Princeton natural-law theorist Robert George wrote recently at the First Things website that
For years, critics of the idea of same-sex 'marriage' have made the point that accepting the proposition that two persons of the same sex can marry each other entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two and only two persons. So far as I am aware, our opponents have made no serious effort to answer or rebut this point.
I found this last claim irritating, mainly because I'm one of the people who has answered the point-not only in several columns, but also in the academic journal Ethics, with which George (a professor of jurisprudence) is surely acquainted. Indeed, when I was working on that article, I corresponded with George about it, since it discusses his work at some length.
Fellow gay-rights advocate Jonathan Rauch quickly challenged George's absurd claim at the online Independent Gay Forum, prompting a rejoinder from George:
But the point that is most relevant here is that Rauch's arguments [against polygamy] are about social consequences and costs, they are not about the principles that constitute marriage as such. Rauch and the authors he cites (John Corvino, Dale Carpenter, and Paul Varnell) do not make a serious effort to show that, as a matter of principle, marriage is an exclusive union of the sort that is incompatible with polygamy (much less polyamory). Corvino doesn't even join Rauch in asserting that there is anything wrong with polygamy-much less that polygamy is incompatible in principle with true marriage. Putting it in the hypothetical, he says, "If there's a good argument against polygamy, it's likely to be a fairly complex public-policy argument having to do with marriage patterns, sexism, economics, and the like."
Time for some clarification.
First, George is right that I am agnostic on the question of whether polygamy is always and everywhere a bad idea. While I find Rauch's arguments on the typical social costs of polygamy persuasive, I remain open to the possibility that it could be structured in such a way to avoid those costs.
But the issue is not what I (or any other gay-rights advocate) happens to believe. The issue is whether being a gay-rights advocate inherently "entails abandoning any principled basis for understanding marriage as the union of two and only two persons," as George puts it. And the answer to that question is obviously "no." Rauch is a clear counterexample: he's a gay-rights advocate who adduces general moral principles to oppose polygamy.
Why does George claim otherwise? The answer has to do with his confusion about what it means to have a "principled" objection to something. More specifically, he confuses having "a principled objection" with having "an objection in principle." The difference is subtle but important. To have a principled objection is to base one's opposition on principles (rather than simply to assert it arbitrarily). Rauch surely does this.
By contrast, to have an "objection in principle" is to object to a thing in itself, not on the basis of any extrinsic reason. Rauch doesn't object to polygamy "in principle"; he objects to it for being harmful, and if it weren't harmful he presumably wouldn't object to it.
It's worth noting that relatively few things are wrong "in principle." Throwing knives at people isn't wrong "in principle": it's wrong because it's harmful, and if it weren't harmful (say, because humans had metal exoskeletons), it wouldn't be wrong. Of course, the world would have to be quite different than it is for that to be the case. Similarly, the world would have to be quite different than it is for polygamy not to have serious social costs. But public-policy arguments are quite rightly based on the actual world, not on bizarre hypotheticals.
This distinction is important, because once one moves from "no objection in principle" to "no principled objection," it's a short slide to "no serious objection"-and thus a bad misrepresentation of the position of mainstream gay-rights advocates.
So, to be clear: Rauch, Carpenter, Varnell, and others have a principled objection to polygamy, but not an objection in principle. But here's the kicker: neither does George. For George's natural-law position is based on the requirement that sex be "of the procreative kind." And polygamy is very much of the procreative kind. Even if one accepts George's nebulous "two-in-one-flesh union" requirement-which somehow allows permits sterile heterosexual couples to have sex but prohibits homosexual couples from doing so-nothing in that requirement precludes multiple iterations (and thus polygamy). If George wants to argue that polygamy is wrong, he's going to have to appeal to the same sort of extrinsic principles that Rauch invokes. Either that, or he's going to have to just baldly assert that marriage is two-person, period. If such ad hoc assertions don't count as abandoning "principled" argument, I'm not sure what does.
