More on Marriage

Dick couldn't understand how his argument in favour of gay marriage was weakened by disputing John's argument that the institution of marriage has been negatively affected by recent developments. Perhaps after reading John's latest thoughts he might have a better idea why. There are two separate arguments which John conflates.

1. That [heterosexual] marriage is beneficial and has been weakened, passively and actively, by various disincentives to marry.

2. That homosexual marriage changes our view of marriage as a "special bond between a man and a woman", opens up the possibility of incestuous and bigamist "marriages" and this will have a detrimental effect.

The thing is, argument 1. is reasonable and defensible. Dick is perfectly entitled to disagree but their disagreement is founded on differing philosophical views about society and not on simple matters of logic. There isn't a resolution to this argument short of Dick's conversion to conservatism or John's to liberalism. But there is no need to be a liberal to favour gay marriage. This is why I say Dick weakens his argument by allowing it to get sidetracked into this area.

On argument 2. This remains a "touchy-feely" argument with little solid logic. We think of marriage as a special bond between a man and a woman. Should gay marriage become legal, some of us would think of marriage as a special bond between two people, which most of the time would mean a man and a woman. So what? The prior argument revolves around specific disincentives to marriage which demonstrably reduce the rate of marriage. There is no explanation of the supposed corrollary from gay marriages to polygamous or incestuous marriages. This argument relies on the notion that we will "feel" differently about marriage. But there is no demonstration how "feeling differently" translates into deciding not to get married. In fact, if anything, there is an equally valid argument that greater levels of marriage among homosexuals will encourage their feckless straight friends to tie the knot!

John says he is not, as I suggested, "post-rationalising a gut feeling" but I would be wary of holding to a position that takes, as he admits, 30,000 words to justify.

Comments

[John]

My point is actually that

1. marriage is special and
2. society should support marriage with incentives because it has a vested interest in marriage and strong families.

When you extend those incentives to relationships that society has less vested interest in, including gay marriage, you dilute the incentives available to marriage and family. Incentives come from a finite pool and diluting them is the opposite of supporting marriage.

Obviously, we're talking about the future so it's all speculation. Your speculation about gay marriage acting as a new stimulus for heterosexual marriage may be right. I just don't think so.

As for my point about polygamy, group marriage or incestuous relationships, I believe in the "slippery slope" theory of the destruction of marriage with regards to homosexual marriage. I can't see how society can discard the thousands of years of tradition that are wrapped up in the word "marriage" and not then acknowledge that three people should be allowed to wed or one man with two or more women (& vice versa) or a brother and sister.

[Frank McGahon]

When you extend those incentives to relationships that society has less vested interest in, including gay marriage, you dilute the incentives available to marriage and family. Incentives come from a finite pool and diluting them is the opposite of supporting marriage.

Your logic is flawed here. Incentives to heterosexual marriage cannot be "diluted" by similar incentives applying to homosexual marriage unless you hold that, without the incentive, the putative gay marriage partners would have chosen to marry opposite sex partners OR that you consider every single marriage to be somehow subsidised by the state. It is not as if the government has a "finite pool" of incentives that it must distribute.

Perhaps you could clarify how an incentive can be "diluted"? It is only diluted when there is a corresponding incentive to do the opposite. This is clear if the choice for a heterosexual couple is cohabitation or marriage. The only way that the incentive to heterosexual marriage is "diluted" by an incentive to homosexual marriage is if the same person faces both choices. Yet this is just not the case. John and Mary will either get married or not, Mary isn't going to be "incentivised" away from marriage to John by the prospect of marrying Martha.

I can't see how society can discard the thousands of years of tradition that are wrapped up in the word "marriage" and not then acknowledge that three people should be allowed to wed or one man with two or more women (& vice versa) or a brother and sister

Just because "you can't see it" doesn't mean your point is proved. The slippery slope doesn't really apply here - there is a logical connection between gun regulation, gun control and a gun ban, not so with this argument - proper arguments can be made against polygamy and incest on different grounds to gay marriage, should they be proposed.

[John]

Diluted incentives - yes, tax breaks for married couples is one. Inheritance taxes is another. Some employers pay for a family's health insurance, that's another. There are other monetary incentives that are (or should be) afforded to married couples by society.

