An age-old institution is being attacked: what side should we be on? To answer this question, I begin with a negative argument, i.e. why we cannot accept gay marriage; I then attempt to show that the discrimination charge is circular; lastly, I propose a positive argument, namely why the current definition of marriage is the best.

Let us suppose that we do exactly what the proponents of gay marriage want us to do: remove the condition that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now two men can get married; so can two women. But why not three men? Why not two women and one man? On what basis can we tell these people they are excluded from the benefit of marriage? You might protest that marriage cannot involve more than two persons. But we have just changed the definition of marriage. How can we say changing the definition again is out of the question? Three men can love and care for each other deeply. They are consenting adults in a free society. Polygamy is very common in some cultures; polyandry is less common but isn’t it time to end the prejudice? Perhaps you can assist me, but I don’t know what we can say to such people if we remove the condition that marriage is between a man and a woman. Every proponent of gay marriage is thus, unwittingly, an apologist for polygamy. To believe that marriage is anything is to believe marriage is nothing.

Gay marriage advocates argue that defining marriage as marriage has always been defined discriminates against gays. Discrimination occurs when a person is deprived of a benefit to which the person is entitled. It’s not enough to show a group cannot access a certain benefit: it must be shown that the group is entitled to that benefit in the first place. It’s not discriminatory that only Aborigines have the benefit of native title legislation and Asians don’t because there is no reason why Asians would be entitled to it in the first place. Arguing that gays are discriminated against because they cannot get married presupposes that gays are entitled to get married – which is the whole debate! Advocates of gay marriage thus conveniently assume the very thing they need to prove. Contending that gays are discriminated against because they cannot have the benefit of an institution that was clearly conceived for heterosexuals, like native title was for indigenous people, is, absent other justifications, a non-sequitur.

This is not a situation where an institution had always been available to everyone and suddenly the government excluded homosexuals. That would be prima facie discrimination. This is an institution that was conceived and has always been intended to recognise a particular type of union. Now some people want to hijack the institution and change the rules. There is no strength in the proposition that asserting that marriage is what it has always been is ipso facto discriminatory. The onus of proof lies on the proponents of gay marriage to find reasons why the institution should undergo a metamorphosis. Discrimination cannot be one of these reasons.

When we consider the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage, it is instructive to note that it has existed since time immemorial across virtually all cultures. We don’t need an anthropologist to know that but hey, why not. Peter Wood, professor of anthropology at Boston University (National Review Online, 26/4/05):

“[S]ome 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution. Homosexual marriage outside contemporary Western societies is exceedingly rare and never the basis of ‘viable social order.’”

How is it that so many human societies, many of which had little to no contact with each other for hundreds of years, came up with or preserved the same institution? It’s as if we tell dozens of groups to separately design a central social institution and they all come back with roughly the same answer. It seems traditional marriage is a pretty good idea. It is a common denominator of humanity, if you like. It transcends boundaries of distance, race and development. Can we say the same about gay marriage? Even a society like Ancient Greece, which embraced homosexuality and pederasty, did not allow men to marry men or women women. Homosexual relationships were accepted but they weren’t accepted as marriage. Frankly, a better case could be made for polygamy, a common form of marriage, than gay marriage – and that says a great deal.

Marriage is not unique only in the evolution of the human race; its centrality and incomparability can be readily observed in our own lives. Marriage has a societal role that gay marriage can never hope to emulate, no matter how ardently the partners love each other. Marriage means much more than feelings. Not every loving relationship between heterosexuals is a marriage. Traditional marriage fulfills the all-important social function of binding the sexes together for the responsible procreation and upbringing of human beings. It is a much better defender of social stability and children than promiscuity or the noncommittal cohabitation of the modern age. The family is the most basic and important unit of human civilisation – as those of us fortunate enough to have been raised in a family can attest – and marriage is the basis of sound families. It is the basis of ‘viable social order’. It is when marriage and family break down that we fully grasp their importance and unparalleled social function. To argue that two guys who love each other perform this unique social function so indispensable to human civilisation is to misunderstand the role that marriage plays in society and even cheapen it. Gay marriage, apart from being an oxymoron, is a counterfeit. It may look like the original but it actually lowers its value.

Homosexual relationships have their place in a free society. I am only asking you to accept that not every relationship is a marriage. That, as we have seen, is a slippery slope. If marriage is anything, it is nothing.

Yes, JL, it astounds me that people can say that marriage can mean one thing last Monday, quite another on Friday (and who knows what it will mean next Wednesday) and still not see the slippery slope.

Speaking of scaremongering, I find Dylan’s post much scarier than mine. It reveals a relativist mindset that rejects the notion that marriage has inherent meaning or value (”oh, come on. Marriage is what we make it”). It refuses to engage with the idea that one definition of marriage may actually be better than the others – even if it’s not trendy. It is blind to the consequences because there is no inherent value to change anyway. The only thing that matters (that remains) is, as Paris Hilton would say, what’s hot at a certain point in time. Is polygamy hot right now? No, so we won’t support it. But it’s not like we have an actual reason for not supporting it and maybe in the future we will (who knows, it may become hot).

I actually believe (and gave reasons why) the current definition of marriage is the best, regardless of what other people or other countries think. I will change my view when I am persuaded that there is a better definition of marriage, not when a new fad arrives.