George has claimed before that "the intrinsic value of (opposite sex) marriage…has to be grasped in noninferential acts of understanding." In other words, you can't argue for it: you either get it or you don't. My guess is that he'd say the same thing about the two-person requirement. But two can play at that game. For there's nothing to prevent Rauch (or Carpenter or Varnell or me) from saying, "Hey-I don't get the opposite sex part, but I do get the two-person part. There's my principled reason for opposing polygamy."
Funny how it's no more convincing when we do it than when George does.
24 Comments for “Polygamy and Principles: A Reply to George”
posted by Randy on
This is the sort of car crash that happens when people are too clever by half, and think they are another Plato or Satre,
Enough already!
We already know the dance — if you favor SSM, you find the arguments for it, if you are against it, you find the arguments against it.
The only people who ever seem to change their opinion change it not because of all this sophistry, but because they know a nice gay couple with kids who want to get married. Or they are on the fence, and they go to church, and their minister tells them that the world will end if gays start to marry, and so they oppose gay marriage.
It comes down to who you know and the life you lead. Not all this Philosophy 101 baloney.
posted by dalea on
To accept any of George’s points is simply to promote douchetude. This is not an argument we can win. Or reach towards a draw. George and company will endlessly bring up ‘important’ points that will work solely to sapp our energy.
Enough already. Ann Coulter, prominent Evangelical Christian thinker, has stated that there are people one can only speak to with a baseball bat. George is one of them. That he teaches at an elite university goes to show how the life of the mind has declined.
Ignore him, and his trolls.
posted by Randy R. on
I agree, Dalea. Why drag ourselves into these rhetorical circles? I know that people want to refute every argument against gay marriage (I know I do way too often!), but we are chasing a chimera. Even when you do address the arguments, they say — that’s not valid, that doesn’t count, that’s not the point.
Really, our best argument is time. Over time, people will see nothing has changed in Mass, or Canada, and will realize there is nothing to worry about.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, it’s rather easy. Mr George seems to believe that it is sufficient to cite Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas without reference to modern, evidence-based scientific and medical proofs for his case. Ergo, merely point out that while one venerates the role that these great philosophers played in the rise of western civilisation, it also abandoned their brand of scholasticism in the sixteenth century.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
This whole debate is indicative of the dangers of making government the steward and ultimate arbiter of familial relationships to begin with.
posted by dalea on
Agree Randy, the argument is useless. Nothing we say will be heard.
Agree Craig with caveat. As someone who studied economic history, Aquinas strikes me as a malevolent figure in human history. Just to cite his economic conclusions is to refute him. For example: on interest, Aquinas argued that money is ‘barren’, it can not reproduce (sort of like gays) and hence paying money on a loan is ‘unatural’.
Aquinas teaches one ludicrous thing after another: ‘just price’, ”fair wages’, value in use versus value in exchange, the list goes on and on.
Not only are these ideas incredibly stupid, they actively retarded the developement of market societies. Which was for those caught up in the teachings, a terrible outcome. Progress and advances in commerce did not arrive to raise their standards of living until much later than in Northern European societies. In some ways, Ibero countries still struggle under the weight of this scholasticism.
I regard Aquinas’ teachings on ecomics as at best bufoonish. And would regard his efforts in other fields as no better. It seems I vacilate between regarding this whole train of thought as a tragedy and a malicious undertaking.
posted by Randy R. on
I once read a bio of Aquinas. This was one scary dude. He obviously was obsessed with sex and all sorts of moral issues, basically declaring it filthy, disgusting, horrible, something to do only because procreation demands it.
Anyone with his attitude today would be have to spend years in therapy. And his beliefs became adopted by the church as good and normal!