{And, I did say that some of these incentives probably should be open to non-married couples, but not all.)

Now, the thing is, today, the tax code is not actually that favorable to married couples. Co-habiting can be more lucrative. But, that's because the benefits to married couples have been down-graded. My argument is that those benefits have to be augmented and then remain as unique to married couples.

There are also certain social incentives, such as the esteem someone is held in by society if they are married. Again, this has been seriously dented in the recent past, but I would argue that this should be reversed.

I never argued that my point on slippery slope was "proven", but nor is the counter argument. Nothing can be "proven" until such time as what is now the future becomes the past.

But the thrust of this argument, the emphasis on "personal choice/freedom" used to argue for gay marriage, leads me to conclude that polygamy (moreso than incestuous relationships) will quickly follow (less than 20 years). Why should Muslims and/or Mormons be denied their "right" to "choose" a polygamous relationship.

[John]

Of course a government has a finite pool of resources it can distribute. Every tax break to a married couple requires either a tax rise on others or a benefit cut. When a government spreads those incentives, it has to pay for them somehow. So, the married couple will find that their tax break is not as great as before because more people are sharing in the benefit.

Similar arguments with regards to company provided health insurance. A company that extends the definition of family for the purpose of paying insurance and other costs either has to cut salaries or cut the benefits.

All monetary resources are finite.

[John]

This last point is one I have hesitated making because I'm not even sure if it's legal to say these things anymore.

I don't accept that homosexual and heterosexual are two distinct pools of humanity. I think that it's much more fluid than that. I see it more as being on a spectrum.

I do believe that a homosexually inclined man can lead a happy, normal married life. Is it easy, probably not. It's not impossible either. Marriage isn't that easy for anyone, really. In fact, on that same page you linked to on Mark Steyn's site there was a letter from "an ex-gay" man.

I have no idea how common that is, but it's obviously possible. Some "putative gay partners" may elect to marry someone of the opposite gender if the incentives for traditional marriage were all that was available.

{But, this point is not really crucial to my argument.}

I reiterate: society has a much greater vested interest in traditional marriage and, therefore, should reward traditional marriage to the exclusion of other relationships, including gay partnerships.

[John]

I could have summed up my views with a couple of sentences to start, "According to the values of my Christian faith, I believe practicing homosexual sex is a sin. We should not promote sin."

The reason I didn't make that case is that (a) anyone who would accept that argument was already opposed to gay marriage and (b) I really believe that there is a liberal argument against this change. I believe that allowing for gay marriage will not only lead to individual sin (not really my concern as a citizen), but that it will further weaken marriage, family and society, which are crucial to maintaining our civilization.

I know I probably wouldn't convince Andrew Sullivan of that, but I half suspect that Pim Fortuyn may have agreed. He opted to support racist and bigoted policies in order to buttress our civilization.

I believe that although my suggestion may not be ideal from the perspective of the homosexual who wants to marry someone of their gender, they might accept that the society they belong to needs to do all it can to promote the traditional marriage as an ideal.

I think I've exhausted all I had to say on this subject. I've actually enjoyed it.

[Jarin]

John:

I realize that this comes very late compared to when you made this comment, but I feel I have to reply to something you said here. "I believe that although my suggestion may not be ideal from the perspective of the homosexual who wants to marry someone of their gender, they might accept that the society they belong to needs to do all it can to promote the traditional marriage as an ideal."

Do you realize that you are asking the homosexual couple that wishes to marry to accept that their marriage is less than ideal, and therefor in some way inferior? You are asking homosexuals to view themselves as less than heterosexuals, and promote heterosexual conduct as being better than their own.

Do you really think that's a healthy way for homosexuals to view themselves and their closest relationships? (Putting aside, for a moment, your religious views on the matter.)

As a bisexual man in a same-sex relationship that I would like to see become a legally recognized marriage someday, I have to say the notion that I need to promote relationships other than my own as "the ideal", as if mine were inherently lesser despite having already lasted longer than the heterosexual marriages of prominent figures in our culture, is frankly insulting to me and my partner and the feelings we have for one another. I think many in our position would feel similarly.