Ross Douthat tries a new(ish) argument against gay marriage. John Corvino takes it apart. Same problem as always (sigh). Just saying marriage is good for this or that straight need doesn’t show it can’t accommodate gays as well.
Look, guys. Let’s say it’s a given that shirts were designed for people with two arms. Great! So does that mean one-armed people should be forbidden to wear shirts? That one-armed shirt-wearers will somehow wreck the ideal of shirtiness, and we’ll lose the very concept of the shirt?
Let’s say mouths were invented for eating. If not for eating, there would be no mouths. Great! So should we forbid the use of mouths for talking, lest everyone get too confused about what mouths are really for?
That kind of argumentation wouldn’t get past a high-school logic teacher. Yet it remains a commonplace in the gay-marriage debate. Sometimes I wonder whether SSM opponents would have anything left to say without it.
Corvino puts it well (but read the whole thing):
In order to make his position plausible, Douthat would need to show that the stakes are so radically different for gays or lesbians that any form of marriage that includes this small minority can no longer do the requisite work for (fertile) heterosexuals.
But at this crucial point Douthat’s argument becomes hopelessly vague. He simply asserts that extending marriage to same-sex couples would weaken its ability to address the thick “interplay of fertility, reproductive impulses and gender differences in heterosexual relationships,” but he never explains why or how this would happen.
This is not an argument: this is a panic.
20 Comments for “Corvino v. Douthat”
posted by Debrah on
Both Rauch (especially so!) and Corvino always offer up clean, concise, and intelligent commentary on this issue.
And on a purely sterile and unencumbered level, who can argue with many of the points made in support of SSM?
In my view, those who support civil unions (by the way, check out my link to The Economist article on the previous thread for a timeline on Obama regarding this issue) are not trying to be “mean” or deny anyone “happiness”.
Who the heck thinks marriage is a ticket to happiness? !!!
There’s a nagging pull felt by those of us who are and have always been liberal with regard to most culture war issues.
It just doesn’t fit the whole concept and the role for which heteros dreamed up the institution of “marriage”.
And I don’t ever expect gays to understand that.
Even though I don’t personally place the idea of “marriage” as a necessity for any intelligent person—male or female—it’s still a significant cornerstone for the perpetuation of our culture.
For the perpetuation of life.
On some visceral, yet unexplainable to many, level, SSM presents a misappropriation of the concept of “marriage”.
When I read Douthat’s column weeks ago, his ending struck me as an eloquent analysis of two opposing views that, in my opinion, will never find common ground…….even when SSM becomes law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.
“But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.”
posted by Lymis on
The biggest problem with all this, though, is the constant shifting back and forth between marriage as a collective institution and marriage as the individual union of two people. Most of the “gotcha” points, or as some say, “compelling arguments” slide back and forth between the two.
So for example, yes, the gender makeup of the individual marriage is absolutely critical to its success and the happiness of the couple. Anyone married to someone of the gender they don’t bond with is wrong for them. But up at the collective level, the gender of the participants is immaterial. It simply doesn’t matter.
And the most important reason to make this kind of distinction is that so many people are making these dire pronouncements about how other people’s marriages affect “the institution” and claiming therefore that it directly affects their own marriage.
It’s like claiming that what other people order in a restaurant affects my own meal, or how other people decorate their homes affects my ability to live in mine.
Since opening existing marriage, under the existing rules, to same-sex couples does not in any way affect the eligibility, rights, obligations, or benefits of any straight people in any way, all these claims that same-sex marriage will even effect opposite sex marriages, much less destroy them, are absurd on its face.
Even if someone truly believes that the only morally valid form of marriage is one man and one woman in an indissoluble monogamous religiously blessed marriage, nothing about allowing same-sex marriage for others prevents them from contracting that kind of marriage, or praising its perfection for all the world to admire.
posted by Lymis on
“And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different:”
Even if that is true, why is it a given that the line must be drawn at civil recognition? I can agree that a lifelong monogamous marriage is different in nature and its fruits than a series of short-term civil marriages. I can agree that a marriage involving raising a passel of well-balanced, socially able, confident kids to adulthood is different in nature and its fruits from a marriage between two loving people who support and encourage each other in life’s grand adventure but never have kids.
