During one of his recent radio shows, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason made an important observation about the debate over same-sex marriage (SSM) that virtually all advocates of SSM miss: the debate over SSM has virtually nothing to do with what same-sex couples (SSCs) do, and everything to do with what we (society) do.
No one is regulating the behavior, love, living situation, or commitments of SSCs. SSCs are free to live with one another, have sex with one another, create legal contracts with one another, and even engage in public ceremonies to celebrate their love and commitment to one another. Being granted access to the institution of marriage would not give SSCs any additional freedoms. What it would give them is a new social standing. Why? Because marriage is society’s way of putting their stamp of approval on a particular kind of relationship. It’s society’s way of declaring what a family is. To say SSCs can participate in the institution of marriage would be a social declaration that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions. Whether society should make such a declaration stands at the heart of the debate over SSM. Do we, as a society, want to declare same-sex relationships to be socially equivalent to heterosexual relationships?
It is more than obvious that the two kinds of relationship are not socially equivalent (the morality of homosex is irrelevant to the debate over SSM). The very survival of society depends on heterosexual relationships. As a rule, heterosexual couples produce and prepare the next generation of society. The same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. If the two kinds of relationships do not function the same way in society, there is no reason for society to declare them to be equal. Indeed, to legally declare two unequal things to be equal is unjust. Put another way, not only is there no compelling social interest in regulating same-sex relationships, but to treat same-sex relationships as if they were equal to marital relationships would be to act unjustly. Since marriage is a social declaration, society has both the right and responsibility to limit the institution of marriage to those who, in principle, are capable of forming families, which is what the institution of marriage has always been about.
Thinking to Believe 
November 28, 2011 at 3:50 am
This is little other than equivocation. Equality does not presuppose an absence of difference and the pretense that the difference in question is the possibility of birth side-steps both the number of heterosexual marriages that are not capable of producing children (a fact which is not changed by adding the hedge “in principle” to the equation) and the fact that homosexuals are quite capable of preparing the next generation (just as so many heterosexual couples who are themselves incapable of reproducing do).
Your source is playing 3-card monty, no more and no less.
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 12:35 am
Equivocation means using one term to refer to more than one referent. I am not doing so. And I agree that equality need not entail an absence of any and all differences. But that does nothing to change the principle that parties that are disparate in a substantive way need not be treated in the same way. And when it comes to the issue of marriage, there is a significant social difference between the way heterosexual relationships function in society, and the way homosexual relationships function in society, and that is the ability to produce and rear children. The fact that heterosexual relationships–as a rule–result in the next generation of society, is why government is in the marriage business. Apart from children, there would be no compelling interest for the state to involve itself in any private relationship. Since homosexual relationships cannot produce children, there is no compelling reason for the government to regulate their relationships, and no reason to treat their relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships since the two relationships clearly function differently in society.
As for the childless heterosexual couples objection, I have dealt with this here: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/same-sex-marriage-dealing-with-the-%e2%80%9cchildless-couples%e2%80%9d-objection/.
Jason
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 1:36 am
You are indeed using the term in two different ways. While the force of your conclusion is a denial of legal quality, your argument itself establishes only biological difference. Adding the assertion that this difference is “substantive” does nothing to change this. “Equality” in your article shifts from a question of legal rights to an acknowledgement of functional difference.
Your assertion that the state simply could not afford to get that involved in distinguishing sterile from fertile couples. You establish no threshold at which such difficulty becomes unworkable, and the argument side-steps the very real interest the civil authorities have in seeing couples of any kind actually raise children (as opposed to conceiving them). This distinction has little to argue for it other than convenience.
It is odd to see so many pronouncements about the interest of the state made without ANY effort to establish the actual reasons offered by civil authorities for recognition of marriage (or lack thereof). It is easy enough to say that that interest lies exclusively in the production of children, but the actual motives of actual state officials would seem to be an empirical question.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 11:56 pm
“The very survival of society depends on heterosexual relationships. As a rule, heterosexual couples produce and prepare the next generation of society. The same cannot be said of same-sex relationships. If the two kinds of relationships do not function the same way in society, there is no reason for society to declare them to be equal.” (From your entry above.)
So you’re suggesting that the “social value” of a relationship determines whether or not it should be entitled to certain rights. Let me demonstrate why this kind of thinking is arbitrary and illogical:
You claim that if heterosexual couples can have children, and homosexual couples cannot, then homosexual couples are NOT equal to heterosexual couples. I agree that the two are different.
However, you also claim that BECAUSE they are different, they are not entitled to the same rights (the right to marriage). This is illogical.
