Gay Marriage Showdowns - Essay Example

5 April For Same Sex Marriage: Some Counterarguments The case against same-sex marriage is often religious and moralist in tone. In “Gay Marriage Showdowns,” Kenneth Jost explores the debate on gay marriage. He notes that many people think that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, because it indirectly approves homosexual behavior, which is considered immoral and against their religious beliefs. In “A Right to Marry? Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Law,” Martha Nussbaum studies the affront of same-sex marriage on traditional notions of marriage and family. Susan Shell, in “The Liberal Case against Gay Marriage,” focuses on the potential negative effects of same-sex marriage on the educational and psychological development of children and how same-sex marriage is against liberalism. Thus, the main objections of the dissidents of same sex marriage are: 1) gay marriage should be illegal, because homosexual behavior is immoral (Ferguson 39), 2) allowing gay marriage will put a “stamp of approval” on gay conduct (Rajczi 488), 3) legalizing gay marriage is illiberal (Shell), and 4) same-sex marriage will weaken traditional marriage and produce a wide array of social harms (Nussbaum; Shell). This paper provides counterarguments to these main arguments of those against same-sex marriage. The central rebuttal argument for this paper answers the question: Should gay marriages be allowed? The previous paragraph shows the major arguments of those against marriage. This paper presents counterarguments to the validity and credibility of these claims. It will provide an overview of the arguments against gay marriage, which will be countered one by one. Gay marriages should be allowed, because not all immoral actions have been sanctioned by the government; gay marriage is not against liberalism; gay conduct is an example of free speech act that the Constitution protects; and researchers against same-sex marriage have not provided concrete empirical evidence that same-sex marriage is bad for gay spouses, children, and society in general. First, opponents of gay marriage argue that gay marriage should be illegal, because homosexual behavior is immoral (Ferguson 39; Whitehead 74). The state, however, is expected to treat all citizens as equals. When asked, “What does it mean for the government to treat its citizens as equals?” Ronald Dworkin eminently answers that “government must be neutral on what might be called the questions of the good life” (Barry 335). This pledge of neutrality is captured in the “Basic Principle” of liberalism: “The Basic Principle of Liberalism (BP): A state “should not promote or justify its actions by appeal to controversial conceptions of the good [life]” (Barry 335). As a result, even when some conservative religion would think that women should not drive, because it is considered as immoral, the state has a mandate to provide driver’s licenses to all people, regardless of what some people believe. Just because some people think that some actions are immoral, it does not mean that the government should automatically treat them as illegal. Marriage can be considered as essential to good life and the government should not differentiate among people of different gender, because this would violate its own liberal conception (Barry335). In addition, the response to the weakness of objection to gay marriages because of its immorality can be made even more vigorous by concentrating on specific cases of marriage (Rajczi 484). Numerous opponents of same-sex marriage are pious Christians, and some suppose that divorce is never good or that it is moral only under particular conditions (Rajczi 484). But it would not be right to disallow all or some divorces the chance to re-marry, just because they would employ (purportedly) immoral marriage relationships (Rajczi 484). These claims can make people doubt that same-sex marriage should be disallowed, because allowing it would mean sanctioning immoral unions (Rajczi 484). Opponents might compromise that the state cannot hold back an opportunity just because doing so would approve immoral but lawful conduct (Rajczi 485). But they might stress that we can keep back opportunity to engage in conduct that is immoral and unlawful (Rajczi 485). For instance, the state does not have to allow the Mafia to produce corporations, because its businesses are unlawful (Rajczi 485). In addition, opponents might contend that homosexual conduct should be illegal, so same-sex marriages should be prohibited (Rajczi 485). This objection is not pertinent to most real-world challengers of same-sex marriage. Many surveys show that “about three-quarters of all Americans oppose the criminalization of homosexual sex acts, and the numbers remain about the same even if the sample is restricted to self-identified conservatives” (Rajczi 485). At the same time, it is astonishingly complicated to find an academic antagonist of same-sex marriage who favors the criminalization of homosexual sex acts (Rajczi 485). Thus, popular opinion does not castigate homosexual behavior per se as immoral enough to be prohibited by law, and which can be connected to the prohibition of same-sex marriage. If some opponents call for the criminalization of homosexual conduct, however, this paper aims to question the good that this action will