A lot of people have been saying, ‘well let’s just do it because it’s pretty harmless and it will make them happy.’ First, I don’t think it is harmless to devalue a central social institution. Do you really believe the high divorce rate has nothing to do with the fact that now people think differently of marriage? That many don’t understand the importance and value of it? Dylan’s post shows why – marriage is something we toy with to suit our momentary desires. I ask you to consider that maybe age-old social institutions may have some merit after all. Maybe that’s why they’ve survived and served us for so long.

Second, I don’t believe that legislating on the basis that a law will make a segment of a population happier is sound policy. I can think of many potential laws that would make a lot of people happy but be quite bad. By the same token, should we start repealing laws that make people unhappy for that reason alone?

If triangle is defined as having three sides today and four sides tomorrow (and who knows how many sides it will have a few years from now), then triangle has no meaning. Let us not believe that marriage has no meaning.

Dylan,

My argument is not that the definition of marriage must never be changed because any change will necessarily rob it of all meaning. My point is that if we are to change the definition of marriage, it has to be based on sound reasons, not the fad of the moment. It is the belief that marriage can legitimately be anything depending on the fad of the moment that robs it of all meaning and can only be described as relativist. This mindset is indeed a slippery slope.

Also, I think we have drifted away from the central question i.e. why do we need to redefine marriage?

Mikayla,

Thanks for your considered thoughts. I think it’s great that this debate has attracted such good comments.

To answer the question that concludes your post, is it really so unreasonable to allow the second or third wife of a man to enjoy the benefits of marriage? Why are we ‘discriminating’ against them?

Indeed, you will find that your other arguments in favour of gay marriage can similarly be applied to polygamy, as well as many other exotic unions. This is the connection between gay marriage and polygamy (which you said eluded you).

In my view, letting two guys marry is like letting three guys marry: neither is what marriage is all about.

By the way, specific entitlements such as access to pension can be dealt with separately from marriage as they have recently been by the federal government with the support of the opposition.

All you have to do to grasp my point that changing the definition of marriage is a slippery slope is to read the comments of my opponents.

Will’s post is a comprehensive argument for polygamy, polyandry and indeed any combination of human beings who decide the word marriage should obviously apply to their relationship.

I should like to know on what basis Will can refuse marriage to a group of four women and two men who ardently seek it. As Will says, whom are they hurting? Why should marriage be defined according to our tradition? Indeed, would Will refuse them marriage?

How dare we discriminate against them right now by adhering to the current definition of marriage?

We need to decide as a society whether marriage refers to a certain type of union or, well, anything. I say it refers to the union of a man and a woman. My opponents say it can be anything.

By the way, I have not once invoked Christianity or indeed any other religion, or God for that matter, to bolster my argument. Nor have I argued that homosexual marriage is a purely Anglo-Saxon construct. It is not. My argument does not rely on any of these things.

May I take this opportunity to thank Will for his prolific contribution to this forum.

Will, thanks for your honesty.

So now it has been established, and conceded, that what my opponents are suggesting (marriage means whatever you want it to mean) is a slippery slope (”I agree, it is a slippery slope”).

If you believe that marriage is anything, you can’t just stop at gay marriage. You can’t just stop at polygamy. If you are the legislator and four women and two men suddenly decide that from now on marriage describes their relationship, you have to be as honest as Will as and say “why not?”

Or, if you think that’s a bit silly, you can go back to the latter part of my opening post and ponder whether there is a basic difference, in social terms or otherwise, between marriage as we now know it and, say, six women who like each other. If you think the two are basically the same, you’re with Will. If you think traditional marriage is more important and central and deserves to be so recognised, you’re with me.

Notice that in stripping marriage of all meaning (because it’s culturally constructed, you know, and therefore worthless…) my friends have reached the position where marriage is ANYTHING, like a triangle that can have any number of sides (because, you know, triangle is a utilitarian social construct). I whimsically made up a fatuous union between four women and two men and Will called it a marriage. In other words, in their world, you name it and it’s a marriage.

Will’s intellectual honesty is indeed instructive and should be read again and again by those who are skeptical of my warnings.

In the same spirit, I say we let three 10-year-old girls marry each other. I mean, why not?

As for down_in_flames’ comment, I readily acknowledge (as others have) that not all marriages are perfect. Sometimes children are born out of wedlock. Some married people are unfaithful. Some husbands beat their wives. Nobody is denying that. Nothing is perfect.

Still, I don’t think it’s a persuasive argument against the position I am taking on this issue. Traditional marriage is still the best way to raise children. It is still the most important social institution in the world.

What, because some people sleep around we just declare that marriage can mean anything (including the union of four women and two men that I capriciously dreamt up)? How is that sensible or relevant? Does that mean we should all turn into cultural iconoclasts and anarchists? I really don’t see why we should do that.

Maybe it’s just my confounded conservative instincts, but, if anything, the current crisis in marriage is a signal that we should support and reinforce it, not give up on it altogether.

As for the rest of your post, my only crime was to recite your arguments, mate. I believe your posts prove that I am not scaremongering. When you say that four women and two men can get married, I know I have a point.

Add,

Thanks for your comments, mate.

You’ll find that I’ve dealt with some of your arguments above. It appears that you have misunderstood me somewhat. In a nutshell, and at the risk of repeating myself, my position is not that marriage must never be changed as a matter of principle. Indeed, if there exists a good case as to why the institution should be changed, then by all means let’s change it to make it better. My point, as I told Dylan, is that there has to be a valid reason for any proposed change. I don’t support gay marriage because I have yet to hear a good reason for doing so. I do, however, perceive some risks. The debate is not whether marriage can change in general – or whether it has changed in the past. Of course it can and of course it has. The debate is whether we have compelling grounds for doing so in the case of same-sex marriage. This is especially so since this particular change is, I believe, more fundamental and radical than any of the changes mentioned above.

