Earlier this month, The Australian published an article advocating more equal treatment of gay Australians. There’s nothing particularly unusual about that, as many such articles have been published over the years. This one attracted attention, however, because it was written by Tim Wilson, a Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.
This has put the IPA in the unusual position of receiving praise from the left and criticism from the right, in the form of an op-ed in today’s Australian by my friend John Heard. He’s taking a more conciliatory line toward the IPA on his blog today, but in the article he wonders why a ‘conservative’ think-tank is promoting gay marriage.
As I have pointed out before, there is some confusion in the IPA between liberalism and conservatism, but I think like much of the right we could say that they are economically liberal but have more diverse views on social issues, ranging from libertarianism to conservatism. I don’t think the liberal tradition provides any intellectual resources for discrimination against gay people, but clearly the conservative tradition does, and that’s what John is appealing to in his article – though on the gay marriage issue, not on superannuation laws and other ‘minor injustices’, as he calls them.
As John’s blog post clarifies but the op-ed does not, Wilson did not actually support gay marriage in his article. But John’s arguments against are still worth considering. His most general statement of principle is:
A “homo-con” like me would likely look at how many people are being affected by the apparent injustice and which wider goals are served by the same.
If the net result is a gain for the common good, then the discrimination is, far from an injustice, rather a boon for families and an exercise in good government.
The argument from there is that there aren’t really that many homosexual couples (true enough, but I’m not sure why he is doubting the ABS report that at the 2001 census about 40,000 people stated they were in a same-sex de facto relationship – I can think of incentives to conceal this, but not to pretend to be a gay couple) and:
a real conservative – indeed any person schooled in the need to distribute finite resources equitably among various worthy but competing potential beneficiaries – must ask then what impact the interests of those 6666 couples might have on a population of 20 million.
This seems to be a conservative utilitarian argument – that concedes that harm is caused to some gay people but maintains that it is acceptable to make some people worse if a larger number will be better off. If we grant this, the argument stands or falls on whether the larger number would indeed be better off, in this case by maintaining the status quo.
It’s at this point that I find the case against gay marriage unconvincing:
… gay marriage creates a perverse incentive for heterosexual couples to either reject marriage outright or dissolve a marriage already contracted.
What incentive to get married would government policy provide if Joseph and John down the road get all the benefits and have none of the setbacks (school fees, increased shopping costs and so on) that marriage often brings?
Looked at in terms of total income and expenditure, marriage has only a few financial advantages that can’t also be had simply by setting up house together. What it does mainly is change risk. By making it less likely that the couple will split, because the social and legal sanctions for doing so are greater than if couples are unmarried, it makes it more likely that the couple will pool resources and develop a division of labour. To the extent financial calculations influence decisions to marry, these incentives would be unchanged by gay marriage, so this factor should be neutral from a conservative point of view.
The biggest challenge to marriage over the last few decades has been casual sex and cohabitation, since their legitimisation took away one of the strongest reasons to walk down the aisle at a relatively young age. As Jon Rauch has pointed out , opposing gay marriage actually strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable.
Yet despite all this, most people still do marry eventually, as an expression of their love, as I was told twice in my double dose of Catholic weddings over the weekend. And that’s why the gay people who do want to get married want the same rights as heterosexuals.
Marriage is a social institution that has evolved considerably over time, as some of its historic rationales weakened, but for that reason has proven to be durable. It’s hard to see the causal mechanism by which gay marriage could do it any harm, which I think swings the utilitarian calculation back in favour of gay marriage.
Andrew Norton 
In fact, the argument even fails on other terms, as US blogger Ed Brayton has pointed out many gay couples have children and are raising children already. So they are already incurring the costs (and getting the benefits), that marriage may bring. In addition, getting married brings no obligation to have children, in fact people get married where there is no possibility of children and this has never seemed to harm the institution of marriage.
LikeLike
Thank you, Andrew. I have responded here.
LikeLike
“opposing gay marriage actually strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable.”
It does not follow from the affirmation of marriage that casual sex and cohabitation, for the both-sexed relationship type, are acceptable.
Marriage does many things, yes, but at its core the social institution combines 1) the integration of the sexes and 2) contingency for responsible procreation.
Responsible procreation is Just Procreation, not soley procreation. I say that in response to Martin above.
Ask yourself, what is justice? and, then, what is procreational justice?
Hint: third party procreation is unjust — it is extramarital — whether practiced by married couples or by one-sex arrangements such as the lone person or the gay pair.
