North Carolina recently passed Amendment One, a constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage. They are not the only state to seek legislative action to prevent same-sex marriages–in fact, 30 states currently have laws on the books prohibiting them. However, what is somewhat unique about North Carolina’s approach is the fact that they opted to amend their state constitution, effectively ending further debate about the issue.
Since this is a blog about ethics, I’m less interested in analyzing the politics of this event, and more concerned with the arguments that might be given against same-sex marriage. There are three lines of argument typically given against same-sex marriages. Two of them are simply bad arguments, while the third requires empirical support that is not immediately forthcoming. At best, we seem to have a very weak case for prohibiting same-sex marriages.
The Religious Argument
Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue for their position on religious grounds. An argument of this sort might look like the following:
1. We should legally prohibit scenarios which are likely to lead to acts that the Bible (or some other important religious text) deems morally wrong.
2. The Bible deems homosexual sex morally wrong.
3. Same-sex marriages are likely to lead to homosexual sex.
4. Therefore, we should prohibit same-sex marriages.
While this argument is valid, the first premise is clearly false. For example, property ownership and unequal distribution of wealth makes theft more likely, and the Bible clearly prohibits theft, but we do not think this means we should prohibit property ownership and redistribute wealth. Further, this is also an argument against homosexual relationships, and only the most ardent zealots argue for that. However, there is another way to formulate the religious argument.
1. We should prohibit social relationships structured in ways that differ from their structure as defined by the Bible.
2. The Bible defines marriage as a union of male and female.
3. Therefore, we should prohibit same-sex marriages.
There are two ways to respond to this argument. The first, which applies equally to the first version of the religious argument, is that a secular society should not base its legal standards on any particular religious text, because many of its own citizens do not subscribe to the tenets defined by that text. But the further issue is that, as with the first argument, the first premise is obviously false. The Bible endorses several kinds of social relationship that we now find deeply objectionable, including polygamy, slavery, and regarding one’s spouse and daughters as a kind of property that can be exchanged and traded. Clearly, we do not think that the Bible is the best guide for how social relationships should be defined in general, so it’s not clear why we should utilize a Biblical definition in this one case.
The Biological Argument
Many opponents of same-sex marriage, despite being motivated by their religious convictions, nonetheless recognize that they cannot base a legal opposition to same-sex marriage on religious commitments. One course of action is to retreat to a biological argument against same-sex marriage. That argument proceeds as follows:
1. We should prohibit marriages where the primary purpose of marriage cannot be satisfied.
2. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation.
3. Same-sex couples cannot procreate.
4. Therefore, we should prohibit same-sex marriages.
There are two concerns with this argument. First, the second premise is dubious at best. For many people, the purpose of marriage is multi-faceted, and not primarily a means to facilitate procreation. Ironically, this premise seems contrary to the alleged sanctity of marriage that same-sex couples supposedly infringe upon. What sanctity is to be found in a baby-making contract?
The other concern is that the first premise of this argument implies that people with fertility problems, as well as post-menopausal women, should not be allowed to get married, because they are incapable of procreation. But this is absurd. Clearly, we cannot base opposition to same-sex marriage on a biological argument.
The Harm to Children and Families Argument
Once religious and biological opposition to same-sex marriage is ruled out, there isn’t much left for the opponent of same-sex marriages to base their position on. This is a problem, because if we are to deny something as important as the ability to get married to the person one wishes, we ought to have a good reason for doing so. The burden of proof, I think, is on the opponent of same-sex marriage.
The last resort for the opponent of same-sex marriage is to argue that permitting same-sex marriages is harmful to both “traditional” families and the potential children of same-sex couples. The argument would be something like this:
1. We can prohibit certain social arrangements when allowing them would be more harmful, overall, than prohibiting them.
2. Allowing same-sex marriages would be more harmful, overall, than prohibiting them.
3. Therefore, we can prohibit same-sex marriages.
Formalizing this argument is a good idea, because only then does one see how many problems it has. First, the second premise is an empirical claim that requires support, and it is very difficult to find any reputable evidence that same-sex marriages harm, or are likely to harm, anyone. The children of same-sex couples appear to be socially well-adjusted, while it’s not clear how same-sex marriages would actually be harmful to more traditional families, in spite of claims to this effect. However, there is quite a bit of evidence that prohibiting same-sex marriages is harmful to same-sex couples. At best, we need more evidence in support of the second premise. At worst, we already know that it’s false.
