"Whoopie, I convinced myself how right I am."

Over at Family Scholars Blog, I entered a discussion with a few SSMers regarding an article by Peter Wood (president of the National Association of Scholars) that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Read Wood's thoughts on "Debating Same-Sex Marriage" in academia and then follow the exchange in the comment section at Family Scholars Blog.

Wood makes several apt observations about how one-sided the debate is within the halls of universities and colleges. And in the discussion with the SSMers, I think that SSMers exemplified much of what Woods had said on the matter.

Here are a few snippets from Woods:

The debate over gay marriage ought to be considered one of the central social issues of our time, and indeed for many Americans—left and right—it is. It deals with a question of basic social relations within and between generations and I find it perfectly sensible that advocates and critics of gay marriage should both see it as a matter of urgent concern. The perspective that seems less sensible to me is the one which dismisses the controversy as a bore or nuisance: the idea that when it comes to marriage, all we are talking about are private choices that are no one’s business other than the parties directly involved. That’s an atomistic view of society. Marriage, whatever else it is, is a social institution. People marry because it means something beyond a private choice, and we have good reason to concern ourselves with that broader meaning.

One might think on that basis that higher education would be at the epicenter of the debate—that we could turn to the university to hear both sides (or all sides) making their best case. Unfortunately that’s not how it has worked out. Rather, the academic discussion has been dominated by those who view gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

[...]

I recognize “essentializing” as a term of rhetorical dismissal among those whose epistemology precludes the possibility that institutions that have intrinsic variety and variability can also have a core meaning and purpose. But there are pretty powerful reasons for thinking that marriage really does have a core function underneath all that variety and historical contingency.

In our discussion, SSMers and I touched on most of the main points in Wood's article, however, it is interesting, to me at least, that the SSMers managed to emphasize the law, rather than marriage, and soon expressed boredom with the actual disagreement.

Here are a few links and snippets:

From my opening comment:

The SSM idea does not justify special status; it is an outright rejection of the marriage idea (i.e. the core meaning of the social institution of marriage) and its special place in our laws and culture.

The SSM idea, shorn of the gaycentric rhetoric, is merely a call for protections for vulnerable families. But marriage is much more than that.

A few SSMers exchanged comments with me and then I asked several questions of them.

1. Do you agree that marriage is a social institution?

2. If yes, then, do you agree that it is a foundational social institution?

3. If yes, to either 1 or 2 or both, can you state its core meaning or state the essential(s) by which it is distinguishable from nonmarriage (before you’d affix the label and accord the special status).

4. If you cannot do item 3, that is okay, but perhaps you can take a stab at justifying the special status of marriage in our society. Actually, could you please first state if you think marital status is a special status and in what way is it special, if it is special.

[...]

5. Can you identify the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind when you refer to “same-sex marriage”? If not, that is okay, but please explain the justification for treating SSM differenty from the rest of nonmarriage.

True to form, two SSMers replied here and here.

I summarized and requested confirmation, correction, or clarification, here and here.

Marilynn closed her response to my query with the following:

[Quoting Chairm:] 8. The questions I’ve asked go right to the heart of the matter.

Answer:

Actually you have successfully engaged me in a circular debate to distract me and others like me from making any headway in the area of ending anonymity in commercially arranged conception. Its been fun but I won’t change your mind nor will I impress anyone with my interpretation of anthropology and ancient philosophy. Its 3 hours of my life I won’t get back. Whoopie, I convinced myself how right I am. I win and I’m all alone in thinking that. Thanks for playing its a lovely consolation prize.

And I replied:

The title of the blogpost, and the title over this discussion, is “‘Debating Same Sex Marriage’: Where is the Academy?”

By your closing remark it would appear that on this question the answer is, nowhere.

The points I have raised get at the heart of the matter. If you cannot justify the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy, then, you have not even made the case for convincing yourself.

Your supposed certitude would close discussion of the actual disagreement.

And SSMers such as nobody.really and La Luba would rather change the subject, anyway, as they also flee from justifying what they demand of society. They’d rather fold their arms and repeatedly ask, why not?

The onus remains on SSMers — whether or not the Academia has surrendered to groupthink — to do a much better job of answering the query I posited and discussing the type of relationship they have in mind.

Not showing up for that discussion, or fleeing from it, would be a cowardly and intellectually dishonest abdication rather than an expression of confident certitude in dealing with practicalities.

* * *

To read the full discussion, and to participate, go to Family Scholars Blog or to the Chronicle of Higher Education.