Hint 2: adoption is not procreation, responsible or otherwise.
Hint 3: the two-dad and the two-mom scenarios depend on parental relinquishment or loss.
The homosexual relationship is, by its nature, sex-segregative and does not provide contingency for responsible procreation. This is contrary to the nature of marriage which is both-sexed — as is fertility. No one-sexed arrangement is fertile, infertile, subfertile for by its nature the arrangement is sterile and there is no disability.
As to the large point about what is an is not promoted by the false equivalencies of the SSM campaign, consider the underlying theme that certain marriages qualify as “shams” and are openly, and actively, treated with disdain — the message is that these marriages should end, children or not.
And in further support of Dreadnought’s original article …
Meanwhile the SSM campaign typically presumes that the children living in same-sex households are either fatherless or motherless. By far, most of these children have both mothers and fathers — it is just that either mom or dad are not resident. So the non-resident parent is made invisible for the purposes of the SSM claims of false equivalencies.
Read More: Calling Intact Marriages a “sham”
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/f-rottles-on-calling-in-tact-marriages.html
LikeLike
“but I think like much of the right we could say that they are economically liberal but have more diverse views on social issues”
Actually, I think that at least a fair chunk of the Australian right is conservative on both fronts (I’d guess the majority, but I’d be more than happy to be wrong) — Just look at the policies of the current Liberal party. I don’t think I’d be correct in claiming they are economically liberal, and they are definitely socially conservative, but I guess it depends where you put your baseline.
LikeLike
Conrad – Yes, perhaps I should have said ‘much of the right I associate with’. Among those with more intuitive right-wing views free-market views are not so popular. But since Manne and Carroll admitted they knew nothing about economics and gave up their campaign against ‘economic rationalism’ virtually all the ‘conservative’ criticisms of the market have come from people who identify with the left, eg David McKnight and Kevin Rudd.
LikeLike
“… gay marriage creates a perverse incentive for heterosexual couples to either reject marriage outright or dissolve a marriage already contracted.”
I think that John may need to expand on this if it is to be accepted. How does the existence of gay marriage create these perverse incentives? This seems to be a great weakness in his argument.
Andrew N, I agree with your last para. Social institutions change, and gay marriage would merely offer people who currently effectively have private marriages the opportunity, if they wish, to get married.
LikeLike
“How does the existence of gay marriage create these perverse incentives?” I wondered about that too … my employer gives a rebate on spectacles for those of us who need glasses – will that encourage all my colleagues with 20/20 vision to become short-sighted?
The advantage in being the last country in the developed world to move on this issue will be that we will be able to look at all those other countries similar to ourselves who have civil unions, or gay marriages or whatever, and know that indeed the sky won’t fall in if we make this very small change.
LikeLike
“What incentive to get married would government policy provide if Joseph and John down the road get all the benefits and have none of the setbacks (school fees, increased shopping costs and so on) that marriage often brings?”
I am sorry to break it to John, but it is having children that leads to the school fees and increased shopping costs rather than marriage. That is why we have transfer payments given to people with families (Family Tax Benefit) and not to married people. Having children is by no means exclusive to married people.
And I also don’t get the argument about perverse incentives. Hetero couples generally marry because they want formal recognition of their relationship (secular or otherwise), and a chance to celebrate the happniess they get from relationship with families and friends. I don’t see how allowing others to also do this decreases my desire to do it.
LikeLike
The perverse incentives argument is completely absurd. However in response to the Andrew’ post John comes up with more fundamental arguments, where asserts says that marriage is not merely a contract http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/03/dreadletters-harnessing-andrew-nortons.html
He also argues that gay marriage is dead. “I consider the political battle over ‘gay marriage’ to have been conclusively decided. The great democracies have almost unanimously rejected the idea”.
Either Russell or John must be deluded.
LikeLike
“The perverse incentives argument is completely absurd.”
Stanley Kurtz on Scandinavia, linked at the base of my response, does a good job of demonstrating why the claim is not absurd.
Russell is perhaps deluded, certainly if he thinks opting in for a ‘gay marriage’ is analogous to ‘becoming short-sighted’. One is a purely voluntary activity informed by will, the other is an unwilled (and probably entirely involuntary) affliction.
LikeLike
I realise it’s a bit rude to cross comment on blogs, but Dreadnaught doesn’t appear to have a comments facility.
