Also, In this post last week, I treated the first five arguments from this article, which seeks to rebut some claims made by proponents of gay marriage. This week, I'll tackle arguments 6–10.
#6: Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that if reproduction is really the kernel of marriage, then same-sex couples shouldn't be the only ones excluded. Why are infertile couples allowed to marry? Or couples well beyond the years of baby-making? To these questions, Vogt replies that, in the case of young couples who are infertile, it would simply be too expensive and invasive to test them all for fertility before allowing their marriage, not to mention the fact that fertility tests are not always so reliable. Fertility, in fact, is just not so simple an issue as "yes" or "no," as many couples these days learn only once they start trying to have kids. As for elderly couples, "these marriages are so rare that it's simply not worth the effort to restrict them."
Vogt's point about the drawbacks of fertility tests before marriage is well taken. However, there's a lot more going on here. Why does child-rearing not figure more prominently in the process of getting a marriage license, or in the ceremony? Doing fertility tests may be expensive and invasive, but one could easily make it a mandatory question in the paperwork: "As far as you are aware, are you fertile?" They aren't asked whether they're fertile; they aren't asked whether they even want children; they aren't asked whether they're getting married for the purpose of having children, which is apparently the only reason that's supposed to matter. If the author were right that having children is the kernel of marriage, then we wouldn't have people getting married without any intention to have any. And that includes the elderly.
(Also, getting back to our dear elderly, the fact that Vogt is happy just to dismiss the problem because it's small suggests that he's not very concerned about applying rules consistently here. Whether he means it or not, his remark that I quoted above just comes off as him trying to shoe-horn marriages of the elderly into line with his position, despite a glaring difficulty there.)
And besides, same-sex couples can have children. I mentioned advancing reproductive technology in my last post, as well as the fact of adoption.
#7. And, claim proponents of same-sex marriage, gay parents are just as able to rear children as heterosexual couples. But Vogt disagrees. He cites the meta-analysis of Loren Marks (LSU), according to which studies showing the equivalence of homo- vs. heterosexual couples is not very well supported by the data. Vogt goes on to cite the Regnerus study, on the basis of which same-sex parents were claimed to be inferior to heterosexual parents. The Regnerus study has been the subject of massive criticism from within the academic community, and even Regnerus himself admitted that it couldn't possibly conclude anything about the quality of homosexual parenting. So Vogt shows the other side didn't do their homework on the data, and then goes about appealing to data that's just as shoddy.
However, I think that his discussion really misses the point of the adoption question. The question is not about whether we should take children from happy heterosexual families and have them bunk in with the mean old homos down the street. The real question is whether homosexual parents would be good adoption candidates for children who are either in broken homes or in foster homes. All the research suggests that stability on the home front is a massively important factor in raising happy, well-adjusted kids. Allowing same-sex couples to marry can both increased the stability of their relationship, and act as a sign of that stability when applying to adopt children. We already allow same-sex couples to adopt, and if we're so concerned about children, then we should allow these same-sex couples to adopt for the benefit of the children they raise! A stable household is better for kids than one that isn't stable, regardless of the gender of the parents, and allowing same-sex marriage is a good way to promote greater stability as well as to increase the accuracy of identifying stable couples as candidates to adopt.
#8. Opponents of same-sex marriage are often called bigots and/or homophobes, and Vogt rightly points out that this isn't the case. Certainly homophobia and bigotry are likely to lead to opposition to same-sex marriage. However, that is not sufficient evidence to conclude that all who oppose it are homophobes or bigots. (That would be to affirm the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.) Calling people bigots and homophobes is a great way to bring any constructive discussion to an end, so there are good reasons not to do it. Furthermore, it's probably not true that all people who oppose gay marriage are bigots: the fact that Vogt is engaging in rational debate shows that's true. I don't agree that he's on the right side of the debate, and I press people who oppose gay marriage to either provide a more solid foundation to their position or to give it up; but the fact that there is sensible, rational debate on this issue, rather than just name-calling, is of crucial importance, and for that I applaud Vogt (and people like him on both sides of the fence) for doing what they do. Simple vilification and dismissal get us nowhere, and many proponents of same-sex marriage are guilty of doing that.
#9. Proponents also draw parallels between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. Specifically, they see a parallel between the opposition that once existed (and sadly probably still does in some places) toward inter-racial marriage and the opposition that currently exists toward gay marriage. Vogt's argument, that child-rearing is the purpose of marriage, avoids this problem. Because inter-racial marriages can be fertile while same-sex marriages can't (or so he claims), he has a principled reason for accepting inter-racial marriage while denying same-sex marriage. I have offered counter-arguments to that, and still hope to get some responses that cut ice on those issues.
However, the proponents who trace this parallel are not completely off the mark either: it has been said of both inter-racial and same-sex marriage that "that just ain't nat'ral!" While Vogt may avoid this problem because of the basis of his claims about the basis of marriage, be they right or wrong, there are certainly a number of positions against gay marriage that don't avoid this charge, and so the proponents have a point in bringing it up. However, some of the people who hold such positions might just be willing to bite the bullet on this one, and claim that, indeed, inter-racial marriage ought not to be accepted either. ... I don't even know what to say to those people other than to stare at them, mouth agape.
#10. Some proponents of same-sex marriage point to easing of attitudes on the subject here and there, and say that the tide is turning: gay marriage will soon be acceptable. Therefore, we should be on the right side of history and jump on the bandwagon. Vogt rightly points out that these tremors in the U.S. are not earthquakes: the changes have been here and there, and it's a stretch to conclude on that basis that the tide is definitively turning.
What he neglects to take into consideration, and this is a criticism that I find myself leveling against Americans far too often, is the rest of the world. The U.S. has taken a position of insulation for decades (except when their economic interests are at stake, apparently), and they forget that the rest of the world actually also has discussions about what's acceptable and what isn't (among other discussions). Looking outside their own borders more often might not be such a bad thing, on the issue of gay marriage as for so many other issues. It's important in this particular debate because the turning of the tide on this issue would not simply be an American phenomenon. The world is smaller than ever, and isolation along national borders is progressively more difficult every day.
Looking to the international scene, then, it seems that the small signs of a turn in the U.S. are relatively small fries compared to much of what's happening elsewhere in the world. Same-sex marriage is not nearly as controversial in some countries where it is legal and basically acceptable. (Note also that said countries have not yet been struck down by the will of God.) By contrast, there are also countries where it's a non-issue because it is completely unaccepted.
Vogt does bring up a very important point here, though: it's notoriously difficult to anticipate the turns of historical tide. The evidence of such a turn is usually the turn itself, and is only really discernible in retrospect. The evidence we have right now is not sufficient. The jury is still out on whether history will look back on this as the turning point, or just a blip on the radar.
Two things that he doesn't mention are that (1) we are not completely the slaves of fated history. What decisions we make now, as individuals, actually has a bearing on how people in the future will look back on us, and on what views they will hold. It's not yet a settled issue whether same-sex marriage will be accepted in the future. The other point, and this is far more important and I wish that Vogt had brought it up, is that (2) the tide of history doesn't always turn in the direction that it ought. Just because lots of people believe something, or think that it's right, does not make it so. Our history books are replete with hard-learned lessons to this effect. If you think that masses always get it right, just look at how many people believed the Nazi propaganda in the 1930's and '40's. (I had to mention the Nazis: after all, what online discussion of values, cultural change and (in)tolerance would be complete without bringing them up?)
No comments:
Post a Comment