Setting empirical worries aside, however, the first premise is clearly not something we should endorse. Although consequentialist reasoning appears in our policy-making habits quite often, we are not consequentialists all the way down. We tend to think that there are certain rights and goods which are so fundamentally important to people, that we should protect them, even if we would all be better off not protecting them. The first premise requires a commitment to consequentialist reasoning that few of us would accept.
Perhaps there are other arguments against same-sex marriage–if so, please share them in the comments so that we can talk about them too. But as it stands, we do not seem to have any compelling arguments against allowing same-sex marriages. Next time, I’ll consider some arguments for allowing same-sex marriages. But until then, we should pause to consider how deeply troubling it is that North Carolina, and thirty states altogether, have prohibited something for which we seem to have no good arguments for prohibiting.
About the Author
Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman University. He currently lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan with his wife Laura, his son Brandon, and two cats.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Holly // May 26, 2012 at 2:08 am
I completely agree.
I am a (straight) Christian and I think that it is ludicrous that homosexual marriage is still largely illegal. I don’t think that we can use the Bible to justify banning gay marriage because you can easily quote the Bible to justify just about anything.
As a Christian I try to follow the two commandments that Jesus teaches are the most important which are to love the Lord with all your heart and love your neighbour. I don’t think that ones sexual orientation interferes with either of these. And in terms of being parents, I would think that having two of the same sex is better than none, surely? And a child who has been raised by two homosexual parents cant compare that to the experience of being raised by two heterosexual parents because they simply haven’t had that experience, in the same way that I can’t compare my upbringing to someone who grew up in America because i don’t know how it would have been different. (I’m Australian.) So in terms of children I don’t think that having homosexual parents would in any way disadvantage you.
I think that many Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage because of the sex. Because it’s not how God ‘intended’ us to be which is why they cant procreate. But I think that if you’re a Christian and you seriously think that marriage is only to allow for sex and procreation, then something’s wrong.
Love doesn’t commonly come up in this argument which is strange. I believe that marriage should ultimately be about love. That’s why the idea of an arranged marriage (in which you would have sex with someone you might not love) seems strange to me. If two people of the same gender love each other and want to make a commitment, we should let them. If they want kids then let them adopt. Surely having two parents (of the same gender) who love each other is better then two parents (who are heterosexual) that don’t love each other and were forced to be married.
From a Christian point of view, I don’t see any reason as to why we should ban homosexual marriage.
p.s. Cool website btw, really helpful and interesting.
2 Elijah Weber // May 29, 2012 at 6:01 am
Thanks for reading, I appreciate a comment from someone who subscribes to a Christian, worldview (since I don’t). I think you are on to something when you mention that some Christians are opposed to homosexual sex, rather than homosexual relationships. I raised this issue in my discussion of the biological argument, but I’m glad to see you think there’s something to that point.
It’s also worth noting that if one is opposed to homosexual sex on the grounds that it isn’t for procreation, there is also an awful lot of heterosexual sex, as well as sex acts performed by both homosexual and heterosexual couples, that one would have to be opposed to. Thus, opposing homosexual marriage forces one to take the position of supporting fairly invasive restrictions on personal freedom, and I don’t think many opponents of homosexual marriage also think the government should prohibit things like oral sex, or protected sex. But if one is opposed to sex that cannot lead to procreation, consistency requires that one also be opposed to these things.
3 North Carolina’s Amendment One: The Arguments FOR Same-Sex Marriage - Everyday Ethics // May 29, 2012 at 6:52 am
[...] Subscribe ← North Carolina’s Amendment One: The Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage [...]
4 David Van Slyck // Jul 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Mr. Weber,
I am neither very religious, nor am I a devout athiest.
I would like to attack your statement:
“The Bible endorses several kinds of social relationship(s) that we now find deeply objectionable, including polygamy, slavery, and regarding one’s spouse and daughters as a kind of property that can be exchanged and traded.”
Ones “objection” to a particular behavior cannot hold much weight in your world system because so many people, for many reasons already OBJECT to same sex marriage. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot use “objection” as an argument in favor of your opinion and then use deny its use when it is counter to your opinion. If you use “objection” as a weighty rationale for being “against” something, then you must acknowledge its legitimacy when used as an argument “for” something.