Now let’s go through the reasons commonly offered. A popular reason repeated by advocates is discrimination. I believe I have refuted the discrimination argument in my opening post. No one has so far disputed that component of my case. One reason constantly offered here is that things change over time and marriage has changed in the past. Well, you can justify a lot of things with that kind of argument… But we all know that there is good change and bad change. To simply say that things change (or provide examples of how they changed) doesn’t mean you don’t have to come up with actual reasons to justify the need for the change you’re arguing for. Another reason offered here is herd mentality couched in relativist lingo. A lot of people don’t mind it or think it’s cool so let’s change the institution. In my opinion, that’s not much of a reason. I don’t hold views just because other people do. I take the liberty to assume that you don’t either so let’s drop that.

It may well be that there is a very good reason out there and I am yet to hear it. If you think you have it, please enlighten us.

By the way, do you support polygamy? If not, why not? Would you support it if enough people supported it?

In comments above, I asked Will if he would deny four men and two women who wished to wed the benefit of marriage. He said no. He was honest and knew how slippery his slope was (but, to be sure, he still mocked me afterwards for daring to claim that marriage was a slippery slope). Would you also agree that a union of four men and two women should be enshrined in law? Would you support it if enough people did?

I see you are quite keen on gay people raising children. I strongly believe that’s just unnatural. It’s a social experiment driven by ideology and the guinea pigs are children. I would not have liked to be part of this experiment. I would not have liked to be that guinea pig.

Since it is so unnatural (and in fact naturally impossible), the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child. It’s one thing for two consenting adults to decide to enter into a homosexual relationship. It’s quite another thing for them to incorporate a non-consenting child into that relationship in a way nature clearly did not intend or support. I can think of many things that can go wrong with this social experiment.

The fact that some heterosexual couples are infertile does not mean that children should be raised in homosexual relationships. That’s a non sequitur. I can’t presume to speak on your behalf, but I wouldn’t like to have two dads. I presume most people would share my feeling.

Your other arguments are in the same vein. Yes, serial killers have been raised by heterosexual parents. Does that mean gay marriage and gay adoption are good ideas? No. Yes, Britney Spears married her best friend in Vegas. Does that mean gay marriage and gay adoption are good ideas? No, nor does it mean that letting four men and two women is a good idea. There’s just no logical progression there. All it proves is that nothing is perfect. It is possible for some heterosexuals to be idiots and for gay marriage to be a bad idea at the same time. Indeed, that’s what the state of affairs seems to be.

Add,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I’m doing my best to keep up despite my exams.

Let’s start with the discrimination argument. The word discrimination means the denial of something to which a person is entitled. To prove discrimination, you must first prove the entitlement. In other words, it’s a condition precedent. Frankly, it seems as though you’re trying to avoid that for some reason. Be that as it may, anyone who wishes to argue discrimination needs to prove an entitlement (or in uncontroversial situations rely on a commonly recognised entitlement). Indigenous people, to whom you referred, need to prove an entitlement. Similarly, gay people need to prove an entitlement. To simply say again and again that someone is discriminated against doesn’t prove anything.

You say that I, too, fall into the trap of circularity. I infer from the next line that it has something to do with my reference to the native title legislation. The legislation is not even remotely circular. Under the Act as it has been construed by the courts, indigenous people must meet a high and robust evidentiary standard by demonstrating a continuous connection to the land which they claim. In other words, they need to prove an entitlement. It doesn’t matter in the least that the common law didn’t recognise that entitlement until the early 1990’s. No one is saying that the entitlement needed to substantiate the claim of discrimination must have been recognised by the common law before the early 1990’s. All I’m saying is that in order to argue discrimination you must first show that gays are entitled to get married – which is the whole debate. So let’s concentrate on debating whether there is an entitlement. This is what I urged you to do in my previous post when I asked you to provide a reason. Until we find a reason, there can be no discrimination.

*For the record, I’m no fan of the Native Title Act. I just used it as an example because my problems with it are not that it’s circular.

I don’t understand why you think that distinguishing between natural ways of raising children and unnatural ways of raising children is “unhelpful”. I note that you didn’t really disagree with me, let alone refuted my assertion that it is unnatural for gay parents to raise children. You just said it was “unhelpful”. It is natural to sleep every night. If someone advances an argument that people should only sleep three times a week, it might be helpful to recall that it is highly unnatural and be somewhat skeptical of the contention. Indeed, anyone who contends such a thing would bear a heavy onus of proof precisely because what he is proposing is so unnatural. In advocating gay parenting, you are calling for something very unnatural that involves a social experiment in which the guinea pigs are non-consenting children. In my opinion, my friend, you shoulder a considerable burden of proof which you haven’t even begun satisfying.

You say that I “mentioned in a previous post that the infertility of homosexual couples was a reason against gay marriage”. Can you please quote the statement you refer to? I don’t say that because I doubt you, it’s just that I say a lot of things on this site and, to avoid confusion, I’d like to know exactly what I’m asked to respond to.