do for society. A fundamental precept of liberal government is Mills Harm Principle: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Rajczi 485). Criminalizing homosexual conduct will not prevent any harm on people or gay people. Instead, gay people will be harmed because of gender discrimination. In addition, the primeval principle “volenti non fit injuria” emphasizes that what person A does to person B cannot be unlawful if B consents to As activity (Rajczi 485). These two principles assert that consensual homosexual actions should not be criminalized (Rajczi 485). Second, those against gay marriage stress that allowing gay marriage will put a “stamp of approval” on gay conduct (Rajczi 488). Philosopher-judge Richard Posner, who is alarmed that “permitting homosexual marriage would be widely interpreted as placing a stamp of approval on homosexuality” and by Francis Beckwith, who confirms that states who accept same-sex marriage are “instructing its citizens on what they ought to believe is good, true, and the beautiful” (Barry 339-340). This paper asserts that these arguments are not valid. Beckwith’s argument fails because of an uncertainty with respect to his claim that accepting gay marriage entails “instructing” citizens to be gay people too (Barry 340). In its most conservative sense, instructing somebody about A concerns explaining how to proceed with the process of A-ing (Barry 340). But it is hard to see what is illiberal about this: a state that instructs people on how to file for unemployment or a passport does not concern educating them about anything illiberal (Barry 340). Conceivably, Beckwith’s protest is that embracing gay marriage concerns “instructing, not how, but that something is the case,” where in accepting gay marriage, the state is teaching that gay marriage is “good, true, and beautiful” (Barry 340). But it is not reasonable to suppose that in acknowledging gay marriage, the state is educating people in this second sense, since it is not normally the case that in giving some liberty, the state conveys the message that it is something good, true, or beautiful (Barry 340). Presume that a state announces, for the first time, that citizens do have the right to be involved in hate speech. In embracing a right to hate speech, the state need not educate its citizenry that hate speech is good, true, or beautiful; a judge who states that hate speech laws are unconstitutional may concurrently condemn hate speech and articulate her hope that no one ever does it (Barry 340). Thus, approving gay marriage does not necessarily endorse or denounce gay behavior. Third, gay marriage is against liberalism. The response to any argument that pertains to gay marriage as illiberal is based on Justificatory Neutrality (JN). JN states that: “A liberal state is precluded from justifying some policy on the grounds that one conception of the good life is superior to another” (Barry 338). The successful conduct of whichever illocutionary act demands that some “felicity” conditions will hold (Barry 340). It is usually possible for a speaker to make certain that the applicable felicity conditions do not hold; thereby ensuring that she does not execute the applicable illocutionary act (Barry 340). In other words, speakers can commonly take steps to withdraw any conventional or informal implicature their speech acts might otherwise have. For instance, think of a speaker who starts her remarks by saying “Now don’t take this seriously, but …” or something to that affect (Barry 340). In some cases it can be tricky for a speaker to make certain that the relevant felicity conditions do not hold and to abandon any implicature that her speech might otherwise have. Another example is a comedian who starts her remarks with “But seriously folks …” might fail to influence her audience that she is now to be taken truthfully (Barry 340). Nevertheless, it seems likely for a liberal state to legally recognize gay marriage, but also to take steps that will make sure that it withdraws any suggestion that it approves of or favors or promotes gay marriage at the same time, thus ensuring that by acknowledging same-sex marriage, it is not providing a “stamp of approval” or any such thing (Barry 340). For instance, a state Supreme Court could stop gay marriage prohibitions, but be adamant that it takes no position regarding the morality or desirability of gay marriage; that it does not propose that anyone should exercise the right to gay marriage, and so on, which doing everything a liberal state could do quite normally to steer clear of issuing any “stamp of approval” (Barry 341). Third, gay conduct is an example of free speech act that the Constitution protects. Opponents might confess that society should significantly protect free speech. On the other hand, they would claim that same-sex marriage is not speech, and so, while gay people should be allowed to express whatever they want, their homosexual behavior should not be approved (Rajczi 488). The foremost problem with this logic is that the division between explicit speech acts and certain other acts has no moral meaning (Rajczi 488). Particularly, the belief in "free speech" is not only a belief that opportunities for explicit speech acts should not be given, just because extending them might spread false messages (Rajczi 488). On the contrary, people believe that they should