroughly, but I'm going to pencil myself in as unafraid that polygamy is going to threaten my so-called "traditional" marriage.

[NationalTreasure]

polygamy would be fine as long as it was for both men and women it's not as though the divorce rate in this country could get any higher

[ProgressiveVoice]

For an interesting take on marriages, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Hmm - interesting take on politics too . . .

Personally, if children is the given reason for advocating a ban on same sex marriages, the same people should be advocating serial, or line, marriages (see book mentioned above)

[DownerCow]

Trying to assign logic to arguments defending Christian values is intrinsically nonsensical. Faith, by their own definition, is circular reasoning.

[Rockerbabe]

Wouldn't it be nice if you extented the same regard to Americans who are single, as in never married or not remarried [divorced and widowed]? The 2000 US Cenus reports that 43-48% of adults (depends on the area of the country in which you live) between the ages of 18-65 are single or not remarried. Way too big a group of people to mess with!
Why can't single people put uninsured adult family member or friend on their medical or dental insurance programs?
Why can't single people name a beneficiary for their social security account?
Why can't single people get the same tax breaks as the married folks? Especially if one owns property and has no kids in school?
Why can't single people be given the same breaks and respect when traveling alone?
Why can't single people have their advanced directives, living wills and personal rep designations honored just like the marrieds?
I could go on and on, but that's all for now.

[ProgressiveVoice]

Rockerbabe - as our numbers increase, we will achieve equality!

[Rockerbabe]

Thanks "ProgressiveVoice"; I sure hope so? I want tax laws, civil laws, programs that do not consider maritial status as the primary determinent of benefits and rights. Each person should be considered "equal" and given the opportunity based on that fact alone.