Can I also say something to all those above who criticised or laughed at me for raising the issue of polygamy. Here is yet another advocate of gay marriage who proves me right on this point. He cannot or would not say no to polygamy and its bedfellows, including that weird, laughable conglomeration of four men and two women I dreamt up. I am reminded of what I said in my opening post: “Every proponent of gay marriage is thus, unwittingly, an apologist for polygamy.” Sadly, it rings true. Actually, it’s much worse than I anticipated. I should have said: “an apologist for polygamy – and really any association of people who decide to get married.” You name it and it’s a marriage! If this is not turning a pivotal social institution into farce, I don’t know what is.

To those who are undecided, it is worthwhile to bear in mind that gay marriage has strange bedfellows. You may think that gay marriage is alright. Many people seem to. What about polygamy and polyamory, though? The slope is very slippery. Do you really want groups of people to get married? Do you believe in a marriage of three husbands and five wives? Is that marriage or just a joke? Remember: to believe that marriage is anything is to believe marriage is nothing.

Add,

Thanks for your lengthy response (which forced me to write an even lengthier one). We still have some very different takes on this issue. I particularly disagree with your approach to this debate. Let me explain. To avoid the inconvenience of having to substantiate your views or actually argue a point, you simply declare that what you want is an inalienable human right and therefore no one is allowed to argue with you as to its validity.

You say: “My assertion is that all consenting adults are entitled to get married…It is a human right…”

In other words, you demand that we radically change a pivotal social institution, arguably the most important there is, one that even you accept “has played an important role in many societies”, but you refuse to accept any burden of proof or even to produce a reason for doing so – other than a perfectly circular one (actually what you’re arguing for). Instead, you just decide that what you want is an inalienable human right and declare case closed. Apparently, now everyone has to accept your views without question – because you have declared them to be inalienable human rights.

You assert that gay marriage is an inalienable human right. Well, I assert it isn’t.

You’ll say “Yes, yes, it is!” and I’ll say “No, no, it isn’t!” We can just go on like that for days – asserting what we need to prove. You will say that what you want is beyond debate and I will say the opposite is beyond debate. I see no point in participating in such a debate because, frankly, it isn’t one. To have a debate, we need reasons, arguments and evidence. We can’t just assume at the outset that what we say is incontrovertibly right and thereby do away with the need to substantiate what we say. This is precisely what you are doing. Your argument in favour of gay marriage is perfectly circular. Come to think of it, there is no actual argument – just a declaration that you are right.

To justify this untenable position, you point to commonly accepted human rights like the right not to get shot or the right to vote. Are saying that because we accept these human rights we must therefore accept that gay marriage is a human right? Why? Where is the necessary connection? Yes, before 1962 indigenous people could not vote federally and in some states. Yes, now we have universal adult suffrage. But we had reasons for doing that, didn’t we? What are your reasons? You effectively say that you don’t need to provide any, that you don’t bear any burden of proof. You can’t possibly expect your argument about two or three or four guys marrying each other to naturally proceed from the existence of other recognised rights. So because of the existence of the right to life or the right to vote, gay marriage is an inalienable right, no one is allowed to contradict you, case closed and we all go home? Come on, mate.

It is perfectly coherent for me to argue that the right to life is a human right but the right of five dudes to wed each other isn’t. You’ll find that the overwhelming majority of people agree with me on that last proposition.

In my opinion, gay marriage is a bogus human right concocted and trumpeted by people who wish to avoid a debate on the topic. If you have a reason for radically changing this pivotal social institution, I’m happy to listen and respond. But I can’t – nor should other people – be swayed by a baseless declaration that gay marriage is a human right. This is especially so when the proponents of this idea sneer at the suggestion that they may have some burden of proof to satisfy (why would we have to prove anything???).

As I argue in my opening post, marriage was conceived as a union between a man and a woman. There is no reason why two men would have some a priori right to marry. The institution has nothing to do with them. Your statement “It is a human right, and only when religion is involved does that entitlement become extinguished” is a misrepresentation, nay an inversion, of the history. This entitlement you assert never existed until gay activists started to advocate it. If anything, marriage has only recently (relatively speaking) become secularised. This idea that religion has somehow taken over your institution is ridiculous. The institution of marriage, which has always been tied to religion, has existed for millennia and between a man and a woman. Now some people for whom the institution clearly wasn’t intended and to whom it doesn’t apply want to change the rules. This confected narrative whereby religion has set out to extinguish something you’ve always had is just false. The opposite is true. This shows how removed from reality gay marriage advocates can become.

You say that until I raised it, you were “blissfully unaware that people were going around arguing” “that gay people are not entitled to marriage”. Are you serious? So you’ve never come across anyone who disagrees with gay marriage? I’m stunned. Where do you hang out? Have you heard of Kevin Rudd? The Pope? “Blissfully unaware”…it’s true what they say, ignorance is bliss.

As for gay parenting, e.g. a kid having two dads and no mother, you say:

“It is not a social experiment..it is happening around the world.”

Yes, THAT is the social experiment. If nobody did it, it wouldn’t be an experiment; it would just be an idea.

In addition to refusing to accept that gay parenting is a social experiment in which the guinea pigs are non-consenting children, you refuse to accept that some things are natural and some are not:

“these are socially constructed concepts, and they are unhelpful.”

It amazes me what studying Arts does to people. They lose the ability to apply common sense. They lose the ability to see that nature has operated in a certain way even if it conflicts with their ideology.

Let’s talk about natural vs unnatural generally because I think the problem here is much greater than gay parenting. Add, is it not natural to sleep every night? Is it “unhelpful” to remember that when deciding how many times a week we sleep? Why this pseudo-scholarly obfuscation about socially constructed blah blah? Why pretend there is no natural state of things in the world? So you can make totally unnatural things seem perfectly mainstream (like in the case of a child having two dads)?