This statement is false. Similar to prohibition on gay marriage, libertarians have no good argument against polygamy, but there are good arguments against bestiality or paedophilia. For example, children and animals, by definition, are incapable from providing informed consent or of entering into a contract. Dreadnaught may find that unconvincing but similarly libertarians might find his arbitrary moralising and paternalism unconvincing too.
LikeLike
Sinclair, your argument makes sense (yes, I agree with you! 🙂 ).
For me, I would need John H to demonstrate why gay marriage should not be permitted – who is injured by one or more gay marriages? If John can demonstrate that someone is hurt by a gay marriage, then John might be able to make an argument. However, if he can’t, he has difficulty arguing why it should not be permitted without contortions.
LikeLike
ie, without a contorted argument!
LikeLike
“One is a purely voluntary activity informed by will, the other is an unwilled (and probably entirely involuntary) affliction.”
I am lost. Are you suggesting heterosexual people will opt for gay marriage?
LikeLike
Sinclair, do you think polygamy should be allowed?
LikeLike
Social conservatives are injured by gay marriage. It’s a God contract thing. Most of them read the the Bible as being against sodomy (and therefore homosexual sex, and it follows from there homosexuality). Not much to be found against Lesbians though, so if they were to be consistent they might allow legal Lesbian cohabitation, but not marriage that is defined as being between a man and a woman).
However, they are wrong. It is now a legal construct that has been adopted from religion, not a moral one imposed by religion. For that reason alone, regardless of convoluted utilitarian arguments, that it should be allowed and therefore properly enforced by civil union laws. That, and only that, will give certainty to any children in these unions which is surely as far as any society need interfere in any private relationship.
Aside from that, perhaps Andrew can change his motto from “only classical liberal” to “only reluctant liberal”.
LikeLike
I agree that the perverse incentives argument is absurd.
After scanning the article that John Heard refers to, I can’t see anything that actually refers to incentives for heterosexual couples not to marry, following the introduction of gay marriage.
The article harps on about marriage rates declining after the introduction of gay marriage. I bet that vegemite prices increased over this time — does that mean that marriage is negatively correlated with vegemite prices? Yes. Does it mean that more expensive vegemite has caused the decline of marriage. Probably not.
I think that the argument that John Heard refers to is the idea that the introduction of gay marriage weakened the church’s authority to promote marriage. This does not create a perverse incentive for hetero couples to forego marriage. A heterosexual doesn’t have anything less to gain by marrying when gay people are allowed to do so — it just means that if the church’s moral authority to enforce the social norm of marriage is weakened as a result, there may be less cajoling for heterosexuals to get married.
LikeLike
I agree with Boris that the idea gay marriage is dead is basically delusional — the campaign has just begin, in an era of relatively conservative values. Its also worthwhile noting that once it is implemented, it is going to be the type of law that is almost impossible to retract (do you unmarry people?). This means that all you need is one liberal government to implement the laws and they’re basically there for good.
LikeLike
I agree with David Rubie (is Andrew N a “reluctant liberal” though?), and with regards to conrad’s point, I wouldn’t be surprised if federal Aus laws change to allow gay marriage in the next 10-15 years.
LikeLike
Luckily, Mrs D doesn’t read the blogs. Yes.
There is nothing stopping a group of individuals living together as if they were married and leading a polygamous lifestyle. As with gay marriage I cannot think of a good reason why they should not be able to enter into a marriage contract.
Gary Becker has an argument in one of his books about how polygamy can be efficient. (I have exposed this argument to several females, all of whom have said the same or similar thing, “that’s crap’).
LikeLike
[I’m sorry, I’m losing track of names].
“However, if he can’t, he has difficulty arguing why it should not be permitted without contortions.”
If I decided to dance to a classical liberal/libertarian drum on marriage, I’d concede this point – legs akimbo. My wider claim, however, is that hardly anyone listens to classical liberal or libertarian views on marriage (not even the CIS, Andrew, etc.), family, defense, etc. I don’t need to satisfy your limited criteria because the criteria are unsuitable to the task of thinking on/legislating about, marriage.
Arbitrary moralising/paternalism wouldn’t bother with op-eds and blogs. I care what clever people think, even on other people’s blogs. Even if I fail, marriage doesn’t fall with me. It is silly to suggest that I must defend a thing that is, for the vast majority of people, self evidently good.
I have no doubt that some of my interlocutors here are married. I’m sure it had nothing to do with simple contractual imperatives.