I felt like taking a shower after reading his stuff. Really, the man had some serious issues. I wouldn’t be surprised if he really was some sort of self-loathing homo….
posted by Craig2 on
Dalea, I see potential for a wedge here. I suspect that there might well be a connection between Thomist economics and anti-Semitism which might be useful to point out in the context of debates about ‘natural law,’ noting that while Aquinas might have played some positive roles in development of Western civilisation, there are also some negatives.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by dalea on
Good point Craig. With Natural Law teaching on interest banning charging for loans by Christians, money lending rapidly became a Jewish profession. From the Middle Ages onwards finance, which invariably involves interest, was dominated by Jews, who were the only people who could lend money at interest. Which is about the only way money can be lent. And that leads to the very dangerous stereotypes about Jews which fuel anti-semitism.
The other thing that always strikes me about Natural Law thought is how varied and changeable it is. The situation is not that we have a bunch of ideas and conclusions that have been sitting around for great periods of time on subjects other than sex. Different Natural Lawyers come to different conclusions all while using the same method.
posted by Fitz on
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that can never produce children. Therefore same sex ?marriage? necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Indeed, Polygamy can provide children with their own natural parents living together in a married household. In this regard it avoids the greatest pitfall of same sex ?marriage? by not separating marriage from procreation. However, the same applies to polygamist groups as a class. They cannot (three or more) produce children. Only a coupling of a man and women can produce children. No more, no less, no substitutes possible.
When we speak of natural law we me mean exactly that. This is elemental irrefutable biology. You may refute the contention that the introduction of same sex couples under the rubric of marriage will not have any detrimental effect (or that it will have a positive effect), but it is impossible to argue that such a change is not definitive.
posted by dalea on
How can people who can not produce a child remain members of a class that can produce children? Simple biology would argue for excluding them right off the bat. Then you would have a class that can produce children, and a class that can not. The second would include same sex couples and mixed gender couples, united by the common biologic fact of not producing children. Actually my understanding is that a large percentage of straight couples are not capable of producing children due to age, health, lack of reproductive apparatus or general desire. Yet they are permitted legal marital arrangements.
If the natural lawyers were actually concerned with fertility, they would IMHO argue for extensive testing of all those seeking to marry. And extend the benefits of marriage only to those who actually can produce children. And who express a desire to do so. There would need be a time limit: no children, end of marriage.
Why they don’t utterly mystifies me.
Which is why I see this entire line of thought as smoke and mirrors designed to camoflage anti-gay prejudice. And where under elementary biology does ‘definitive’ come in?
posted by Fitz on
Certainly you can further reduce the classes of people allowed to marry into fertile and infertile. Same-sex pairs would qualify as a class of infertile. Never the less it still stands that men & women as class are capable of producing offspring while same sex couples are not. Even infertile couples remain members of the class of a man & a women (certainly they don?t lose there gender due to infertility) so it is correct to say they are members of a class that is capable of childbearing. (even if the particular couple cannot conceive) Same-sex couples are always and everywhere incapable of childbearing.
So it is correct to say that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples neceasserily severs the connection between marriage and procreation.
?And where under elementary biology does ‘definitive’ come in??
It is a fact of elemental biology that the class of people that marriage is traditionally limited to (i.e. men & women) are capable of childbearing.
posted by dalea on
Fitz says: ‘Even infertile couples remain members of the class of a man & a women (certainly they don?t lose there gender due to infertility) so it is correct to say they are members of a class that is capable of childbearing. (even if the particular couple cannot conceive)’
As far as I know, and I very well could be mistaken, ‘classes’ do not bear children. Only individual human beings do. Women in fact. Sooo, I would reject this whole approach up front. It is not to my mind a very sound way of thinking to lump people into groups, apply a characteristic that applies to only some within the group, and then say that it somehow applies to those for whom it is not factually correct because they are members of this abstract class. Couples composed of men and women can be separated into fertile and infertile; I can see no way to apply the fertile label to some and then by some mysterious fashion decide it applies to all within the class.
It is analagous to arguing that because tall men are a ‘class’, and most basketball stars are ‘tall men’ that the class of tall men is composed of basketball stars. There is no logical method here that makes any sense. Does anyone else here follow this logic?