You know what, even if sleeping every night is a social construct, it’s a bloody good one! It’s the way humans have behaved since time immemorial. It’s the way humans evolved and survived. You can’t say that sleeping every night has the same weight or argumentative value as sleeping twice a week or not sleeping at all merely because you decide to call it a social construct. It’s the same with gay parenting. Humanity has done things a certain way since time immemorial. This is how humanity has evolved. You propose we do it very differently. Well, first of all, you should face up to the fact that it’s unnatural. Second of all, it means that you have a burden of proof to satisfy. If you want to argue that people should sleep twice a week, the burden of proof lies on you, not all the people who do the natural (yes, natural) thing and sleep every night. So no, I don’t shoulder the burden of proof for simply supporting what has always been natural.

Now I am not saying that humans must never do things that are unnatural and you are wrong to imply that. Life saving medical treatment, for example, is a very good idea. But that’s because the burden of proof in that respect has been satisfied. If you convince me a kid should have two dads even though it’s unnatural, I’ll support that too – even though it’s unnatural. But you are nowhere near establishing that it is good for a kid to have two or three or four dads – as good as having a mum and a dad. How can you? You don’t even accept that you bear a burden of proof in that regard. You just expect everyone to embrace your bold social plan, regardless of whether it is natural or not, no questions asked. Let’s experiment with children first and ask questions later.

I’m starting to run out of time now so I’ll try to be brief.

As for “Homosexual behaviour has been documented in the animal kingdom..now what does that make it?” Where did I argue homosexuality was not natural? Your remarks on this issue are irrelevant.

You ask “Who gives you/the church/a societal majority to impose on other people? To restrict how they live their lives, when they are in no way affecting you”

Whatever gives society the right to issue parking tickets, outlaw incest, determine a sexual age of consent etc. It’s called democracy. Society has traditionally made rules for the common good. If society believes something is contrary to the common good, it may legislate against it.

As for my argument about gay marriage being a slippery, you say:

“Gay marriage isn’t a slippery slope, it isn’t tied to polygamy, but humanists generally advocate both, because it is unfair and discriminatory to do otherwise.”

I rest my case.

As I said, this argument is so eminently true even my opponents can’t help but concede the point – again and again. I doubt it can get any better than the above statement. You guys constantly whine about how the evil conservatives are running a fear campaign. But at the same time you basically agree with and vindicate their claims. If your position is that five dudes can get married, it’s not a fear campaign for conservatives to repeat that. It’s just an accurate representation of your views. Is it possible that you don’t want the public to know that?

Like previous commenters, you keep saying that society hasn’t collapsed even though gay marriage has been legalised in some places. Once again, where do I never argue that society would “collapse”? You are refuting arguments that you made up.

You state “gay parenting is already occuring without any problems, except for conservative/religious groups attacking their child rearing abilities.” Firstly, the studies purporting to demonstrate that “gay parenting is already occuring without any problems” have been shown to be plagued by serious methodological flaws. As always, there are studies which purport to show the exact opposite – that children in traditional families do better. There are also many experts who believe that children need both a mother figure and a father figure and have argued their case extensively. In my opinion, it is very early days as far as gay parenting is concerned (the phenomenon has only been studied for a very short time) and we have good reasons to believe that much of the research – on both sides – is driven by preconceived agendas. This is why I am reluctant to brandish evidence that purports to bolster my argument. Indeed, I haven’t. I think it’s fair to say that the evidence is contested and inconclusive.

Also, just out of curiosity, can I ask you, why in your opinion should society tell people they can’t marry a table? I mean, they’re no hurting anyone, right? With the table, there is no issue of consent or lack thereof because it’s an inanimate object. Our opposition to marrying tables must be socially constructed. So why do we ban it? If people want to marry a table, let them. Marriage is already a farce, anyway, right? So what difference does it make?

I’m pretty exhausted by now. You’ll find that I’ve largely dealt with your other arguments in comments above, directly or indirectly. This response is already long enough. Besides, it’s not like you’re going to be convinced…
Finally, a clarification for the benefit of other readers. At the end of his last post, Add referred to the following statement:

”However, if we ignore any other biblical or moral argument opposing gay marriage and focus merely on the reproductive purposes of a married relationship, isn’t it pretty clear which sex we were designed to be with?”

I did not make the above statement. It was made by someone else. Add’s response to it has nothing to do with my argument – although it did teach me something I am yet to personally discover.

Add,

It’s great we entertain each other so much… I’m serious.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: you are content to conclusively establish your case by asserting that the right to marry is an inalienable human right (“I did not say that gay marriage is an inalienable human right..I said the right to marry is”). Well, I’m content to conclusively establish my case by asserting it’s not.

As you know, we are just repeating ourselves. I think we’ve both had an opportunity to present our case and respond to criticism. I’ve got a few things to say about your last post (especially the table question) but we’re just going around in circles so I’m happy to let things stay as they are and let other readers decide. Besides, I’ve just conclusively established my case…

Now I fully understand that part of your argument is to make me look like a bigot (and I do find it funny) but, still, I wish to correct a few misrepresentations of my position because I don’t want to be misunderstood:

“Because that is essentially what you are arguing..that there is something wrong with two homosexual people being together”

No, I have never argued that. My position is that homosexual people can’t get married, not that they can’t be together. On the contrary, I said in my opening post that “Homosexual relationships have their place in a free society.” You don’t have to agree with my view but please don’t misrepresent it.