not keep back any opportunities just because extending them might propel “messages in any way at all, whether through an explicit speech act or in some other way” (Rajczi 488). For instance, marches by Nazis are not explicit speech acts and yet the government may not stop them on the grounds that their behavior might promote Neo-Nazism among people (Rajczi 489). Furthermore, marriage may not be an explicit speech act, but the government cannot prohibit marriage against atheists, just because it would send the message that people who do not believe in God can still be married, or that atheistic marriages have the same stature as Christian-Jewish-Muslim marriages (Rajczi 489). Fourth, researchers against same-sex marriage have not provided concrete empirical evidence that same-sex marriage is bad for gay spouses, children, and society in general. Gay marriage is good for society, because it is assumed that gay couples who want to marry have the same interests as other heterosexual couples who also decided to get married. Wedgwood (1999) argues that couples who want to get married have the same expectations and goals across genders and these are: “1) sexual intimacy; 2) domestic and economic cooperation, and 3) a voluntary mutual commitment to sustaining this relationship” (229). Domestic and economic cooperation essentially means living together and sharing financial income and expenses (Wedgwood 229). Gay couples also want to earn the financial benefit of marriage, where they can pool resources to start a family. The couple also agrees to direct the household together. Like heterosexuals, they can have a way of organizing household work that will benefit their relationship and household order. In addition, marriage is also an aspiration for couples who want to settle down and access the social acceptance it provides (Bolte 112). The government and society recognize marriage as a highly regarded institution (Bolte 112). Representative Jay Rodne stresses the values of marriage: “Marriage is not about self-actualization, validation or acceptance. Marriage is about life” (Neroulias). A mutual desire for commitment is also a strong goal for married couples. Gay people assert that they also want to get and stay married. They want marriage that validates their lifelong commitment to each other. Furthermore, marrying can be good for gay couple’s health (Howe 224). Marriage can help improve their psychological wellbeing because the stigma of cohabitation is removed (Howe 224). In addition, marriage can reduce harmful casual sex relationships among gay people, since there will be development of favorable attitudes toward marriage (Howe 224). Gay marriage destroys the traditional essence of marriage and family. Opponents of gay marriage cannot argue that same-sex marriage destroys the concept of traditional marriage. In fact, gay couples want marriage precisely because of its stature as a respectable social institution (Neroulias). They want marriage in its traditional essence, where commitment and social recognition are provided. Furthermore, saying that marriage is between man and woman alone limits what marriage is and can be. An anthropological definition of marriage should be used instead, because of its ability to change with evolving cultural beliefs, attitudes, and practices. An anthropological definition of marriage asserts that it is the culture or society that defines and changes the definition of marriage (Bolte 114). Marriage should not be what past beliefs and practices state it to be. Studies in Gender & Sexuality in 2006 underscores the diversity of marriage and families in real life. For this journal, society should embrace different marriage practices, as well as diverse family structures. The nuclear family is not the only kind of family nowadays. There are numerous kinds of families such as senior citizens living together and conjugal siblings supporting one another in one household, and if society takes these families as real families, then gay people should also have the opportunity to start their own families that their government and society will accept (Studies in Gender & Sexuality 163). Opponents of same sex marriage also stress that gay marriage will have negative effects on the welfare of their children (Bolte 113). They emphasize that gay parents have negative effects on their children, such as through sexual role confusion and stigmatization (Bolte 113). Other children will scorn gay couple’s children and use foul names to ostracize them. Children of gay people might also be confused of their gender, or what gender is (Bolte 113). This paper argues that without gay marriage, their children suffer even more. Marriage is a stamp of social recognition. When their gay parents are married, the children will tend to feel loved and accepted, because marriage has provided the social acceptance of their parents’ union too (Bolte 113). In addition, legal gay marriage offers legal and economic rights to children (Bolte 113). Gay couples share time and expenses in raising their children. Marriage also means having the right to divorces, which includes financial support to children (Bolte 113). In cases of death, marriage provides the parenting rights to the surviving gay partner, which also protects the welfare of their children (Bolte 113). Supporters of gay marriage declare that marriage provides