“For example, children and animals, by definition, are incapable from providing informed consent or of entering into a contract.”
And that’s the only reason why you think bestiality and paedophilia are wrong? I think not. Certainly, such a view is deficient from a moral (not even a Christian, any mainstream morality you like) standpoint. That’s what I was getting at in saying that classical liberalism is not all there is to marriage (or philosophy, policy, etc.).
The Kurtz paper doesn’t use proper names, but the perverse incentives (there and from first principles) are obvious. In some senses, too, straight couples will try for ‘gay marriages’, such a thing happens whenever civil unions or PACS-style arrangements are open to heterosexual couples. Why get married at all?
If it is so absurd, can you prove that ‘gay marriage’ will strengthen marriage across the board? It is highly unlikely and Kurtz and others say manifestly untrue on the available evidence. It would be a strange/isolated claim indeed that marriage has been strengthened by the changes wrought since the ‘sexual liberation’. ‘Gay marriage’ draws inspiration from the same wrong-headed thinking. Ipso facto…
Boris, I pointed up the category mistake. I don’t need to suggest anything because the analogy is false.
NB I closed the comments on DREADNOUGHT for a reason. Most of these issues are too complicated to treat with in comment-box exchanges. If you want to engage further, please send me an email.
It’s back over to Andrew (“,)
LikeLike
“The great democracies have almost unanimously rejected the idea”. Either Russell or John must be deluded.”
I think it’s John that’s deluded, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
John is fighting a losing battle – it’s easy to see which way the trend is going. In Australia we have made steps – look at the law governing de facto couples in WA, the moves in the ACT – I think South Australia is or has done something.
Howard tried to use it as a wedge at the last election, but I suspect things have moved even since then. It should be possible for Labor to say “We’ll refer the issue to a parliamentary committee; they’ll collect all the evidence, arguments and options, and the parliament will debate the recommendations. I think most Australians under the age of 40 would greet that approach with a shrug and “Whatever”.
LikeLike
Children are not adults of sound mind. They need protection. So yes.
Animals, no. Animals have no rights. Bestiality is legal in Sweden. It’d be interesting to compare. Anthony D’Amato wrote an essay called “Porn Up, Rape Down”. Someone should do a similar study on bestiality. An outlet for the mentally deranged?
Nuclear war & concentration camps? Isn’t that initiation of violence.
Polygamy? Nothing wrong with it if voluntary.
LikeLike
“If I decided to dance to a classical liberal/libertarian drum on marriage, I’d concede this point – legs akimbo. My wider claim, however, is that hardly anyone listens to classical liberal or libertarian views on marriage”
I don’t know if “hardly anyone” listens to classical liberal/libertarian views as you claim, but I do know that many people, whether interested in political debates or not, have a view that gay marriage should be allowed as it essentially enhances personal freedoms and doesn’t hurt anyone. This is a very common view amongst many people (of course, not by most people), regardless of whether people use it on blogs or in political debates. It’s the “yeah, why not?” argument.
“And that’s the only reason why you think bestiality and paedophilia are wrong?” Without speaking on Sinclair’s behalf, I think that he was just referring to Libertarian arguments – he didn’t appear to be suggesting that no other arguments existed.
“…but the perverse incentives (there and from first principles) are obvious. In some senses, too, straight couples will try for ‘gay marriages’, such a thing happens whenever civil unions or PACS-style arrangements are open to heterosexual couples. Why get married at all? ”
The “perverse incentives” are anything but obvious. Please specify at least a few from first principles and otherwise. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that “straight couples will try for `gay marriages’…” – what does this mean?
LikeLike
I am not sure that gay marriage should be allowed, but I do not find DREADNOUGHT’s arguments about perverse incentives as nonsense. Why on earth my insentive to marry would be affected by the fact that somewhere else gays can marry as well?
His other argument is more serious, that is the statement that marriage is not merely a contractual relationship, but has other aspects absent in any other contract. It is one of the central pillars of society and thus changes should be made very carefully (a bit like amendements to the constitution).
And then there is adoption issue.
LikeLike
PERVERSE INCENTIVE (paraphrased example from WikiPedia) – Some social welfare programs (especially those that kick in when someone has no job) discourage people from working because they would lose welfare benefits if they became employed. According to critics, this leads to a net increase in poverty.