“You two amoral homosexuals can’t get married.”

Now this statement hasn’t been specifically attributed to me but it may be so attributed by implication. Once again, I do not say it is immoral or amoral to be homosexual or to have homosexual relationships. A religious person might have a different view based on Leviticus 18:22 but I’m not religious and I do not make this claim.

“I’m sure you will come back and rant and rave that its to protect sancity, a sacred institution”

No, I have never said that marriage is a sacred institution or that it is possesses sanctity. I said it is a pivotal or central institution and I stand by it.

Thanks for your time, Add.

Needless to say, if there’s anything else you wish to say, you are very welcome.

p.s. I’ll get my mob of torch wielding villagers to take of you.

Add,

You ask me “where do you draw your conclusion from?”

Well, I could just copy and paste all of the above, but, in a nutshell, it comes from observation, innate conservatism and common sense. I look around me and see that marriage is a very important institution that plays a key role in society. The role of heterosexual marriage is not just an assertion or an allusion to an absolute truth that need not be substantiated. It’s not a belief or an ideology. It’s a fact that can be gleaned from observation, research (see my opening post) and intuition. It saddens me to see that such a pillar of civil society is breaking down all over the western world because attitudes have changed and, influenced by iconoclastic ideological agendas, people (heterosexuals included) no longer respect it as much as they used to. For many on this forum this crisis seems to be a reason to ridicule and belittle traditional marriage, rejoice in this social vandalism and give up on it completely. I actually think (call me crazy) that we should strive to restore its integrity because it’s really important. In the midst of all this, someone comes along and says, hey, marriage is a farce anyway, let’s remove another of its foundations and let two, three, five dudes get married. Is this a step in the right direction when even my opponents cannot help but concede that it’s a slippery slope? When you say to them (as I explained in my opening post) that four dudes who like each other just don’t fulfil the same social function of a married couple and never have, they say that five dudes actually have an inalienable human right to get married. Well, if we’re going to have an argument by assertion, I learn from them, and say that they don’t.

W,

You say, “I do not wish to spend the time debating with you about your regressive views, as it seems you are as closed-minded as you are careless. However, I do offer this one piece of information on the flaws of your axioms to the hoardes of people with the right thing to say, but the wrong way to say it.”

How fortunate am I to have basked in your radiant wisdom and towering intellect if only for a brief moment!

Mate, no one is forcing you to participate. If you don’t want to spend the time, don’t. I’ll respond in case other people are interested.

Let’s go with the definition you kindly provided:

“treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs, rather than on individual merit”

According to a strict application of this definition, discrimination occurs whenever a distinction is made on the basis of “group, class or category…rather than individual merit”.

However, if you think about, we all make such distinctions all time and we don’t believe them to be discriminatory. For example, Add, who believes my definition is discriminatory, believes that marriage has to be between consenting adults (“my assertion is that all consenting adults are entitled to get married”). I take the liberty to assume that your definition would be similar. Well, according to the definition of discrimination you provided, Add’s definition is also discriminatory because it clearly makes a distinction based on group, class or category, namely age. It’s not as if each child is excluded from his definition on the basis of individual merit. No, Add excludes non-adults as a class. If we apply the definition of discrimination in the strict way you propose, we must conclude that Add’s definition is discriminatory, no matter how sensible it is. But we don’t really believe that, do we? That would be silly.

Now many if not most definitions are like that in one way or another. Normally when we define something, we limit its scope. Often that involves excluding whole groups, rather than excluding persons one by one on individual merit, because the group as a whole doesn’t fulfil the criteria. Yet, according to a strict application of the above definition, any such instance (including Add’s definition of marriage) would constitute discrimination.

So how are we going to resolve this issue? What is real discrimination? Note that you don’t have to accept my solution to see that the strict definition you apply is flawed. In my opinion, however, we should look at discrimination in terms not only of distinctions but also of rights. If a group of women decides to establish a women’s club for women only, it can’t be said that men are discriminated against because it’s not as if men have a universal pre-existing entitlement to be members of every club they wish to join. Indeed, clubs reject members all the time. If we decide to follow the distinction concept then we shall find that men are excluded as a class and not on individual merit, hence they are discriminated against.

In conclusion, discrimination is the deprivation of a right on the basis of race, sex and so forth. If someone says that men can’t enter public parks, then it’s discriminatory not just because a distinction is made (distinctions are made all the time) but also because we all accept that generally all members of the public have a right to enter public parks. Men are deprived of a right based on sex – and that’s discrimination.

What I’m trying to say is that the real argument here is not whether gays are discriminated against but whether people have a general right to marry their own sex. It’s about the right, not the distinction. If there is a right then there’s discrimination. But I believe there isn’t.

As for discrimination being “a substantial part” of my argument, my arguments is multifaceted I argue that the current definition is the best; I argue why the alternative definition cannot be accepted; I argue that the oft-repeated discrimination charge is misconceived and circular; and finally, if someone is content to establish their case by asserting that the right to marry is an inalienable human right or an absolute truth, I’m content to establish my case by saying it isn’t or that my position is an absolute truth.

Cheers

Add,

Briefly:

Notwithstanding the distinction you made (even if it were true), your definition of marriage would still be discriminatory according to the definition of discrimination used against me.

You ask: “With regard to fulfilling a social function? What really is the difference between “5 dudes” and a heterosexual couple?”