Are all human beings in society equal? A panhandler certainly does not contribute to society in the same way that a peace corps volunteer does; these two people are “socially unequal”, by your definition, since one actively contributes to society while the other doesn’t. And yet, miraculously, the law sees it fit to afford both of them the same basic constitutional rights.
So why shouldn’t the law afford SSCs the same rights as heterosexual couples?
LikeLike
December 3, 2011 at 12:00 am
I’d like to add that danielwalldammit, above, makes a great point:
If your only criteria for distinguishing heterosexual from homosexual couples is their ability to produce offspring, then you’re assuming that all heterosexual couples can produce viable offspring.
Why not limit the “sanctity of marriage” to only fertile heterosexual couples?
LikeLike
December 7, 2011 at 12:23 am
Daniel,
I’m not defining equality as legal rights on the one hand, and as a functional difference on the other, so there is no equivocation. I am saying that legal equality should be based on genuine equality, and there is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They function quite differently in society, and given the civic purpose of marriage, there is no practical reason for governments to regulate same-sex relationships, while there is a practical reason for governments to regulate heterosexual relationships: heterosexual relationships produce children, while same-sex relationships do not.
No, I don’t establish a threshold. But don’t you think it would be a bit invasive if the government required people to have paternity testing, and further, if they are found to be biologically capable of producing children, make them swear an oath to do so? I think that would be a bit much. And what would they do if someone did not produce children? Would they make them get a divorce? How much time would they give them to fulfill their civic obligation to produce children? Yes, I think it would be unworkable and invasive. It is much simpler to simply privilege the kind of relationship that typically produces what the government is interested in. While it may be the case that a sizable minority of marriages will not produce children, the vast majority will. In the case of same-sex couples, however, there is no question that none of them will produce children.
No, that is not an empirical question. It is a historical question since no one alive today put the marriage laws on the books. But see my paper at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/samesexmarriage.htm for quotes from a state supreme court justice regarding the historic civil purpose for marriage. Again, why else would the state involve itself with the regulation of marriage? Do you really think it’s because they are interested in who loves whom, or who is having sex with whom? No. They are interested in children.
I would agree with you, however, that modern society is no longer viewing children as the purpose of marriage. Today, marriage is seen as an adult-affirming institution. It is seen to be about a celebration of love and commitment. Indeed, it is this strange shift and historical anomaly that has opened the door for people to even countenance the possibility of same-sex marriage. Indeed, if marriage was just about celebrating love and commitment, then anyone who loved someone and was willing to commit to them should be able to get married. But that is not what marriage has ever been about. Indeed, it still is not about that. Marriage is not about love and commitment. Those are achievable without the recognition and regulation of the state. The reason the state regulates marriage is because of children.
Jason
LikeLike
December 7, 2011 at 12:34 am
Evaporate,
Yes, I am claiming that the social value of a relationship determines whether or not the government should involve itself in its regulation. Why doesn’t the government regulate friendships? Is it because they don’t see them as important? Not necessarily. It’s because friendships do not do for society what other relationships do for society. Furthermore, there are no children involved with friendships. If two people want to stop being friends, so be it. But if two parents want to stop being friends, what happens to the kids? Who raises them? How are they to be raised? What will their economic state be like? All of those concerns require that government regulate the relationship. And historically it was difficult to obtain a divorce because the very purpose of marriage was to tie two parents to each other and their children.
How is it illogical to say that two parties that are not similarly situated are not entitled to the same rights? What is illogical is saying that two parties that are unequally situated should both be treated as if they were. That is illogical and that is unfair. Those who say same-sex couples should have access to the institution of marriage, however, are saying just that. They are saying that two different relationships that function in two different ways in society should both be treated as if they functioned the same.
This is not a question of the value of individual people. Gay men and women can contribute to society just as much as heterosexual men and women. What we are talking about is gay and heterosexual relationships. A same-sex relationship does not function in the same way in society as does an opposite-sex relationship, and thus there is no reason for the state to treat them in the same fashion. Same-sex relationships are not much different than friendships. The only real difference is that their relationship is a sexual one. But why should the fact that people are having sex matter to the government? As I wrote to Daniel above, the government is only involved in the marriage business because marriages produce children, and children are the bedrock of society. Indeed, if humans produced babies asexually, I can almost guarantee you that there would be no need for marriage. And even if it existed, there would be no need for the government to regulate it.
As for the issue of heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to procreate, see the post I referred Daniel to.
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm
[…] The debate over same-sex marriage is about society, not homosexuals […]
LikeLike