January 31, 2013
Arguing against gay marriage
Alex Worsnip in Prospect:
Opponents of gay marriage have, for many years now, lacked intellectually credible arguments. What Is Marriage is an attempt to remedy this. Its authors—Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson, and Princeton Professor Robert P George—are three academics with an impressive array of credentials. The book is measured and non-confrontational, written in a tone somewhere between legal scholarship and philosophy. Stylistically, at least, it is the antithesis of the ravings of the religious right. Although the authors are conservative Christians, they purport to make a secular case against gay marriage.
Unsurprisingly, the anti-gay marriage movement has embraced this work as a godsend, characterising it as the long-awaited heavyweight, intellectually formidable defence of their view. The authors have presented their argument in serious forums such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and the Wall Street Journal. Even some people on the other side of the debate have taken the book seriously, with Kenji Yoshino of NYU law school calling it “the best argument against gay marriage.” Behind its intellectual veneer, though, the arguments of What Is Marriage are no less flimsy than those of other anti-gay marriage crusaders.
The central question in the gay marriage debate, the authors tell us, is not about homosexuality, but rather about marriage. As such, the battle over gay marriage is, in the view of the authors, a battle to save marriage. Once we understand what marriage—the real thing—is, we will see that it is inherent in its very nature that there cannot be a marriage between two people of the same sex.
It’s an audacious line of reasoning. In response to demands for legal rights for gay people, it says something like: “I’m sorry—it’s nothing against you, it’s just that the demand you’ve made doesn’t make sense.” Asking for a gay marriage is, for these authors, rather like asking for a liquid car, or for a manicure for your knees—a demand for something conceptually impossible.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 09:35 AM | Permalink
Comments
Yet more evidence that "credentials" are secondary.
Posted by: mikeb | Jan 31, 2013 10:41:23 AM
"It’s an audacious line of reasoning. "
Not really. Its just a high-toned version of the normal screed against gay marriage. There is nothing intellectual about it.
"Asking for a gay marriage is, for these authors, rather like asking for a liquid car, or for a manicure for your knees—a demand for something conceptually impossible."
Think about this for two seconds and it falls apart. If this were true, there would be no point in discussing it since it would be impossible.
But what gay marriage advocates are asking for is legal recognition of their marriage. That is not in the least "conceptually impossible".
Its an example of the suspension of disbelief the media requires to create a good story. We have to pretend these folks are coming to conclusions based on reason, when we all know they are just articulating their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jan 31, 2013 11:04:43 AM
As a philosopher, I cringe when moralizers use so-called "conceptual" arguments like this. It's a terrible and intellectually irresponsible way of masking one's emotional responses, of dressing them up in the garb of rationality. There is never even a glimmer of recognition in these people that purely conceptual arguments *cannot* establish conclusions about evolving social entities. They don't even seem to be aware of the philosophical problems with assuming such a thing. For example, Quine, perhaps the most famous analytic philosopher of the 20th century, is often taken to have established that purely conceptual arguments can show nothing at all. You will search in vain through these screeds for any glimmer of recognition that this is the case.
I think that it is disrespectful to gay people to even acknowledge that these are "arguments". We would not give such a courtesy to "arguments" against interracial marriage: we would see such arguments for what they are, as expressions of hate. And that is a sign of progress. One can only hope that these thinly veiled expressions of disgust towards our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and friends will one day be regarded with the same dismissiveness.
Posted by: Joe | Jan 31, 2013 11:44:40 AM
This is absurd. This is not a rational argument against the arguments against gay marriage. It is just another attempt to pre-empt the discussion by vilifying the interlocutors.
The gay marriage folks are so committed to NOT having this discussion that they are over-eager to paint their intellectual opponents as misanthropes.
There are rational, charitable people who disagree with you. Live with it.
Posted by: Anthony Zamarro | Jan 31, 2013 1:00:04 PM
I know the process has to be completed and all that but,
Damn I can't wait for 10 or 20 years from now when this whole debate will be correctly viewed for the dinosaur it is. My generation's growing up, and, according to the polls, we really don't care when boys kiss each other.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 31, 2013 1:40:31 PM
Well said, Joe and DtD. I've been here long enough to remember when full civil rights for African-Americans were under real discussion. That is, when "thinkers" on both sides of the issue whether black people were fit to enjoy the same legal status as non-blacks were given equal time and equal attention.
That's a discussion that could not take place today outside some very fringey seminar rooms. While many whites still have emotional reservations about full legal equality for blacks, most know it's a personal quirk and a holdover from their deepest programming. And most of those whites will be gone in another two or three decades.
If credentialed academics who just happen to be conservative Christians are able to mount an "argument" that equality under the law is neither necessary nor desirable for gays who intend to marry, then they will find out the hard way their musings and prejudices put them on the wrong side of history. The side where it matters not that you are clever and sincere and cloaked in academic cred. While it is possible to make an articulate and persuasive attack on the civil rights of women, gays and non-whites, and gain some adherents thereby, it is not possible to intelligently argue that human rights and civil rights need to be provisional and discretionary to line up with your world view.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 31, 2013 3:20:51 PM
"Conveniently, heterosexual marriages between people who are infertile, or do not wish to have children, are OK, since they are still “aimed” at procreation, in some mysterious and undefined sense"
And this is where the whole "argument" falls apart. If marriage must be "aimed" at procreation then no one over 50 should be allowed to marry.
Posted by: Ned | Jan 31, 2013 3:56:52 PM
Isn't this just the logical fallacy of the stipulated definition? The authors have evidently defined marriage as being between a man and woman and therefore gay marriage just doesn't exist. Unfortunately for these gentlemen, I don't accept that definition.
Posted by: Lee | Jan 31, 2013 8:28:02 PM
Anthony:
(1) We should only accord rights to persons.
(2) Only whites are persons.
(3) We should only accord rights to whites.
Presumably you would regard someone who would sincerely say this as an "interlocutor". I don't trust anyone whose sympathy and good sense is so blunted by appeals to procedural reason that they cannot see this person for what they are. Arguments are not just sentences on an internet site: they are spoken publicly by real people with real emotional and psychological profiles. Statements (1)-(3) could only be sincerely made today by someone who is either very stupid or very malicious. It is not clear how to distinguish these sentiments from the so-called "argument" made by these Princeton luminaries. There are many bad things to say about the Westboro Baptist Church, but at least those people are *honest* with themselves about the fact that hate is a primary motivation for what they do.
Posted by: Joe | Feb 1, 2013 9:45:47 AM
Post a comment