APPLIED TO MARRIAGE – Marriage is, at least as a State concern, properly about family and marriage laws / childcare rebates aim to encourage procreation/stability. (I know this is not what classical liberals or libertarians say, but it is the reality). Some marriage regimes give money/benefits/rights to people with no family/no procreative potential (i.e. homosexuals). Most people argue that (1) this discourages procreation. It also (2) weakens marriage because it separates marriage from family (its raison d’etre – at least in this limited context). This is the second perversion Kurtz discussed.
The perversions are most obvious where (3) the cost of raising children outstrips marriage benefits (ostensibly there to encourage procreation, i.e., John and Joseph win out while Mum and Dad fork out). This leads to a net increase in marriage/family dissipation.
Of course, if homosexuals were built for procreation or substantial numbers of us actually formed lasting unions complete with children, the arguments might be different. However, this is not the case, certainly not the finding of the Private Lives Report (2006).
That’s three perverse incentives outlined. Plus an op-ed and scores of other articles, posts, TV/radio appearances on this topic. I’m done.
The idea is done. My piece in the Oz didn’t provoke a single letter to the editor. Those who mistake interest here for windespread grassroots support need to get out more. Ask your plumber what he thinks of ‘gay marriage’.
Finally, a ‘gay marriage’ is not, in most cases, a civil union, so Russell’s link is unhelpful. After more than ten years of loud struggle, ‘gay marriage’ has been rejected by most countries outside Canada, Spain, Belgium and Scandinavia (it will die in Massachusetts) and never introduced by/after a grassroots democratic push (i.e., this is not the new civil rights movement, more like the new ‘Reconciliation’).
Really, I have to hand back to Andrew. Send me an email with more considered questions/arguments.
LikeLike
John has lost the plot a bit – I wrote “look at all those other countries similar to ourselves who have civil unions, or gay marriages or whatever” – and the Wikipedia link is direct evidence of the way most democracies are moving.
LikeLike
I’ve only lost the plot if your ‘whatever’ makes sense. It doesn’t in this context.
I reject ‘gay marriage’. I am not against all kinds of civil union. For further details you really will have to check out DREADNOUGHT.
Sorry, Andrew.
LikeLike
The point is that countries like ours are officially recognising gay relationships – giving them legal status in various ways. I think that once that is accepted you’ve created gradations between married and not married – and that those gradations will probably be seen, over time, as not worth maintaining.
LikeLike
Sorry I am still lost.
I probably can understand that a person that sees someone get social benefits and not work can have second thoughts about getting a job. This is becuase he may himself opt for said benefits itself.
I can’t see how this can be the same with gay marriage. A heterosexual person cannot opt for gay marriage, for by definition he is not gay. Of course he can opt for childless marriage but he has enough examples of childless mariages around now (either by choice or other reason).
I do not know if Australia has any family benefits that apply to families without children. I do not think it does. If however it does, then there is a problem: presumably such benefits exist (in part) to promote child birth. Since gays can’t yet produce children the rendering of said benefit on them may be unjust.
LikeLike
Everyone knows that the only objection to “marriage” is a religious one.
The respective churches of the world consider themselves to be the arbiter of who and who cannot get married. And although they have severely relaxed their standards over the years, they have put their foot down on the subject of gays marrying.
If you call it something else, there is no rational objection. If Adam and Steve want to get “Gloxxed” instead of married, nobody cares. The debate is really all about the meaning of the word “marriage” and who has the right to use it.
LikeLike
Sorry Dreadnought, your arguments are entirely spurious and frivolous. Sure you reject gay marriage, but nobody is forcing you to be married. Generally, there is no causal link between being married and having children. Married people tend to have children, but I think you’ll find that being married is neither necessary nor sufficient. Marriage does not exist solely for the purpose of having children either – many married couples have no chlidren – should the government revoke ther marriage licence? I think you’ll also find that having children predates the child care benefits provided by the state.
Now, I think, we all agree that marriage is a social institution that provides stability in peoples lives (on average). I don’t we have to show that allowing gay marriage would enhance the institution, all we have to show is that it won’t detract from the institution. Dreadnought has forwarded several arguments – all of which most of us have indicated are somewhat weak.
LikeLike
Yobbo has hit the “nail on the head,” the underlying tension in this discussion is between who defines what marriage is, the Church or the State?
The origin of all this confusion, at least in those countries with systems based on English common law is Henry VIII, or as we Papists prefer – Henry the Despoiler.