It is not a fact of ‘elemental biology’ that the class of people marriage is traditionally limited to is capable of childbearing. This needs to be determined in each individual situation. Some couples are and some couples aren’t. Which is where gay people come in. What does all this hocus pocus about groups and so forth have to do with the issue of same sex marriage?
Who cares if couples are planning to have children or not. This is an individual decision, and really none of my concern. Nor yours. Unless you are only willing to support marriages among those who both can and will have children, there is no logical reason to opposse same gender marriage. Which is it?
posted by dalea on
Rather than use fertile and infertile, let us look at couples as ‘need some assistance’ and ‘need no assistance’ to produce children. In these terms, the nsa class would include both same and mixed gender couples. We can safely conclude that many lesbian couples can produce children with just a little low tech help: a male friend, a warm teacup and a turkey baster. The exact same situation holds for straight couples where the husband can not produce viable sperm.
Would you object to people who might need some assistance conceiving marrying? If not, then lesbians at least should be allowed to marry. If yes, then there are a lot of straight people whose marriages you would be going against.
posted by Marc on
The argument of same-sex marriage doesn’t hinge on fertile-infertile, as much as it one of basic religious principle, i.e, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Religious groups have been beating this dead horse for years, but one wonders why they wouldn’t also support polygamy since the Bible notes many of its biggest names had multiple wives. The real reason? It is not socially (and politically) acceptable in this country to say that. There is no sound evidence to support that gay marriage would harm society, anymore than there is against polygamy. Clouding this issue with confusing “objection in principle” rhetoric is just as bad as the other side using silly “worst case scenarios” (a man wanting to marry his horse at some point in the future). Society, however, is slowly changing its meaning on traditional families; just like mixed marriage couples from a few decades ago, gays (and maybe even polygamists) eventually will find a place in that new definition.
posted by Fitz on
“As far as I know, and I very well could be mistaken, ‘classes’ do not bear children. Only individual human beings do. Women in fact.”
It is impossible for a women to bear a child without the aid of a man. The aid of another women is useless. Only the presence of a man & women pair can produce offspring that is the natural child of those two individuals.
It is properly understood to say that redefining marriage to include same sex couples neccesarily seperates it from childbearing.
This is so because it opens it to a class (same-sex couples ) that are everywere and always incapable of childbearing. While maintaining the present definition limits marriage to the class of men and women that is the only distinct class that can produce children.
Its not terribly complicated – people understand it intuitivly and support it in vast numbers. Few courts thus far have reasoned otherwise.
The states interest in marriage largely hinges on its focus on the bearing and rearing of childre. So far it has chosen to ofer those protections and benifits to a limited class of people. In this case those of the class capable of childbearing.
posted by timothy on
Fitz,
You are using bias based categories. This is evident from your principal argument: “it opens it to a class (same-sex couples) that are everywhere and always incapable of childbearing.”
You will notice that you are stressing “everywhere and always” to exclude same-sex couples yet you cannot use the same “everywhere and always” to include opposite-sex couples. At best, you can only claim that some of the class of acceptable applicants can bear children.
The only time that objective (or natural) categories are made is when both the inclusion factor and the exclusion factor meet the same criteria. Otherwise, you are simply pre-selecting your categories and searching for a criterion that fits. As you do in this case.
You fell into the unfortunate trap of latching onto a category that fits your personal biases but which also sound (at the initial presentation) as though it is objective. You rushed at this classification. After all, it excludes on an “everywhere and always” those whom you would prefer to exclude.
However with only one-sided criteria, your argument falls. To better illustrate, I?ll use your same criterion but with other biases.
Consider that one?s bias was to exclude women who choose a career and who adamantly refuse to become pregnant. A person with such a bias could, on the basis of everywhere and always being outside the class of those who produce children, exclude them from marriage. The arguments would be identical: they always and everywhere are excluded from childbearing and some members of the other class (being defined as everyone else) can bear children.
The same argument could be made to exclude post-menopausal or other barren women. Considering that lesbians do at times bear children, at least this bias would truthfully “everywhere and always” exclude those who don?t bear children.