Also, I am ambivalent as to whether I support marriage as a “one-man-one-woman” or an “everyone-gets-what-they want” institution. I clearly do NOT support moving the undefendable (your position) “one-man-one-woman” line in the sand to another equally undefendable (not your position, but using your logic) of same sex marriage. If “one-man-one-woman” is undefendable, then clearly “same sex” marriage it also undefendable. Other than criticising and showing “one-man-one-woman” to be weak, you do nothing of any logical or ethical importance to support that position. It may be one thing to show that the support for “one-man-one-woman” is weak and relies mostly on culture and tradition, but you offer nothing of any weight to actully support same sex marriage.
I find it illogical to say that the “one-man-one-woman” argument is made up and supported by either religion, biology or sex and then draw the line at “same-sex” which other than having been excluded by the “one-man-one-woman” rationale has no other important rationale to support it, especially in light of its attempt itself to exclude other forms of marital behavior, most notably polygamy. To my reckoning, the main argument in supporting same sex marriage is that it excluded people who love each other and would be just as capable and loving parents as heterosexuals. Why does that argument not work for polygamy?
I am not in favor of polygamy nor am I in favor of same sex marriage. There are many, many things in all societies and cultures that cannot be rationalized through clear logic and laws. Many things are done simply either because they have been done this way for eons or that they work in their own innefficient way. When a man takes off his hat inside and especially in a room with women, he is signalling his agreement with cultural convention and that we read that sign as a signal the we have nothing to fear from that person and that we can turn our attention elswhere. It is the same with waving ones hand in greeting or shaking ones have. There are no laws to make one of to stop one from doing any of these three. But as Edward Gibbon said (in paraphrase) “when people among you flout your culture, they will eventually destroy you civilization.” This was said about the Goths living inside the Eastern Roman Empire in the late 4th century.
If we are going to move the line in the sand to include same sex marriage, then what rationale turns that line in the sand into a brick wall excluding other forms of marriage? Are you saying that Muslims have it wrong?
5 Elijah Weber // Jul 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm
David,
Well thought out reply. Let me start by directing you to another article I wrote, in favor of same-sex marriage. You can find it by a quick on-site search of the keywords “North Carolina Amendment One.” So in some sense, you’re right to claim that I haven’t offered an argument for same-sex marriage here. But that wasn’t my intention. I simply wanted to demonstrate that the “best” arguments against it are not, in fact, very good arguments. So I’d first encourage you to check out this additional post.
However, your point may still hold that I haven’t given an argument for drawing the line at same-sex marriage. I tend to think that we ought to come up with reasonable principles for ethical decision-making, and then use those principles to determine what sorts of arrangements are acceptable. If those principles tell in favor of polygamy, then so be it. I don’t think that they do, since there’s compelling empirical evidence that women in polygamous relationships, as well as the children of polygamous marriages, are subject to all sorts of family violence, and we don’t have similar data regarding same-sex relationships. That doesn’t prove that polygamy is harmful, but it does indicate a potential problem that doesn’t seem indicated in the case of same-sex marriage. If you consult my other posting, you’ll see that my arguments on the basis of preventing harm imply that this is a good reason to prohibit polygamy, but wouldn’t apply to same-sex marriages.
Let me end with your first worry. First, we should be careful about two different ways we might use the term ‘objection.’ First, we might use this term to indicate that people disapprove of something as in “I object to the legalization of same-sex marriage.” But an objection is also a philosophical term, to indicate a substantive logical problem with an argument, usually to the effect that the argument is invalid, or that one of the premises is false. Most of my use of this term is of the philosophical sort.
But that’s not the case for the statement you quote regarding appeals to the Bible. My point there is just that if one is going to apply to ethical principles that they believe to be grounded in scripture, one must be willing to countenance all that such a source has to offer. One cannot pick and choose which Biblical maxims to follow, while ignoring others. My point is that nobody who disapproves of same-sex marriage, on the basis of appealing to Biblical doctrine thinks slavery is permissible, or that women should be regarded as property.
Now if your argument is just that same sex marriage should be prohibited because our culture disapproves of it, hopefully you can see why that’s a terrible argument. First of all, our culture is currently experiencing deep disagreement about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted, so it’s just false that there’s wide cultural agreement about this. There just isn’t. Further, we want to have some basis for taking a critical approach to cultural practices, rather than merely accepting cultural norms as the right ethical principles. History is littered with morally reprehensible practices that were culturally permissible, but that doesn’t make them morally permissible. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument, but if I’ve captured it correctly, I’m concerned that it’s based on a false premise, and implies a kind of relativism that we ought not endorse.
