Should marriage be recognised?
As I have mentioned in the previous post the increasing influence of the homosexual community means that soon the voice of gay activists would be increasingly heard. One such right championed is the right to legally marry a person of the same sex. Indeed, in countries such as Holland, same-sex marriages are legally recognised, but generally even in 'Western' nations, this has been a highly taboo subject. (However, wrt aforementioned 'Western' nations, I do feel it is but a matter of time before 'homosexual marriages are recognised).
My opinion towards 'homosexual marriages' is similar to the reasoning found in the Anal Philosopher's rebuttal to Sullivan on Homosexual Marriage.
Of course, a demand for equal rights for homosexuals to be able to register their marriage allows me to again emphasise a fallacy of the concept towards 'equal rights'. If homosexuals start to demand the right for same-sex marriages, it will be only a matter of time before we start to accept bestial marriages, incestuous marriages, etc. The floodgates are open...
While most will think the idea of a 'bestial' marriage or an 'incestuous' marriage preposterous, please remember that it was only a while ago that 'homosexuality' was similarly a preposterous concept. And just a while before that, the idea of a non-domesticated female was similarly trashed upon.
This will lead to a never-ending 'fight for equality' which I have already demonstrated as idealistic and inherently flawed. Even if marriage is finally legally recognised between ANY two individuals, be it between man-woman, man-man, man-cow, or man-sister, there is still discrimination against asexuals and/or singles, since they have no one to 'marry'. Since marriage is a union between 2 individuals, there is no way that someone can marry himself...(that is not even conceptually possible, at least to me)
If equality is what everyone wants, why not just abandon the whole concept of marriage? Marriage has always been an artificial human instrument, and to facilitate equality, why not just forget about the whole doctrine of matrimony? It will be fair and equal to everyone, then. [This illustrates another fallacy of 'equality' treatment – to achieve equality, the best way is to take away any benefits or advantages which particular individuals/groups enjoy. How 'fair' or 'feasible' that is to the individual/group, is of course another story altogether. In this case a sizable number of people will be inconvenienced, to say the least]
Doing away with an age-old tradition which is such a norm in our society? Ludicrous? Perhaps not. While marriage works for a number of individuals, as I demonstrated there is an increasing number of people who are denied the rights accorded to married people. As I have also illustrated in a prior post, there is reason why a heterosexual relationship merits 'reward' from the government.
However, there is also evidence that the traditional framework of a marriage may no longer be the most suitable in today's societal environment, in particular the concept of monogamy (to be considered in next post).
My opinion towards 'homosexual marriages' is similar to the reasoning found in the Anal Philosopher's rebuttal to Sullivan on Homosexual Marriage.
Of course, a demand for equal rights for homosexuals to be able to register their marriage allows me to again emphasise a fallacy of the concept towards 'equal rights'. If homosexuals start to demand the right for same-sex marriages, it will be only a matter of time before we start to accept bestial marriages, incestuous marriages, etc. The floodgates are open...
While most will think the idea of a 'bestial' marriage or an 'incestuous' marriage preposterous, please remember that it was only a while ago that 'homosexuality' was similarly a preposterous concept. And just a while before that, the idea of a non-domesticated female was similarly trashed upon.
This will lead to a never-ending 'fight for equality' which I have already demonstrated as idealistic and inherently flawed. Even if marriage is finally legally recognised between ANY two individuals, be it between man-woman, man-man, man-cow, or man-sister, there is still discrimination against asexuals and/or singles, since they have no one to 'marry'. Since marriage is a union between 2 individuals, there is no way that someone can marry himself...(that is not even conceptually possible, at least to me)
If equality is what everyone wants, why not just abandon the whole concept of marriage? Marriage has always been an artificial human instrument, and to facilitate equality, why not just forget about the whole doctrine of matrimony? It will be fair and equal to everyone, then. [This illustrates another fallacy of 'equality' treatment – to achieve equality, the best way is to take away any benefits or advantages which particular individuals/groups enjoy. How 'fair' or 'feasible' that is to the individual/group, is of course another story altogether. In this case a sizable number of people will be inconvenienced, to say the least]
Doing away with an age-old tradition which is such a norm in our society? Ludicrous? Perhaps not. While marriage works for a number of individuals, as I demonstrated there is an increasing number of people who are denied the rights accorded to married people. As I have also illustrated in a prior post, there is reason why a heterosexual relationship merits 'reward' from the government.
