Chickpea Eater’s Bookblog, commenting on Rauch’s arguments in Gay Marriage (and via the invaluable Marriage Debate), writes:
Sounds great. But there’s a snag. Rauch says that if we believe marriage is ordered towards procreation, then we shouldn’t allow post-menopausal women to marry. We might respond that they’re allowed to marry because prohibiting them from marrying would be too invasive– we don’t want the government administering fertility tests. But this seems like a really lousy answer. We do not want to say that post-menopausal women are only allowed to marry because we don’t know that they’re post-menopausal, because if we did then we’d be saying that post-menopausal women really shouldn’t marry, even though it’s legal, and that we should discourage infertile women from marrying.
At first, this appears absolutely devastating to the anti-gay-marriage case. But on second thought, Rauch’s argument turns out to be an argument against making any distinctions of status, except on the strictest bases of merit. For example, if you say, “We call people ‘professors’ in order to indicate that their work is of a higher dignity than those people we call ‘teachers.’ This is because professors teach more sophisticated concepts and are do research.” But one could reply, “Yes, but there are some teachers who teach higher level classes than some professors. And teachers some teachers do original research. Lack of original research disqualifies all teachers but no professors. So what we have here is blatant anti-teacher bias. To correct this bias, we should allow all teachers to be called professors.” The point is that even though some professors contribute less than some teachers, we are still justified in making a general distinction of rank.
Contrary to Ms. (Mr?) Eater’s analysis, we don’t call professors “professor” to indicate one who does original research; there are obviously many professors who do no original research, and also many non-professors (private-sector research scientists, for example) who do plenty of original research.
We call them “professor” because that is a job title (one of several possible titles) of those who teach at colleges and universities. “Teacher,” in contrast, is a job title for those teaching at other sorts of schools. Calling each person by their correct job title is not, despite Ms. Eater’s claim, any sort of injustice.
Aside from her badly-chosen metaphor, Ms. Eater’s logic – that if we object to any unfair distinction, we are making “an argument against making any distinctions of status” – is nonsense. If I say that a law forbidding Jews from owning property is unjust, I’m not arguing against all distinctions of status. Rather, I’m saying that this particular distinction creates injustice needlessly and should therefore no longer be recognized by law.
To say that teachers are not professors isn’t an injustice; it’s a statement about job categories. On the other hand, to forbid someone by law from teaching because they’re a member of a minority – for instance, to say that homosexuals are not allowed to be teachers – would be an injustice. Straights-only marriage more closely resembles the latter case than the former.
Later in her review, Ms. Eater argues that Rauch is mistaken in his attempt to “pare marriage to its essential core.” I agree with Ms. Eater; marriage is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be sensibly pared down to a single essential core. To any honest observer, it’s obvious that marriage serves many functions simultaneously. As Rauch says, marriage “is two people’s lifelong commitment, recognized by law and society, to care for each other.” But it’s also, as Ms. Eater says, society’s attempt “to encourage biological parents to be committed to taking care of the children they’ve conceived.” And I’d add that “marriage is a family-making bond,” benefiting not only the couple but also any children they’re raising (not only “biological” children).
Years before the gay marriage controversy encouraged many folks in the marriage movement to write op-eds declaring that children conceived through heterosexual intercourse is the sole purpose of marriage, some of those same folks had a more sensible view. Asking “what is marriage,” they said that “marriage is…” a legal contract; a financial partnership; a sacred promise; a sexual union; a personal bond; and a family-making bond. This approach – recognizing the reality that marriage can, does and should serve multiple functions, and can even serve different functions for different people – is far more intelligent and realistic than the “one purpose” analysis most anti-SSM folks have been forced into by their need to exclude homosexuals..
Belief doesn’t rely on testing to prove or disprove itself; I believe in G-d because i believe in G-d. As of yet, G-d hasn’t talked back. G-d hasn’t even emailed me.
Scientific theories require testing. The theory of evolution requires some sort of scientific investigation and renders itself up to falisfication or validation (Poppers would hold only falsification) from such studies, and from testing methods. (Same with various medical practices.) It is obviously harder to prove how the world began or will end (seeing as no humans were or will be arouond for such events) than it is to prove that X medicine has a effectiveness rate of Y, does better among Z group of people and is best used for W amont of days.
This is different than the scenario of the mother and her winning lottery ticket. That belief (I will win) is testable. Similarly, I can believe I can fly all i want; it is quite simple to test it out. There, tried it. I can’t. Oh well. Douglas Adams was wrong.
As to why one is better than the other? I believe because I believe. I have been exposed to other ideas and they don’t suit me. Judaism does. I prefer btw, true rather than better, as I don’t believe one has to be Jewish to be a better person. I do believe the Torah as it is written is true; I believe that Jews should keep 613 mitzvot (commandments) and that non-Jews should follow the 7 commandments of B’nei Noach. And again, it comes down to belief.
I also get, on average, about 25 viewers to my blog. Influence heavy I am not. But I can’t simply alter my views to meet the approval of others.
So my views are ssm are based on relious views which i concede aren’t subjectable to testing. that doesn’t mean that in some future date my views won’t be validated by some other scientific study that shows that ssm do have a negative affect on soceity or other some such factor that renders them an unfit state. However, even if they were found to have a posiive affect on society, I would still be opposed, as my opposition is based on belief that it is wrong to do.
In the words of the immortal Andrea Cravington….
I just keep going round and round. Yet I just can’t seem to get my hands on that brass ring.
Rachel Ann:
Statements of the form “I believe X because I believe X” are nonsensical as argument, because the premise and conclusion are identical. There is no logical relationship between them, because they are the same thing. It’s equivalent to saying “X is true because X is true.” It’s meaningless.
Belief without justification, belief unsupported by evidence, may be of little concern when it has no effect in the real world. But your unsupported belief that gay marriage is wrong does have an effect. It harms people. And that is why you deserve to be attacked for it, just as racists and sexists deserve to be attacked for appeals to faith to justify their beliefs.
As I understand Rachel Ann’s position, she’s against same sex relationships (married or otherwise) on the basis of her religion, but doesn’t adovcate against legal, secular same-sex marriage. If that’s the case, I have very little objection to her position.
I’m with Amp on this one. I also have great respect for Rachel Ann both for expressing her views, and making a distinctiion between morals and civil law.
Ohh– I said that badly. I have great respect for Rachel Ann period. I also respect the fact that she makes said distinction.
Rachel Ann explicitly advocated against same-sex marriage.
Also, I don’t understand why you object to opposition to same-sex marriage, but don’t object to opposition to same-sex relationships.
And I also don’t understand this continual invocation (by you and others) of the phrase “on the basis of her religion,” or words to that effect, as if it somehow excuses or makes justified a position that would be unjustified if it had a secular basis. I see little difference, for example, between hating Jews because of a religious belief against Jews and hating Jews because of a secular belief against Jews. Both are equally reprehensible. Bigotry motivated by religious faith is still bigotry.
Glad to see the thoughtful discussion.
My response is at chickpea_bookblog.blogspot.com