6 David Van Slyck // Jul 24, 2012 at 1:19 am
Mr. Weber,
Before sending my comprehensive response (next), I want to briefly visit the last paragraph of your response to me about “culture”.
Yes, you did misinterpret my use of culture. It is not that there is a consensus about what marriage should be or that there is a larger part of our culture that still disapproves of same sex marriage, but that the cultural argument in favor of heterosexual marriage is a deep, deep part of our cultural and goes way, way back and to simply throw all of that away in less than one generation is a precipitous event that may throw our culture into a moral morass. The cultural argument is not about numbers, but about years and history. Even the Spartans, who allowed male/male companionship during the formative years, took legal action against it during ones mature years as being against the state. Unmarried males over the age of 30 were ostracized. They wanted children. Male children.
As I say in the next response, the defense of man-women marriage is largely cultural and traditional. That’s why it is so hard to defend. That is also precisely why it is inappropriate for same-sex marriage advocates to pull the ladder up after themselves and thumb their noses at the rest of the non-traditional marriage arragements. Once they have reached the safety of respectabilty and legality they deny the same to others. If one-man-one-woman is so hard to defend culturally and traditionally and is so full of legal holes, then what makes the number two itself so right and so easy to defend?
Don’t take me for a multiple partner advocate. I have three daughters. I prefer them to be in monogamous heterosexual marriages. That does not mean that I am against any other forms of marriage. I am just against the disingenuous arguments redrawing the cultural sand line and stopping at precisely the point where the same-sex marriage advocates say it should be drawn. No, not where the heteros say. No not where the multiples say. They are both wrong. Only the same-sex people know where the true line should be drawn. I say that we should either keep the line where it is, or we should erase it for all comers.
This argument, for me, comes back to, “If the one-man-one-woman line was so easy to erase, then what makes the line for two supposedly so hard to erase and supposedly so easy to defend?
7 David Van Slyck // Jul 24, 2012 at 1:23 am
Mr. Weber,
Thanks for the quick reply. I appreciate the dialogue.
I find it very disingenuous of the same-sex marriage community and its advocates ((I include you in this group, not just as a philosopher, but advocate) to claim, in essence, that the line formerly drawn between them and the man-woman advocates (which we might agree) was once just a line drawn in the sand, but now voila, miracle of miracles, the line which has now been moved and redrawn to include them is now not a line drawn in the sand, but a reinforced concrete wall with razor wire on top and posted with no trespassing signs between them and every other variation of the institution of marriage. Even some of the laws once written to exclude them have now been reinterpreted to exclude others. For instance, two has become an important number.
They have become among the annointed. Those remaining are untouchable.
As you have already pointed out, the discipline of philosophy includes ethics, so part of the argument of whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage, or any other institutional form, must also be one of ethics. Here, again disingenuity appears. Voila, miracle of miracles, sex between same-sex partners is now no longer to be feared and the behaviors of same-sex partners is now declaimed as benevolent for both partners, any children, and most importantly for society. But, not so for any other arrangement! Oh no. Other arrangements have now become pariah. After all, same-sex marriage is now part of the deciding, ruling, patrician classes and those other institutional arrangements not part of the priviledged, deciding classes are now forced to relive the entire debate which the same-sex marriage partners have endured and just won. They will now have to begin from the beginning and prove to even so-called rational people such as yourself, showing study after study, “family” by “family” that they, too, merit the status of official marriage. They will be told that their behaviors are harmful to society. Hmmm, where did I just read that? (Wasn’t that also one of the arguments used against same-sex marriage?) They will be told that their institutions are undermining society (Wasn’t that also one of the arguments used against same-sex marriage?) and the same-sex community will be (is already) part of the community condemning them as, well, debased and corrupting. (Wasn’t that also one of the arguments used against same-sex marriage?) Why do the same-sex marriage advocates assume the logic of their former detractors? Because same-sex marriage partners, having been newly cannonized, fear that if they advocate for truly open institutions, that too many people will be truly abhored by it all and throw them back over the sand line.
A sand line it truly is and it is a given that North Carolina is within its rights both constitutionally and culturally to draw a line somewhere. If it is within its rights to draw between those with two and those with more than two, then it can draw it between ones or fours. And it has also turned the sand line into a concrete wall. If same-sex marriage advocates can decide where to draw the line and whether to build out of concrete, then so can other advocates. If you or any other advocate of non-traditional marriage were to continue to attempt to force North Carolina to nullify its one-man-one-woman law, then for the sake of logical correctness and philosophical integrity, advocate for all forms of non-traditional marriage and stop this tight-rope walking over the grounds of logical and ethical integrity. You may lose the political argument temporarily, but you win the long-run philosophical war.