However, there is also evidence that the traditional framework of a marriage may no longer be the most suitable in today's societal environment, in particular the concept of monogamy (to be considered in next post).
posted by redrown at 8:07 AM
8 Comments:
Good stuff Redrown.
I think the appeal to equality is problematic for a slightly different reason: any male person already has the right to be married to a female person of his choice (given the right context--e.g. neither party is already engaged in a marriage union with someone else, etc.). And every female person already has the right to be married to a male person of his choice...etc. This right is not absolute, but you get the point.
The issue of equality does not arise --i.e., not recognizing some unions as marriage does not involve (unjust) unequal treatments of individuals per se, insofar as all (of whatever 'orientation') have (in principle) access to the benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage.
Think of it this way. Assume that everyone above a certain age has a in principle right to apply for a driving licence. And to qualify for said licence, he or she must pass a test, etc. And anyone who passes the test gets the licence (I'm simplifying).
Now imagine that there's someone who is a member of a religious group that is doctrinally against standardized testing. They consider such things to be of the devil. A member of such a group cannot both refuse to take the test and thus not get his or her licence and complain that he is the subject of unequal--i.e., unfair--treatment. Like everyone else, he or she could have taken the test, and upon passing, get the licence. That he or she happens to subscribe to views, or have an orientation that inclines him or her to not do so and consequently not enjoying the benefits of having a driving licence does not in itself count against the fairness of his or her treatment at the hands of the relevant authorities.
Furthermore, the legal recognition of the marriage union between persons regulates not merely the relationship between them--it also entails rights and duties vis-à-vis other people as well. For example: if A and B are already legally married, then (until said union is legally dissolved) A and C do not have the legal right to the benefits unique to a legally constituted marriage. This holds even if, as a matter of fact, A and C happen to enjoy some of those benefits--the question is whether they have a right to the legal protection of what they are doing, whether they have a right to demand that others (including B) treat them as if they have such a right.
In fact, any two (or more, for all I care) persons (of whatever sex or orientation ) can consider themselves married--or for that matter, they could consider themselves the "First and Second Kings of the Universe". I'll argue that they might even have the legal right to tell others so. But unless the marriage is legally constituted, they do not have a legal right to have other people consider them (legally) married (or "First and Second Kings of the Universe") and treat them accordingly. And when other people--including the officers of the law—refuse to treat them accordingly, it's not a matter of unequal or unfair treatment.
This does not mean that there cannot be good grounds for recognizing a homosexual union as a marriage--but inequality of treatment is not one of them. I personally think the grounds against the state recognizing a homosexual union as marriage outweigh the putative grounds for, but this comment is long enough…
Hi Huichieh
I agree that 'equality' is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. But you will be surprised at the wide breadth of discrimination legislation and the level of conformity one has to adhere to when there is in place legislation for non-discrimination.
For example, there are grounds for a Christian to complain of discrimination if he is required to work on Sundays! (Or Muslims required to work on Friday, for that matter)
Analogously, if such legislation were to exist in SG, arguably JWs who do not believe in conscription but are forced to serve in DB can be considered to be discriminated against!! (and ditto to your driving licence example). NB: While they can certainly find grounds for discrimination, whether they will actually succeed in an action is a totally different matter
As such, there is inequality of treatment for homosexuals with regards to marriage on grounds of sexual orientation, not dissimilar to the examples above on grounds of religion. There is great similarity between sexual orientation and religion, since both are in a way a type of belief/lifestyle, although no doubt religionists will probably find this declaration preposterous.