We could go on all day identifying subsets of humanity that we wish to exclude from societal participation in one institution or another and justify it because of our biases. But this is not an admirable pursuit.
Fitz, when you find that your criteria are determined by your biases, you need to be extra-cautious that your arguments can stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise you run the risk of simply appearing to be bigoted rather than thoughtful.
posted by dalea on
The central fallacy of Classical Economics was to conceptualize the world in terms of ‘classes’ of things. Which lead esteemed economists like Smith and Benthem into quandries from which they could not extricate themselves. IE; why is gold more valuable than water? Why are tomatoes cheaper at harvest time than in midwinter?
This finally resulted in the abandonment of all traces of ‘class’ analysis. It is a system that peretually leads into quandries and paradoxes. Which is of no use to people attempting to explain and comprehend the world around them. If I happen to begin to think in terms of classes, I also realize that any given class is only a hueristic device, something to help organize information. And has no existence apart from that usefullness.
I regard classes as malleable and subject to change, they have no existence apart from the analytical situation that creates them. IMHO Fritz is trying to say that there is something more to ‘class’ than this. Which is why my point about women alone bearing children went over his head.
Issues are best comprehended at the margin, not in some vast, allegedly normative, mass called a ‘class’. This method of looking at arbitrary constructs called ‘class’ is simply useless.
‘It is properly understood to say that redefining marriage to include same sex couples neccesarily seperates it from childbearing.’ Which does not strike me as even being an English sentence. More like a literal translation from Mideval Latin. Which should stay in the Middle Ages.
posted by Fitz on
Timothy
“You fell into the unfortunate trap of latching onto a category that fits your personal biases but which also sound (at the initial presentation) as though it is objective.”
I’m afraid not. This is solidly objective. The term neccesarily is a philisophical one. It means it follows by means of internally consistent logic by definition. The class of people marriage is reseved for can produce children (as a class) While same -sex couples cannot produce children.(as a class)
As marriage currently is defined it is reserved to the one class of people that can produce children. Your example of Career women or post menapausal women are (even though barren) still remain part of a class (when coupled with a man) that can produce children. Ergo – Marriage can be said to be neccesarily linked to childbearing.
If we add to the definition of marriage a class of people (same-sex couples) that everywere and always cannot bear children…it becomes impossible to state “marriage is neccesarily related to childbearing”
This reasoning is philisophically unasailable enough to be reduced to a logical proof.
Now- you are correct to say that I have a bias. The bias I am illustrating is one that wishes to maintain the neccesary connection of marriage to childbearing by limiting it to the class of men and women.
Otherwise marriage becomes in substance (not merely incident)a display of effection and conmmitment with no neccesary connection to childbearing.
“We could go on all day identifying subsets of humanity that we wish to exclude from societal participation in one institution or another and justify it because of our biases. But this is not an admirable pursuit.”
I find this bias to be well justified and a very admirable pursuit. Contrary to what you maintain, this bias (for marriage as exclusiveley a union between a man & a women) is not a “personal bias” It is infact a bias evident it multiple coutries, religions, and laws. It is a bias supported by large majorities of the American people. It is a bais shared throughout history , well documented in both are common and legislative law. I believe that is because it is a sound bias worthy of legal sanction.
Your bias twoard a genderless (two person?) coupling I believe to be insufficent for human fullfillment and thriving. One can properly say that you are baised twoard group marriages, the elimination of marriage, marriage between relatives and so fourth. I hope you are, as am I. These are all bias’s just not bigoted ones.
Dalea
“Issues are best comprehended at the margin, not in some vast, allegedly normative, mass called a ‘class’. This method of looking at arbitrary constructs called ‘class’ is simply useless.”
I disagree, issues are not best comrehended at the “margins” but rather in the main. I belive my norms to be more than “alleged” or “arbitrary construct”.
Your take however is very much line with contemporary biases in acadamia that accent the particular over the universal.I believe these biases to be inhumane when applied to law & social policy.