Same-sex marriage is unseemly and biologically wrong, but legally allowable. I admit it. For goodness sakes, stop this argument about harm to others or to society. If you are going to argue for same-sex marriage on any grounds, then you must agrue for other combinations and multiple on the same grounds.
Bertrand Russell, critcises Plato as attempting to mold his philosophy to fit his preconceived ideas. To be true to ones philosophy, Russell (paraphrased) says, one has to go where the logic leads. To twist the logic to suit ones preconceived purposes is not philosophy, and it doesn’t become the philosopher.
8 Eli Weber // Jul 24, 2012 at 10:47 am
David,
So far as I can tell, you have two objections to my analysis. First, you take me to be claiming that though same-sex marriage ought to be legally permitted, other non-traditional arrangments should not be, and that this is disingenuous. I don’t see any place where I’m making this latter claim, so I’m a little confused about how prominent this concern is within your criticism.
I have claimed that the most common arguments against same-sex marriage are bad arguments, and that there are at least two pretty good arguments against a prohibition on them. The harm principle is a foundational principle of liberal democracy, so I’m hardly appealing to some cheap and trivial notion here. In any event, I just don’t see where I’m making the claim you attribute to me.
I’ve said almost nothing about other forms of marriage, excluding my reply to you where I suggested that we have some empirical evidence that polygamy is harmful to the people involved with it. Maybe you can point me to where I’m making this argument about other forms of marriage, because I don’t see that I am.
What would be much better would be to point out a flaw in my actual arguments. Perhaps a premise I’ve claimed is false, is in fact true. Or perhaps one of my premises is false, or one of my arguments invalid. But I don’t see anything like that in your responses here.
Your other objection seems to be that the argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage is rooted in the long cultural history of monogamous heterosexual relationships as the preferred marital arrangment. The argument seems to be something like this:
1. The only permissible social relationships between persons are those that have a long cultural history, i.e. that are well-established as acceptable across time periods.
2. Same sex marriages do not have this long cultural history.
3. Therefore, same sex marriages are not permissible.
But that first premise implies that all sorts of well-established social relationships are permissible, but that nobody would defend. Slavery passes this test, as it has a long cultural history of being accepted, but it’s clearly not permissible. Extremely sexist forms of patriarchy pass this test too, and those aren’t permissible either.
So I don’t see that this argument is any different than the one I attributed to you earlier, which you claimed was a misunderstanding of your view. I don’t see how appealing to historical longevity adds anything. This argument still implies that clearly abhorrent practices are permissible.
The Russell comment you cite at the end is interesting to me, for a couple of reasons. I actually have no stake in the debate about same-sex marriage, I’m just not a fan of irrational public discourse, and I’ve tried to show that this particular debate is filled with bad arguments. So I don’t really care what conclusions turn out to be true, it just happens that the arguments for allowing same-sex marriage are pretty good ones, and the arguments against it are not very good.
I also find this a bit interesting, because Russell’s methodology led him to draw conclusions about ethics, science, and reality that were completely ridiculous by contemporary standards.
Rather than Russell, I’m inclined to agree with John Rawls, who thought that our theorizing should be counter-balanced against our moral judgments in what he called a “reflective equilibrium.” To me, this is a preferrable methodology to Russell’s, and that’s the approach I try to employ.
9 Chick-fil-A says “Don’t Be Gay!” Is that okay? - Everyday Ethics // Aug 3, 2012 at 9:20 am
[...] I’m not a huge fan of Chick-Fil-A’s stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality, for reasons that I’ve given elsewhere, it’s tough to see how this new set of statements and [...]
10 Emi // Aug 17, 2012 at 11:21 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwYYtyPwDY8&feature=player_embedded
Great video about the topic.
I want to ask some questions to people who are opposed to gay marriage.
How would you feel if you find out that someone you very much love, admire and respect is gay?
Imagine that person asks for your advice.
What would you tell him/her about finding a partner?
Should they pretend that they are straight to comfirm with general society?
Should they try to change even though it is proven that homosexuality is innate?
Should they stay single?
Should they find a gay partner but live with them secretly and without trying to get married to have the rights that straight couples have?
Leave a Comment