them and their children many social and legal benefits, such as subsidized health care and housing benefits. Neroulias reports the remarks of gay people in her newspaper article, “Gay Marriage Wins Final Legislative Approval in Washington State.” Representative Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who has four young children with his gay partner of 10 years, stressed that the states domestic-partnership law is inadequate: “I would like our four children to understand ... that their daddy and their papa have made that lifelong commitment to each other,” and he adds: “Thousands of same-sex couples in our state deserve the respect and protection from our government that only marriage can convey” (Neroulias). Finally, there is no adequate evidence that having gay parents lead to role confusion, stigma, and other negative harms on children (Bolte 113). These harmful effects are anecdotal, and if present, can also be managed, the same way that stepfathers and stepmothers do their best to mitigate the negative effects of not being the biological parents of their children. The absence of a father figure in female-female marriages can also be lessened, if both parents do their part in caring for and loving their children. Same-sex parents can develop skills and knowledge that can compensate for the deficiencies of not providing a model for the opposite sex who is not present in the family (Barry 350). Gay marriages should be allowed, because it, because not all immoral actions have been sanctioned by the government; gay marriage is not against liberalism; gay conduct is an illustration of free speech act that the Constitution protects; and researchers against same-sex marriage have not provided solid empirical evidence that same-sex marriage is bad for gay spouses, children, and society in general. Gay marriage is an opportunity for a good life that should not be denied to any person, especially when the denial is on the basis of sexual preference. Gay people should have the chance to get married and enjoy the same benefits and social recognition that marriage provides to heterosexual couples. Gay marriages are also not bad for society. Its advantages will only be clearer and more logically accepted, if society stopped using gender and religious biases to disallow certain people from enjoying life that can be good and beautiful to them too. Works Cited Barry, Peter Brian. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Charge of Illiberality.” Social Theory & Practice 37.2 (2011): 333-357. Print. Bolte, Angela. “Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? The Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage.” Social Theory and Practice: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Social Philosophy 24.1 (1998): 111-131. Print. Ferguson, Ann. “Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma.” Hypatia 22.1 (2007): 39-57. Print. Howe, Tasha R. Marriages and Families in the 21st Century: A Bioecological Approach. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print. Jost, Kenneth. “Gay Marriage Showdowns.” CQ Researcher 18.3 (2008): 769-792. Print. Neroulias, Nicole. “Gay Marriage Wins Final Legislative Approval in Washington State.” Reuters (8 Feb. 2012). Web. 1 Apr. 2012. . Nussbaum, Martha. “A Right to Marry? Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Law.” Dissent (2009): 43-55. Print. Rajczi, Alex. “A Populist Argument for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.” Monist 91.3/4 (2008): 475-505. Print. Shell, Susan. “The Liberal Case against Gay Marriage.” The Public Interest (2004): 3-16. Print. Studies in Gender & Sexuality. “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships: July 1, 2006.” Studies in Gender & Sexuality 9.2 (2008): 161-171. Print. Wedgwood, Ralph. T”he Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage.” Journal of Political Philosophy 7.3 (1999): 225-242. Print. Whitehead, Andrew L. “Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religions Effect on Attitudes toward Same-Sex Unions and the Perceived Cause of Homosexuality.” Social Science Quarterly 91.1 (2010): 63-79. Print. Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.Full Text Available By: Sherkat, Darren E.; de Vries, Kylan Mattias; Creek, Stacia. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), Mar2010, Vol. 91 Issue 1, p80-98, 19p QUEER UNIONS: SAME-SEX SPOUSES MARRYING TRADITION AND INNOVATION.Full Text Available By: GREEN, ADAM ISAIAH. Canadian Journal of Sociology, Summer2010, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p399-436, 38p The Political Is Psychoanalytic: On Same-Sex Marriage.Full Text Available By: Blechner, Mark J.. Studies in Gender & Sexuality, Spring2008, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p146-154, 9p; SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SCHOOLS: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON CHILDREN VIA SEXUALITY EDUCATION.Full Text Available By: Byrd, A. Dean. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2011, Issue 2, p179-203, 25p EXAMINING CONTEXT IN THE CONFLICT OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND EDUCATION: THE RELEVANCE OF SUBSTANCE, PROCESS AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.Full Text Available By: Peterson, Richard. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2011, Issue 2, p323-383, 61p Read More