In practically every United States Supreme Court decision that has dealt with issues like sodomy, or abortion, or the moral crisis du jour, a commenting jurist will inevitably point back and say ‘since the time of Henry VIII’ the state has assumed the responsibility… Here I would opine “assumed the responsibility of the Church.”
Wouldn’t this whole conversation be more logical if in the English common law world – whether in Australia or the United States – we adopted a “civilian” approach, ala the French civil code?
In civilian countries, the law recognizes only civil marriage. These must be performed by the civil authority, exclusively.
Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)
In this manner, religious institutions can preserve whatever definition of marriage they want, and the question of what does or does not constitute a valid civil marriage can be held in the forum and not the temple.
The late pope, John Paul II, forbad clergy from holding elected civil office. I think that was a good idea. I think that logically, one could expand on that idea to say that clergy should not be acting in any state capacity, including the performance of civil marriages.
My family is both in the USA and Canada. A few years ago I was questioned by a cousin about a Canadian court decision to mandate a Roman Catholic secondary school to allow a young man to being his boy friend to his high school prom.
I told her I thought the decision was correct – and she was flabbergasted given my traditional reputation. What I tried to explain to her was that the school in question received BOTH federal and provincial financing. To the extent that the state pays, why shouldn’t it call the tune?
In the USA this wouldn’t happen – at least not yet – God only knows with the judiciary we’ve got, because the State doesn’t give the parochial schools anything, there is a wall, a divide.
I, for one, would welcome such a divide as pertains to marriage. I do not like the notion that my local priest is acting as an agent of the state when performing marriages at my local parish church.
Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo.
LikeLike
Loyolalaw98 – to the best of my understanding Australia law recognises civil marriages only. Many priests, reverends, imans, rabbis, etc. are authorised by law to conduct a wedding ceremony, as are civil celebrants. But religious ceremonies per se do not constitute marriage.
LikeLike
Sinclair Davidson – In the circumstance you describe – I will defer to your knowledge of Australian law over mine – the incongruity would be the State’s authorization of a religious figure to perform a civil ceremony.
In France, Spain, Italy, and other countries whose laws are based on the Code Napoleon – the celebrant at a civil marriage MUST exclusively be an agent of the State, to the exclusion of clergy.
As an example – In France the civil ceremony must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l’état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), his legally authorised replacement – the deputy mayor (adjoint) or a city councillor (conseiller municipal).
In fact, the French go farther SUBORDINATING the religious ceremony to the civil. A religious ceremony may only be performed after the civil ceremony. The minister, priest or rabbi MUST require the certificate of civil marriage (certificat de célébration civile) as proof that the civil ceremony has taken place.
I’m not advocating this latter rule -the State telling a Church when it may or may not perform a religious ceremony- as is the case in France, but I do like the distinction of roles found in civil code countries.
LikeLike
“(1) this discourages procreation. It also (2) weakens marriage because it separates marriage from family (its raison d’etre – at least in this limited context). This is the second perversion Kurtz discussed.
The perversions are most obvious where (3) the cost of raising children outstrips marriage benefits (ostensibly there to encourage procreation, i.e., John and Joseph win out while Mum and Dad fork out). This leads to a net increase in marriage/family dissipation.”
This is clutching at very short straws. How does having gay marriage discourage procreation? How does having gay marriage separate out marriage from family?
Your point about (3) would be more substantial if you could demonstrate that the many existing childless married couples also act as a perverse incentive against people having kids. Surely then you’d be arguing that childless married people should have their marriages dissolved.
These are very poor arguments indeed.
LikeLike
I disagree with Yobbo. This is very similar to arguing that all social conservatives in our society are driven by religeous beliefs. Which I do not think is true. The majority of Australians I think are against gay marriage, but many of them are hardly religious.
LikeLike
Loyolalaw98 – I see your point. I don’t know that I’d go so far. I imagine that many clergy would not want to officiate at a gay marriage (or polygamous marriage either), nor should they be forced to do so.
LikeLike
I think I found an interpretaion of DREADNOUGHT’s obscure arguments that would kind of work.
I think he is saying that many people (majority?) marry not because of the stability or risk factors Andrew is talking about, but because they think it is the right thing to do, i.e., due to tradition etc. In this, marriage manifests itself not as contract but as traditional, sacred institution (not necessarily in religious sense). If gay marriage undermines this traditional and sacred meaning (which I think it can), it may then reduce this motive to marry.
Does this make sense?
LikeLike
Boris – yes.