Not many of us owe our upbringing to five dudes. There can be no comparison between the social role of married heterosexual couples and the exceedingly rare unions of five men.

“If it comes back to a question of children, then once again I would point out that you don’t dismiss childless couples.”

I don’t and it doesn’t matter in the least. That some couples remain childless doesn’t mean that heterosexual couples are not the core of human existence or that the institution of marriage is not a pillar of society. As a whole, the social significance of married heterosexual couples is enormous and the significance of these exceedingly rare groupings of five men is zilch. Every rule has exceptions and we would be very ill-advised to formulate social policy based on exceptions.

“Arguably “5 dudes” could fulfil a greater social function, as there would be a greater combination of assets & income, they would carpool reducing the environmental impact, etc etc. And I’m sure if they were so inclined they could donate sperm aswell, thus fulfilling the ever-vital necessity to propagate society.”

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic… with you guys, I never know. If not, see above.

““it comes from observation, innate conservatism and common sense” but that doesn’t really answer the question”

Please read the rest of the paragraph…

“it all goes back to my point that the only reason you view marriage as you currently do, is because that has historically been the consensus of society.”

Arguably, “the only reason you view marriage as you currently do is because” that’s the consensus of your ideological school of thought. I prefer the tested and tried consensus of thousands of years.

“For instance, if you had been brought up in a scandinavian country, you would no doubt be shouting the legitimacy of gay marriage, based on your very same criteria.”

No, I wouldn’t “be shouting the legitimacy of gay marriage” and I wouldn’t be doing so on the same criteria that I am not doing so now.

“I also find it interesting that you say “we all accept that generally all members of the public have a right to enter public parks”. Do you dispute the assertion that consenting adult homosexual people can enter relationships?”

No, that’s too general. I dispute the assertion that adult homosexual people can marry other adult homosexual people. I said that in my opening post: “Homosexual relationships have their place in a free society. I am only asking you to accept that not every relationship is a marriage.”

Cheers

Thanks for your relevant inquiry, Jamie. It is true that in many areas of legislation there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Indeed, the Commonwealth has recently amended a large number of laws to that effect. Below is an extract from the press release of the Australian Human Rights Commission dated 30 April 2008:

“Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes welcomes today’s announcement that discrimination against same-sex couples and their children will be removed from federal legislation.

This reform follows the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s (HREOC’s) 2007 Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report which recommended the amendment of 58 laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their children in areas of financial and workplace benefits.

The Government’s announcement also includes amendment of more than 40 additional laws which discriminate in other areas.”

Click here to see the full press release.

I agree with you, Jamie. Gay marriage is not really about eliminating so-called discrimination. It’s really the hijacking of a social institution that has nothing to do with gay people.

The Wall Street Journal (6/11/08):

“On the same day that Barack Obama carried California by 24 points, the state’s voters nonetheless amended its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Late yesterday Proposition 8 was ahead 52% to 48% with 95% of precincts reporting.

This is a big event — less for the merits of gay marriage than as a statement about democracy. In a referendum in 2000, 61% of California voters had voted to bar same-sex marriage in the state. But in a raw display of judicial power, a 4-3 Supreme Court majority erased that referendum by declaring in May that same-sex marriage was protected by the state constitution. So opponents of gay marriage had to return to the electorate to amend the state constitution. One of the more effective TV ads contrasted the millions who voted for that proposition in 2000 with the four judges who chose to impose their cultural will. And this is California, where the media portray anyone who opposes gay marriage as a bigot or yahoo.

Similar amendments also passed in Florida and Arizona Tuesday, bringing the number of states that have done so to 30. Arizona voters had defeated a similar measure two years ago, but it passed this year 56%-44%.”

In my opening post I claimed that it’s not discriminatory for the state or anyone else to oppose gay marriage. Later, when challenged, I showed that my opponents’ conception of discrimination was so absurd as to render discriminatory even their own definitions of marriage.

Now I would like to take this argument a step further and offer another explanation – one inspired by Thomas Sowell – as to why the charge of discrimination is so misconceived. Much has been said above about the supposed parallel between the denial of rights to Aborigines and the denial of gay marriage to homosexuals. The explanation that follows is intended to be a fuller answer to that argument and supplement my previous arguments.

First, we must distinguish between two types of discrimination: discrimination against a person and discrimination against certain conduct by any person. Second, we must understand that the latter is not discrimination at all (unless we use the word in a purely technical sense bereft of moral obloquy). If it were, the law against murder would be discriminatory.

When a black person can’t vote but a white person can, then the discrimination is against the person, not conduct by any person. If it really were about conduct, voting would be prohibited for everyone. That was real discrimination: once upon a time, Aborigines could not do the exact same thing white people could because they were Aboriginal, not because of the conduct they were engaged in. That was discrimination against a person.

Since we now know that only discrimination against a person is discriminatory and discrimination against conduct by any person is not, the test is simple: is the person/group in question in the same position as everyone else? If the answer is no, you may have discrimination. If nobody can do what you want to do, like in the case of murder, then there’s no discrimination.

Now let us ask this question in the context of gay marriage. Are homosexuals in the same position as heterosexuals? Yes, they can marry the opposite sex and many of them have. What can’t homosexuals do? They can’t marry their own sex. But heterosexuals can’t marry their own sex either. Homosexuals are in the same position as heterosexuals. Therefore, gays are not really asking for equal rights. The “right” to marry one’s sex is a right NOBODY has. It is not a right at all. And this is not about equality at all. Nor is it about discrimination. As we have seen, the fact that gays can’t marry their sex can only be classified as discrimination against conduct by any person (which is not really discrimination). Gays can do exactly what straights can do. It may be that some gay men will not marry women because they do not care for them. If so, this is a case of forgoing rights, not the absence of rights.