But even while acknowledging the differences, I see no reason to allow civil recognition for some and not for others. The same is true for same-sex marriages. I believe that they are far less different than most opponents claim, but even if they were totally different, they still fit well within the scope of the currently allowed and supported range of marriage.
posted by BobN on
But at this crucial point Douthat’s argument becomes hopelessly vague. He simply asserts that extending marriage to same-sex couples would weaken its ability to address the thick “interplay of fertility, reproductive impulses and gender differences in heterosexual relationships,” but he never explains why or how this would happen.
It’s almost as if they think that, offered an alternative, a lot of people would skip the “thick interplay”.
The other silly thing about all this “unique fruit” argument is that we already provide all sorts of benefits and accommodations in addition to marriage for those who actually bear children and raise them. Of course, these, too, should be available to same-sex couples in similar circumstances.
posted by Bobby on
Here’s a great article about the vulgarity and excess of some heterosexual marriages.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=185854
By the way, is marriage the only topic indegayforum cares about? Or should we rename it indegaymarriage? Seriously, there are OTHER ISSUES. I have a date today and I don’t think my 30 year old paralegal is going to turn into my future husband, so give me a break with all this same-sex marriage bullshit.
posted by John Howard on
There you go again using infertile and elderly couples as the analogy to gay couples, when you should know that the true analogy to use is sibling couples. Infertile and elderly people are allowed to marry because they are not prohibited from attempting to procreate. There is no age limit, and everyone is presumed to be fertile and has the right to try to procreate. On the other hand, people are not allowed to procreate with everyone, there are some relationship types that are off-limits. Siblings are prohibited from procreating together, and that is why they are prohibited from marrying. Marriage always gives approval and protects the right to procreate together. Same-sex couples should also be prohibited from procreating together, because prohibiting it would be much better public policy than leaving it legal, and would preserve the equal procreation rights of all people.
Jonathan, please respond to my proposed Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise and explain why you prefer the status quo to the thousands of gay couples that would benefit from it. Do you really think they want the right to procreate together more than they want equal protections?
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
Ha!
Good luck on your date.
As you recall, you and I have had many exchanges on the subject and I agree that there are innumerable issues with regard to the culture wars that could be discussed.
There should be topics for someone single like yourself who seems to prefer the single life.
But you have to realize that many here want to be “in the marrying way”.
I can’t explain it.
You and Throbert seem to understand.
Watching grown men become apoplectic and emotional over whether or not they will be able to walk another man down the aisle is difficult to stomach……and still maintain the same respect.
(Heck, it’s nausea-inducing enough listening to a woman discuss her fixation on finding a man to marry.)
Contrary to what SSM proponents wish to convey, many “tweens and millenials” are in agreement with this, but are less likely to voice it.
Indoctrination is complete.
Civil unions include everything but the word “marriage” and most gays are using that as their rallying cry for “equal rights”.
A constant push.
You have no idea how many Liberals I know feel the same way as do I, but certainly will not make an open issue of it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The same could be said about the complaints by the pro-SSM side that not having same-sex marriage somehow reduces gays and lesbians to “second-class citizenship” — without explaining why or how this would happen.
posted by John Howard on
The same could be said about the complaints by the pro-SSM side that not having same-sex marriage same-sex marriage somehow reduces gays and lesbians to “second-class citizenship” — without explaining why or how this would happen.
Yes, I think they are in a panic also, because I have now brought their demand for equal procreation rights into the open and they realize that marriage rights are dependent on procreation rights and synonymous with procreation rights. So that’s why they do not explain why or how not having marriage would make them second-class citizens (or rather, would make their unions second class unions), because to do so would be to admit that the right they don’t want to give up is actually something totally ridiculous and stupid and unethical. So they just go silent and don’t explain why they need marriage more than my CU’s, and don’t admit that they want to change marriage rights for hetero couples by equating their procreation rights to a same-sex couple’s.
posted by Throbert McGee on
WAITRESS: Well, there’s egg and sperm; egg bacon and sperm; egg bacon sausage and sperm; egg sperm bacon sausage sperm tomato and sperm; egg sperm sperm sperm sperm sperm baked beans and sperm; or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and sperm.