With regards to homosexual marriages, I am considering them being legally recognised just like normal heterosexual marriages. Right now, in many places gay unions are recognised as 'domestic partnerships' (Friendster-philes may wish to take note), with hardly the same legal rights as married couples.
While a 'equal treatment' stance may not be the best argument that a proponent of homosexual rights may use,it is certainly one for his arsenal of arguments. As you have said, whether a government will buy it is another matter, of course..
But the main reason for my slant shall be revealed in the next post This post is more of a 'connecting bridge' between the previous 'Gay Reporting' post and the next post, which deals with heterosexual matrimony.
"...you will be surprised at the wide breadth of discrimination legislation and the level of conformity one has to adhere to when there is in place legislation for non-discrimination."
I'm not so much surprised (I'm not--consider the consideration of "disparate impact" in the US) as I think the whole thing either involves a terrible confusion, or assumes a form of (supposed) egalitarianism that poses a danger to liberty (and even justice).
Incidentally, I do think that people in like situation to my hypothetical religious believers against standardize testing can have their concerns addressed. But I just don't think 'equality' would be the real ground. For instance, if they can argue that rather than take the standardized driving test, some other procedure X would also be conducive to the purposes that underlies the states' interest in having driving tests in the first place. On that basis, the state may find it worthwhile to allow X as an alternative way for people to acquire a driving licence.
But such arguments would presumably require that the underlying grounds for the state's interest in the legal requirements of enjoying the use of the licence, the status of marriage, etc., be clarified. Why must it be that only such and such enjoy the legal status of whatever? What larger social functions does it serve? And on that basis, advance an argument that the proposed alternative would not compromise those functions, and would result in other desirable social consequences as well.
Anyway, this is most interesting and I think you are on to something. I'll wait for your next post on this issue.
With regards to your example of allowing 'X' as an alternative for hypothetical religious believers of attaining their licence, I believe the laws would make it an obligation, rather than a discretion, for the state to allow alternate methods of getting a licence.
But generally I agree (as I have done so in the previous post) that equality is hardly the only grounds for recognising homosexual marriages, nor is it in any way the most 'sound' ground to base an argument on.
“Why must it be that only such and such enjoy the legal status of whatever? What larger social functions does it serve?”
I have actually covered these issues,albeit briefly, in Gay Reporting, in which I suggest that the policy behind not recognising homosexual marriages is a pragmatic one – to dissuade alternative lifestyles which may further deteriorate the birth rate. I am sure there are other policy rationales as well, but atm I can't really think of any.
Incidentally, I am not a gay activist myself and I can hardly think of a good reason [why homosexual marriages should be recognised]. In fact, I would think that many gays themselves are unconcerned about marital status [also the slant taken by Anal Philosopher] – preferring to focus on recognition and acceptance in normal day-to-day activities in various social environments. I would think most people who champion homosexual marriage rights are the over-idealistic left wingers, as usual (heh).
The next post is a pessimistic take on heterosexual marriages in general, and whether its institution should be questioned (even though its a deeply imbued social norm)..and does not really deal with homosexuality or equal treatment matters..nevertheless awaiting to hear your comments about it too:)
Yes, I recall your earlier post--but I was laying out the general issues in the comment.
"I believe the laws would make it an obligation, rather than a discretion, for the state to allow alternate methods of getting a licence."
I'm not so sure about this...but I get your point. Perhaps: the state is oblidged to allow alternate methods where possible and where no undue cost would be imposed on society, and what counts as "possible" and "undue" is to be further worked out.
You might be interested in this. I've not read it carefully, but it's on the topic you are talking about.
Thanks for the link, it is indeed what my next post covers, except that I will be taking the opposite viewpoint from hers...
silicon matchmaker
Post a Comment
<< Home