There is therefore no parallel between gays who can do exactly what heterosexuals can do and Aborigines who in the past could not do the exact same things white people could. The way gay activists try to misleadingly use the former plight of Aborigines to their advantage trivialises true discrimination.

What gay activists are (really) demanding is not equal rights. They are demanding that society fashion completely new rights for themselves, rights that no one else has.

It may be that they deserve rights or privileges that no one else has – but not on the grounds of discrimination or equality.

Dear Add,

Someone’s getting angry… I must’ve said something really good. I’ll just take it as a compliment.

As for my supposedly “flawed logic”, if it’s so flawed why don’t you refute it? You claim that there should be a right to marry a person if one is already legally entitled to a relationship with that person (where consent is given). Let me say this again: no one in our society has this right. If a straight guy wants to marry a gay guy (say for money or any other reason) he can’t even though he is entitled to enter into a relationship with him. So even if your claim is true and there should be such a right, it can’t possibly prove discrimination against gays because it’s a right nobody has. How can you have discrimination if everyone has exactly the same right?

You say “Obviously heterosexual people do not want to marry people of their own gender, hence the term heterosexual, but homosexual people are by very definition attracted to the same gender.” How does that change anything? I actually addressed this point in my last post. Maybe you should read it again.

As you know well, my last post was specifically about discrimination. Is it possible you’re resorting to ridicule because you don’t have a real counter-argument?

Add,

In response to my discrimination argument, you said: “I’m sure at the time, people said something similar when black and white people were prevented from intermarrying. “No one is allowed to marry other races, so its not a right.””

The simple answer is that the prohibition on interracial marriage was not discriminatory. I think it was silly but not everything that is silly or wrong has to be discriminatory. It’s not as if some people could intermarry and others couldn’t. No one could intermarry so there was no discrimination. It was indiscriminately silly.

Likewise, it may be that refusing to change the definition of marriage is silly. You certainly think so. But even if it is silly, it can’t be discriminatory because the law puts everyone in the same legal position regardless of who they are: no one can marry their own sex, like no one could intermarry and no one can smoke in government buildings.

Your insistence on the fact that gays may not want to marry the opposite sex is of no consequence. You don’t have to convince me of its truth because I conceded it (even though many homosexuals have married the opposite sex). As far as discrimination is concerned, what matters is whether everyone is in the same position, not what people would like to do if the rules were different. Arguing that gays are discriminated against – even though they are in the same position as everyone else – because they want to marry their sex and heterosexuals don’t is like arguing that murderers are discriminated against because normal people don’t want to murder and they do! (No, no, I’m not saying gays are like murderers…) Once again: you cannot be discriminated against if nobody can do the thing you can’t do. It doesn’t mean the rule is right but it does mean the rule is not discriminatory – and that’s my argument.

As for “legislating against” gays, that’s just false. Gay marriage is not actually prohibited, it’s just not recognised. It’s not as if the state actively legislates against everything which the state doesn’t recognise. The state doesn’t recognise relationships which have lasted two months. That doesn’t mean that we legislated against two-month relationships or that we are discriminating against people who have only been going out for two months. In a free society, many if not most things are neither forbidden nor recognised by the state. At the moment, gay marriage is in this category. Two guys can hold a wedding (in fact, three guys can too). It’s not as if someone can come and arrest you. It’s not a crime for gays to get married. It’s just not a union which is endorsed by the state and has a whole raft of laws emanating from it. Maybe you do want the state’s seal of approval but at any rate the marriage legislation is not “against” you just like it’s not against people in a two-month relationship.

As for my arguments being “ludicrous” and “misguided” (not to mention your holier-than-thou display of moral indignation), if you want to use such language so freely it needs to be supported by good arguments.

Dear Alex W,

Thanks for your inquiry. As you may have noticed, I’ve been involved in an argument on a different issue. I want to finish this one before I move on. Arguing on two fronts is not my hobby… I’m also getting a bit tired.

I will definitely respond to your questions in due course. Please give me some time.

Cheers

Dear Alex W,

Since you’re so obliging, I’ve taken the liberty to respond to your question about risks in a creative way, the most important benefit of which is that I don’t have to write a dissertation on gay parenthood. If my answer doesn’t satisfy you, I promise to bore you with a longer, more conventional one. And so, my answer to your question is a question that answers your question:

What are the risks associated with taking a mother from a child?

Unless you believe that a father can be a mother or vice versa, these risks are your answer.

You specifically ask whether the risks are greater if the gay parents are married rather than de facto. My answer is no.

As for the three situations, can you please clarify who raises the child in each set of circumstances?

Cheers

Alex W,

I am pleased to have earned your agreement.

I would not take a mother from a child and similarly the notion of taking a father from a child does not strike me as particularly appealing, sensible or necessary. Any child raised by a homosexual couple would perforce lack either a mother or father. I think it is in the best interests of the child to have both and that’s all that matters.

When a child loses a father or mother due to misadventure, it is unfortunate. When society goes out of its way to deliberately take a mother or father from a child, it is stupid and, more importantly, preventable.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the three scenarios. The answer is no, no and no.

Cheers