VIKINGS: Sperm sperm sperm sperm, lovely sperm, wonderful sperm!
WAITRESS: Shut up!
CUSTOMER: Look, why can’t I have egg bacon sausage and sperm, without the sperm?
WAITRESS: Ugh!
CUSTOMER: But I don’t like sperm!!!
WAITRESS: Well, there’s also strawberry tart…
CUSTOMER: Strawberry tart?
WAITRESS: Mind you, it’s got some sperm in it.
CUSTOMER: How much?
WAITRESS: 300 cc’s — rather a lot, really.
CUSTOMER: Fine, I’ll have a slice without so much sperm in it.
[ONE SLICE OF STRAWBERRY TART WITHOUT SO MUCH SPERM IN IT LATER]
CUSTOMER: Appalling!
WAITRESS: Moan, moan, moan…
posted by Lori Heine on
I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of civil unions. For me, this is about protection of assets and enforcement of contract, not about some sort of Sally Field (“you like me! you really, really like me!”) validation from Mommy and Daddy Straight America.
The argument from utility, however, is totalitarian. It bugs me, in general, that more good Amurricuns seem blind to this. If all rights and privileges are to be debated on the basis of a collective good, then we have, in fact, succumbed to a totalitarian worldview — and we might as well admit it.
The commies once predicted they would take over this country without having to fire a shot. When I hear the utilitarian, “good-of-the-collective” arguments proposed by those who honestly fancy themselves the stalwart defenders of the American Way, I realize that this prediction may well have come true.
posted by Jorge on
The non-sequitur is his move from the reasonable premise about distinct challenges for heterosexuals, to the conclusion that extending marriage to gays and lesbians would render it unable to address those heterosexual challenges.
Oh.
Well, I don’t think Corvino’s argument is good enough to beat the rational basis test in that NY State Court of Appeals gay marriage defeat–Douthat’s argument is essentially taking that decision’s reasoning and saying it’s not just “rational” but also sound public policy. But it’s good enough to prove heterosexual privilege is just not a good enough reason why we should recognize only straight marriages. Under the rational basis test applied by New York’s highest court, we are allowed to ignore gay relationships and many other complexities of straight relationships. That doesn’t mean we should.
Impressive! Next question: what is the motivation behind such a desperate reach for the status quo?
posted by Bobby on
Hey Debrah, my date is over, it was nice. We had great conversations, we’ll see if he disappears or not.
“Contrary to what SSM proponents wish to convey, many “tweens and millenials” are in agreement with this, but are less likely to voice it. ”
—I don’t think tweens and millenials are as liberal and the pundits claim they are. The support from the youth that got Obama elected isn’t there anymore, the disappointer in chief has pissed off not only the left but the right. The youth is not going to vote against their pocket book, if Obama’s keeps forcing government solutions that don’t work, the youth will either vote republican or stay away from the polls. The novelty of voting for a black guy has died out pretty quick.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Look, guys. Let’s say it’s a given that shirts were designed for people with two arms. Great! So does that mean one-armed people should be forbidden to wear shirts? That one-armed shirt-wearers will somehow wreck the ideal of shirtiness, and we’ll lose the very concept of the shirt?
Well, consider two other points.
First, the one-armed person is going to look ridiculous in a two-armed shirt.
Second, that superfluous sleeve is going to cause all sorts of unexpected problems, catching on machinery, getting stuck in bus doors, and whatnot — unless the shirt is sufficiently pinned back or otherwise altered in a way that a two-armed person would never have to worry about.
Third, cloth is a scarce commodity, and costs money to produce and use — so why are we tying it up in useless shirt sleeves for no other purpose than to make the one-armed person feel better?
Hence is gay-sex marriage. Gay-sex couples have no need for the bulk of the benefits and privileges of marriage, because those benefits and privileges were designed primarily to facilitate and support the raising of children. The strictures, requirements, and responsibilities of marriage make no sense to the bulk of gay-sex couples because it represents an order and structure designed to protect and aid childraising, and thus represent little more than pointless obstacles. Finally, the benefits and privileges of marriage cost society money, resources, and time — which is an acceptable tradeoff in exchange for children who will ultimately contribute and regenerate society, but represent nothing but a money hole for gay-sex couples.