Your point of women “alone” was not lost on me. It is contrasry to elemental biology of coarse. As you yourself admitted it requires the presence of the Father of the child for its genises.
posted by dalea on
Hmmm, I would argue that no class is ‘objective’, it is only hueristic. Designed to be used in thinking about matters. So, your idea that your class is ‘objective’ gets no traction here. i see here just more moves to restrict the subject by excluding people from the only ‘class’ you can come up with. And is it the case that this class is reversible? Given that ‘always and everywhere’ which I believe in Latin is ‘semper et ubique’, those who marry are capable of producing children. Does this mean that only those who can produce children should be allowed to marry? The main problem I see with you ‘class’ is that it includes large numbers of people who do not meet the criteria of able to produce children.
A women needs sperm to produce a child. This must, given current technological limitations, involve a man. But this need does not demand a relationship, or a coupleness. It simply requires some sperm, which is available commercially. For reproduction a 15 minute interlude of coupleness suffices. There is a Monty Python song that seems to explicate your position: Every Sperm Is Sacred.
The argument of marginality was introduced by Austrian economists in the 1860’s. It has been a staple of social analysis ever since. How does this qualify for the subjective ‘inhumane’? That you would regard this as ‘contemporary’ simply tells me how out of touch formal Catholic philosophy is with the living world of intellectual discourse.
posted by Randy R. on
Fitz of course ignores the fact that no where in the US is there any argument that marriage must be tied to procreation. This is a new argument that has been invented in an attempt to discredit gay marriages.
Here’s a simple fact: Throughout the entire history if the US, there has been only been a few requirements for marriage: age requirements, that the couple be a man and a woman who are not currently married, and that the agreement is voluntary and not coerced. If our society ever thought that procreation was an important part of marriage, it would have been included are a requirement, something like proof that the parties are both fertile, or a statement under oath that they promise to have kids, or whatever.
But there has never been such a requirement. Nor is there one today.
This whole ‘gay marriage severs the relationship between marriage and procreation’ is supposed to scare everyone into thinking that if we sever this relationship, people will stop having kids, and that will mean ‘death’ to our civilization.
Of course, there is no proof of this. But in any case, it forces them to argue that adoption isn’t very good, since it ‘severs the relationship between marriage and procreation’ but they relunctantly agree that it’s better for the kids to be adopted than not.
The basic fact is that people like Maggie Gallagher and Fitz simply don’t like gay marriage, and so any argument in favor will simply roll off their back. It’s a waste of time, in other words.
posted by Randy R. on
But let’s take Fitz at his word. Opposite sex couples are needed, even if fertile, since as a class they can produce children.
As Dan Savage points out in this week’s column, what about people who undergo sex change operations? Suppose you have a lesbian couple, and one decides to get changed legally and medically to a man. His driver’s license says he’s a man. Now he can get married in most states to the woman, even though he can’t produce any children.
According to Fitz’s own logic, this is perfectly acceptable.
posted by dalea on
Fitz says: The class of people marriage is reseved for can produce children (as a class) While same -sex couples cannot produce children.(as a class)
Then where did all the gay parents come from? Lots of gay couples have children right now. Something like 1/3 or lesbians and 1/5 of gay male couples are raising children. Despite all this apriori theorizing, there are gay people who fall into the catagory ‘people with children’, which is at least as viable as your breeding one. What about them? Are these children to be forever marginalized and endangered to promote the idea that only mixed gender couples can have marriages because they can have children.
RIGHT NOW THERE ARE GAY COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN.
Which does seem to undercut your class argument. If gay people are incapable of having children, how do you explain the ones that do? And what are you going to do about it?
All lesbian couples need to produce a child is sperm. Which is superplentifull and abundent. Which is available both commercially and from donors. Many straight couples also need the same thing. Why then would you place these two sets into different classes?
Thank you for your excellent points Randy.
posted by Audrey on
Fitz, you and North Dallas Thirty should get together sometime.