|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Fourteen: Same Sex Marriage
While
the issue of same sex marriage has been debated for some time, recent
events have brought it into the spotlight. Not surprisingly, this
issue stirs up strong feelings and these feelings sometimes get
expressed as coherent arguments. This essay will address some of
the arguments aimed at showing same sex marriage is immoral or should
at least not be morally permissible.
One
of the most popular arguments against same sex marriage is that
it is immoral because it is forbidden by God. This argument is based
in what philosophers call divine command theory, which is the view
that morality is defined by God's commands.
Despite
its popularity, this argument suffers from serious problems. Laying
aside the difficulty of proving that God exists, there is the question
of determining what God actually permits and forbids. While some
churches hold that God forbids same sex marriage, others disagree
and are willing to perform such ceremonies. The heart of the problem
is that there does not seem to be any objective and reliable way
to discern which church (if any) has God's view right. Hence, this
argument provides no grounds for concluding that same sex marriage
is immoral.
A
second problem can be shown by the following analogy: I make rules
for my pets
("thou shall not scratch my leather chair with thy claws")
and the rules define good and bad behavior. Since rules that are
not enforced are meaningless and my pets are weaker, they can only
do wrong in secret or very quickly (before I can stop them). Since
God is omniscient and presumably very quick, no one should be able
to actually break his rules. Hence, if God actually forbids same
sex marriages, then they would never occur.
It
might be objected that God forbids same sex marriages and though
He does nothing on earth to enforce His rules, He punishes rule-breakers
later with Hell. In reply, this would be analogous to me making
the "no scratching" rule, letting the cats merrily scratch
the hell out of my chair at will, and then punishing the cats years
later by soaking them in gasoline and setting them ablaze. If I
did such a thing, I would justly be seen as a cruel, vicious and
evil person. Surely God is not cruel, vicious or evil and if he
did not want same sex marriage to take place, He would stop it before
He had to punish beings infinitely weaker than Him.
Given
the problems with the religious argument, opponents of same sex
marriage also employ non-religious moral arguments.
One
common argument is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.
Obviously, same sex couples cannot produce children. Hence, same
sex marriage should not be permitted.
The
obvious problem with this argument is that many "different
sex" marriages do not produce children, either because the
couples cannot or decide not to have them. Given the above argument,
such couples should not be morally permitted to marry. Since this
is absurd, the argument should be rejected. Further, advances in
technology will almost certainly permit same sex couples to produce
children of their own. When such technology becomes a reality, the
argument would be completely undercut.
A
second common argument is that homosexuals are immoral and hence
they should not be morally permitted to marry.
One
flaw in this argument is that homosexuals do not seem to be any
more or any less immoral than heterosexuals. For example, homosexuals
do not seem to be any more inclined to lie, cheat, steal or commit
murder than heterosexuals. Hence, there seems to be no more reason
to reject same sex marriages than traditional marriages on these
grounds.
It
might be objected that being homosexual is itself immoral and hence
same sex marriage should be prevented on moral grounds.
In
reply, moral consistency requires that the principle, that immoral
people should not marry, be applied across the board. This would
entail that immoral heterosexuals should also not be morally permitted
to marry. If taken seriously, this would mean that prospective couples
would need to submit to a moral evaluation before being granted
a license.
While
the notion of preventing immoral people from marrying (and reproducing)
has a certain appeal, there do not seem to be any moral grounds
for denying bad people the right to marry. This, of course, assumes
that the marriage is not otherwise morally questionable - such as
a forced marriage or a marriage that is part of a scam or swindle.
A
third argument is that same sex marriage will undermine traditional
values and yield dire, yet vague, consequences. Because of these
harms, same sex marriage should not be morally permitted.
There
are two replies to this argument. First, married heterosexuals have
done such a good job acting against "traditional values"
that it seems unlikely that permitting same sex marriages could
possibly do any more damage. After all it is hard to imagine that
homosexuals would engage in more adultery and spousal abuse than
heterosexuals.
Second,
it is not clear exactly what new harms will arise or what old harms
will increase if same sex marriage is permitted. For example, it
seems very unlikely that permitting same sex marriage will increase
child abuse, theft, murder, war, rape, or genocide.
Perhaps
the only compelling argument against it is that as long as same
sex marriage is not permitted homosexuals are protected from the
costs of weddings, adultery and divorce.
Provocations
will next be updated early November 2003
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
|
