As part of its Head2Head debating series The Irish Times this week dealt with the topic of same-sex marriage. A striking feature of these debates is the extent to which pro-same sex marriage proponents don’t actually deal with the main argument of pro-traditional marriage proponents.
For example, the same-sex marriage side insist that we are dealing with a simple case of discrimination and that this discrimination is based on nothing more than prejudice against same-sex couples. They have shown little evidence to date of truly listening to the counter-argument which attempts to show that there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The rational basis, as discussed in this blog on a number of occasions, is that marriage as a social institution has been constructed mainly with children in mind. Society has a compelling interest in ensuring that as many children as possible are raised by their biological parents and it has designed marriage to this end. This is true in all societies including those with little organised religion. While it is true that many couples do not marry specifically to have children but because they love each other, society’s interest in marriage does not stem primarily from this fact. To a large extent the love that exists between a couple is a private matter and it is also (to a certain extent) a private matter whether that love has a sexual dimension or not.
However, a sexual relationship becomes a matter of public concern when it results in children, or might result in children. This is when society takes an interest in such a relationship. This is when society does its best to ensure that both parents of a child commit themselves to its welfare. This is also why society prefers that a couple have made a public commitment to one another before they have children. They are encouraged to make this commitment by the act of marrying one another and they are given social recognition, in addition to certain legal and financial rights, in return for doing this.
It is therefore a very basic category error to imagine that marriage as a social institution exists primarily as a means of recognising and protecting and rewarding sexual love. If this was indeed the reason why we support marriage then there would be no reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. But it is not sex per se that we are recognising and supporting when a couple marries, but what that sex will eventually lead to, namely children, and the vast majority of married couples still have children.
Let’s try and deal with a couple of objections to this argument before concluding. One is that same-sex couples sometimes have children. This is true. They have children either because one of the partners brought that child into the relationship from a previous heterosexual relationship, or because they have used IVF, or because they have adopted.
But this is still not a reason to give the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Many children are raised by any number of combinations of adults. Should all of these combinations obtain the benefits of marriage also?
A further objection is that some married couples can’t have children or won’t have children. However, it would not be practical to run either fertility tests or intentionality tests (intention to have children) before a couple marries. The point is that they have the capacity to have children and that they have committed to one another and that any children that they might have will be raised by their own parents within the relative security of marriage.
What about elderly couples who we know can never have children? Why allow them to marry? The main reason for this, from a purely secular as distinct from a religious point of view, is that by marrying they are signalling to other heterosexual couples that it is best to have sex within a committed relationship, preferably marriage. This is a vital signal for young people to receive because it enhances the prospects that children will indeed be raised by their two married parents. And as we know from the data, married couples stay together longer than cohabiting couples, and in addition, children tend to do best when raised by their own parents.
These are some of the arguments same-sex marriage proponents need to deal with if we are to have a rational debate about this issue and not one that continually stoops to name-calling and impugning the motives of the other side.
17/01/08
Donor conception and birth certs (David Quinn)
A new piece of legislation is currently before the British Parliament called the Human Tissue and Embryology Bill. One of its most controversial proposals is to eliminate the requirement that children conceived through artificial reproductive techniques should have a mother and a father who will raise them from the first day of their lives. In order words, single people and same-sex couples will be able to avail of these services if the Bill goes through unchanged.
09/01/08
View full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
© 2007 IONA Institute | | All Rights Reserved | | Charity No: 17347