LikeLike
I think that this is the idea underpinning conservatives being against gay marriage in the US (eg look at the title of the US Defense of Marriage Act – what’s the act defending “marriage” against?).
LikeLike
Doesn’t make make much of an argument though – what did divorce do for this sacramental idea of marriage? Divorce does seem reasonably popular. Andrew quotes figures of 60% of people using civil celebrants. Look how many people cohabit without marriage at all. It’s a bit odd when mariage has virtually lost its sacramental character to say “Ah, but we mustn’t let that 2% of the population in on it, or it will be desecrated”
“Bridal culture” (have a look at the magazines at the newsagent Boris) is proving more powerful than sacrament. As long as Elton John and his partner put on a good wedding, all can be accepted.
LikeLike
I think we can make a distinction between why couples make the initial decision to get married, which could include quite a variety of factors including religious beliefs, and why the state should create special laws. The secular considerations I raised justify the latter, but people can add whatever personal reasons they like.
LikeLike
Marriage is, in Australia, a secular legal arrangement, to which people often add religious or other qualities. The gay marriage debate is really about the nature of the secular legal arrangement, not the social idea of marriage.
There has been little substantial reason offered as to why the secular legal arrangement can’t be extended to homosexual couples.
LikeLike
Sacha writes like a mathematician, not like a social/political philosopher.
I can’t draw the procreation/marriage equation, certainly not in set logic or shorthand to fit in these little boxes. I don’t have to. We walk the proof, we breathe the findings. Male and female slot together, often children result, marriage (even secular marriage) recognises and reveres this fact.
This is only an ‘obscure argument’ if you’re not a human being.
Everything else flows from these facts.
The State encourages this fecundity with bonuses, rebates, and with marriage laws. Ask Peter Costello why.
Otherwise, the arguments I sketched here are fleshed out on my site, and drawn from ideas/papers/findings that are widely accepted, indeed authoritative for most people in terms of this debate. They underpin marriage regimes across the globe/cultures/religions.
If you disagree, you disagree. But it doesn’t mean the case hasn’t been made or that the arguments are poor. It means that you listen to a view that most humans, indeed the vast majority of us, find totally unconvincing.
At least we are discussing the issue, however, and for that I thank you all (and Andrew).
LikeLike
“Sacha writes like a mathematician, not like a social/political philosopher”.
Actually, I have to read philospophy stuff now and then, and it is often alphabet soup philosophy. This is often a good thing, because thats how one goes from verbal diarhea to science.
“It means that you listen to a view that most humans, indeed the vast majority of us, find totally unconvincing”
There are two problems with this. (1) Where is the data? If by vast majority, you mean numbers like 90%+, then you’re kidding yourself. No surveys in places like Australia ever show numbers like that. The liberal European countries are also existence proof against this claim. Also, can I use the argument the other way in case at another point of time if the majority of people turn out to believe the opposite?
(2) Simply because majority of people happen to believe that authoritarian laws design to restrict the harmless behavior of others happens to be ok, doesn’t make it right. One can think of innumerate restrictions placed upon people in history that fall into this category in hindsight, including very recent ones (e.g., cross-racial marriage).
LikeLike
Here are some more examples of things where social attitudes have changed extremely quickly. I don’t see why gay marriage is going to be any different in this respect — is there something special about it as a social issue?
contraceptives
abortion
IVF
provocative clothing
breast-feeding in public
women working in most jobs
women in prominant public roles
men working in womens jobs
blacks voting
being overtly gay in public
non-whites entering Australia
LikeLike
DREADNOUGHT, it’s not that I agreed or disagreed with you. In order to agree of disagree I need to understand your argument – and I didn’t. At least not until this morning. I think you have not been very clear, to put it mildly. Or maybe, as you say, I am not human (and all others here on this thread)?
Conversely, however, I can support your argument now even from liberal perspective. Indeed if childless married couples receive some sort of financial benefits, then it logically flows that by allowing gays to marry we will have to change the budget. This affects other people (redistribution). Of course in a perfect liberal world there is no redistribution, so this problem doesn’t exist. But we are living in an imperfect world, and unlike social norms, redistribution is here to stay. Thus there is a side effect that affects other people. How big this effect is? This is another matter.
LikeLike
Boris – I think this is where John’s argument that there aren’t many such couples gets him into trouble. If there are indeed only a few tens of thousands, they will have no discernible impact on a $200 billion Budget.
LikeLike