MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie G.: So, I think you ought to believe me, wrongheaded as it may seem to you, that I'm here in the thick of things because I think it really is a big deal for marriage.

Mark B.: I don't doubt that for a moment, but it evades addressing my concern. I doubt there's a single person on the anti-SSM side who doesn't think or pretend to think it would be a big deal for marriage--that's why we have not only the bipartisan "Defense Of Marriage Act," but the virulently homophobic FRC's "Protect Marriage" campaign. The issue is whether you have any non-homophobic arguments in support of this belief.

Now you're an advocate who's trying to put together a broadly acceptable case, so it would be surprising if we found any explicit homophobia, and indeed I haven't noticed any. At the same time, you appear to be a proudly doctrinaire Catholic, so it would be surprising if you didn't have homophobic views, and it would be unsurprising if your case tacitly relied on some of them at key points.

Thus I don't think I have to apologize for pressing you to clarify your view of (opposite-sex) marriage as a "norm." A norm is something that is normative, i.e., some standard that people are to be held to. Thus there must be a fact of the matter about who exactly you envisage being held to this norm, and it matters crucially to the SSM debate who you think those people are. As I've argued, one obvious reading that would make sense of much of your writing is that it's all people, or all people who intend to be sexually active, who are expected to marry, without regard to sexual orientation. But if that's the case, then that part of your argument is (i) homophobic, (ii) incomplete, because the homophobia is not justified as part of the argument, and (iii) question-begging, because it's smuggled in as a premise (everyone should enter OSM) not interestingly different from the conclusion (nobody should enter SSM).

Of course, possibly you mean something else, but if so, I honestly have not the foggiest idea what, and I suggest you seriously need to consider spelling it out.

Maggie: Moreover about 40 to 50 percent of Americans think homosexual acts are wrong. About 60 to 75 percent of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.

Mark B.: Which seems about right and is entirely consistent with my claim that among Americans opposed to SSM, disapproval of homosexuality had a healthy lead over other concerns.

Maggie: So while some people may oppose gay marriage solely because they oppose homosexuality, some other things are at work here in the public mind.

Mark B.: I accept that this is possible in principle, but as a practical matter I'm not aware of any non-homophobic objections that make the slightest bit of sense. In particular, even if I allow that having children raised by their biological parents (or an opposite-sex adoptive couple where that is quite impossible) is of such paramount concern that it trumps all other considerations, all that follows from that is that sexually active opposite-sex couples should be married, should stay married, should never put children up for adoption, and should remarry an opposite partner immediately if bereaved with dependent kids. But it's a complete non-sequitur from any of that to the idea that gay couples should not be able to get married.

Maggie: I'm always surprised at the extent to which many (not all) advocates of gay marriage do not seem to fathom what a radical transformation in a basic institution they are asking for. I suppose it's because in their own heads they've already redefined marriage, such that same-sex marriage is not a big deal. So it's hard for them to see what they are asking the rest of us.

Mark B.: I couldn't care less how big a transformation it seems to Maggie or people of like mind, nor am I under the slightest obligation to care. All I care about is whether there are any valid arguments that on balance people will be worse off as a result of the transformation.

posted by Eve at 3:39 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home