In short, this whole argument is about why society should be forced to pay for and put up with the consequences of a one-armed man demanding that he receive the same two-armed shirts as everyone else because to do otherwise would be “unequal”.
posted by Arthur on
“This is not an argument: this is a panic.”
This panic is what I feel from my brother, he is for the legal rights for my relationship of 25 years, but don’t tell him our marriage would be the same as his. In his mind it can’t be. His marriage is about joining opposites into a mystical bond. Without this mystical bond, a male and a female would be unable to survive under the same roof. They are inherently too different. A same sex coupling is somehow a much easier relationship, like a best bud in a business partnership. Any recognition of beyond just the business part of my relationship makes his mystical bond less special and vulnerable.
posted by Debrah on
“In short, this whole argument is about why society should be forced to pay for and put up with the consequences of a one-armed man demanding that he receive the same two-armed shirts as everyone else because to do otherwise would be ‘unequal’.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent.
ND30’s entire comment places the issue inside the realm of reality sans all the tortured and procrustean-ized analogies.
I initially started to touch on the “shirt” analogy in my first comment, but decided to drop it.
I’m glad that ND30, with his signature laser-style dissection, chose to do so.
posted by Debrah on
“I don’t think tweens and millenials are as liberal [as] the pundits claim they are.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know they’re not.
However, those still at university…….capsulized inside the academy’s race/class/gender/sexual orientation regimented environment wouldn’t dare speak out in any strident way.
But the pundits and the far left “activists” are kidding themselves.
When those students and 20-somethings get out into the real world after a time, reality will take hold…….unless they decide to teach and remain on a campus the rest of their lives.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Finally, the benefits and privileges of marriage cost society money, resources, and time — which is an acceptable tradeoff in exchange for children who will ultimately contribute and regenerate society, but represent nothing but a money hole for gay-sex couples.”
NDT, you know that I respect you, and that I know your views are held in integrity. However, I do not approve of opening the door to further totalitarian encroaches by the state. It should not be permitted simply because they’ve found an excuse that sounds good enough.
Why don’t they simply let everyone keep more of the money we have lawfully and honestly earned, by our own labors, and let us take care of ourselves? Why must they always try to find schemes to take more money from some to give to others (who have not earned it)?
Beyond enforcing contracts and protecting private-property rights, the State quickly turns to matters that are best left to the people. At that point, its meddling becomes malicious.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why don’t they simply let everyone keep more of the money we have lawfully and honestly earned, by our own labors, and let us take care of ourselves?
I wouldn’t disagree, Lori.
But, as it turns out, society has outsourced familial responsibility to the government. When my grandparents were children, government wasn’t necessary; everyone in the family lived within a few miles of each other and took care of the children, the elderly, and whatnot. Reproducing wasn’t a luxury; it was a necessity, for the more children, the more hands and the more that could be produced.
Today? Not so much. And in exchange for mobility, we have asked the government to take care of things for us.
Is it perfect? No. Is it necessary? I think so. Just as with taxpayer funding of education. That being said, just because I am willing to pay the bill doesn’t mean you can charge me for lobster and bring sardines.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Is it perfect? No. Is it necessary? I think so.”
NDT, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on that point.
Just because something is important, I do not believe that means the government must fund or control it. It has turned us, all too largely, into a nation of helpless, whiny, blithering idiots. And people like you and I are left picking up the tab for everybody else.
I don’t believe that human breeding must be subsidized. I don’t believe people need to be bribed to do what most of those in the animal kingdom are able to do automatically.
Now we’ve got yet another leader who’s clueless — this one SO clueless that for me (having actually voted for him), it’s sad and painful even to watch him on TV or hear his voice in a speech. We sent a child to do a grown man’s job.
That’s because so many of the American people are such children. The burden is getting to be more than most of the remaining adults are willing to bear. Sexual orientation plays into that because most gays are children, just as most straights are. It is not a “gay vs straight” sort of issue in the end.