Chris commented in the FSB comment section:
"I didn’t even mention sexual orientation in my argument for why SSM should be legal."
The comment section closed so I'll respond here instead.
* * *Chris made his remark, the one I quoted above, when he reacted to the following comment of mine:
"The best that you [Phil], Chris, and other SSMers have offered is an emphasis on gay identity politics."
Chris would like to limit the scope of his objection to just his comments made in that particular brief comment section. But, even at that, he did not make an actual argument there, although he did do other stuff there.
Since he referred to his having made an argument, we can be charitable and broadened the scope of his objection to encompass other discussions -- at FSB and perhaps elsewhere.
For now we can put aside a search for his actual argument and instead consider Chris' complaint that what he has called his argument would have no emphasis on sexual orientation. Taken at face value, his complaint is a promise that he would not make a pro-SSM argument that relied upon sexual orientation and/or gay identity politics.
That would be something refreshing in these debates and we might hold him to that.
Within that particular discussion at FSB, Chris used the phrase, same-sex couple, and gave it significance. See here and twice here.
What does that denote?
Far and wide, SSMers mean it to denote the homosexual couple. This is made most obvious when an SSMer compares the same-sex couple to the heterosexual couple.
However, in his comments in that particular discussion, Chris sought to compare the same-sex couple and the opposite-sex couple and, as he said, he did not explicitly mention sexual orientation. But he offered a description of the SSM idea that strongly suggests an emphasis on sexual orientation.
I had made the point that there is nothing to the SSM idea that can justify treating the same-sex twosome as eligible to SSM and the same-sex moresome as ineligible to SSM.
Chris brought up polygamy:
Basically, our argument is that marriage, as a legal institution, is set up to allow two unrelated adults to become each other’s closest legal kin. It is not set up in such a way that it can only accomodate opposite-sex couples; same-sex couples fit this legal arrangement just as well. Polygamous groups do not.
That is not an argument. But even taken for what it is, it does not do what Chris might have imagined.
Note that Chris speaks of "our argument" and so does not standalone; he countsd himself among the SSMers who have blogged or commented at FSB and who have emphasized homosexual orientation in their argumentation. He has not set himself apart from that.
As for what he has called an argument: right off the top, some related adults can and do SSM where SSM has been imposed or enacted. Being unrelated is not an essential of the SSM idea. Where the line of eligiblity is drawn varies; the basis for drawing that line relies on an emphasis on homosexuality.
If the proposed ban on related same-sex couples is due to a desire to ban the incestuous same-sex relationship, then, he'd run afoul of SSM argumentation on several fronts.
For one example, the ban is far too inclusive. A concern about incestuous sexual behavior does not fit the ban on the nonsexual same-sex relationship of related heterosexual adults. Nor does it fit the ban on the nonsexual relationship of related homosexual adults. These are same-sex twosomes who are banned for being related and nothing more. Most are born related; others are related due to no choice of their own. Sound familiar?
Further, adults are free to consent to sexual relationships. What is the government's business in banning some same-sex sexual relationships from SSM but not others?
As SSMers are happy to declare when it comes to their attack on the core meaning of marriage, if an essential is not a legal requirement that makes it mandatory for each and every SSM, then, it must not remain on the list of proposed essential(s). There is no legal requirement that would make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who'd SSM. There can be no sexual basis for banning some people from SSM.
Chris cannot say that being unreleated is an essential when related people can and do SSM. He cannot say that same-sex sexual behavior is an essential when that is not compulsory. He cannot say that a ban on incestuous sexual relationships is essential to SSM while banning related people in nonsexual relationships. He cannot say that prioritization of kinship is essential to the SSM idea when he'd deny that to some same-sex twosomes -- and to the same-sex moresome. He cannot rely on the phrase, same-sex couple for that includes a wide swath of those he would ban. He cannot deny an emphasis on sexual orientation if his proposal depends on sexualization of the type of relationshiph he has in mind.
Well, sure, he can keep on saying things that are false -- even according to his own argumentation -- but that does not make an argument in favor of SSM.
Meanwhile, sure, the proposed SSM relationship would deal with special level of kinship. But that's the very thing he'd deny some people while he'd demand it for others. If his argument for SSM depends on favoring some people over other people, then, the basis for that favoritism is very important needs to be stated explicitly.
Polygamous-like SSM would be a series of SSMs, not a single group SSM. But since Chris brought polygamy into the moresome we can proceed on that basis.
According to Chris' proposal, prioritizion of kinship is an essential of the SSM idea. A series of SSMs could establish closest kin, next closest kin, and so forth. Why must the prioritization stop at just one same-sex couple? Chris needs to fine tune his proposal and offer strong justification for banning some same-sex couples from SSM.
And to repeat, he appears to have invest in the phrase, same-sex couple, more than just a count of two persons. He needs to bring that to the surface and justify it.
* * *
The marriage idea, the core meaning of the social institution, provides justification for for society drawing lines of eligibility. Societal regard for sex integration and responsible procreation is far more significant than societal regard for whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually. SSMers claim they want the law to be indifferent and yet their emmphasis on homosexuality and gay identity politics is hard to miss in their own argumentation.
Chris from FSB: Basically, our argument is that marriage, as a legal institution, is set up to allow two unrelated adults to become each other’s closest legal kin. It is not set up in such a way that it can only accomodate opposite-sex couples; same-sex couples fit this legal arrangement just as well. Polygamous groups do not.
ReplyDeleteThe "polygamy is too legally complex" argument.
Are they saying that they would abandon their advocacy for neutering marriage if doing so was legally complex? Are they saying that legal complexity should override someone's claim of a right?
As another FSB poster, who was for neutering marriage, pointed out in an earlier thread, the "it's too legally complex" argument is an argument from laziness. It does not work as an argument as to why polygamy should not be legalized under the view of marriage that advocates of neutering it have adopted, a view which has not included the caveat "because it's not legally complex". And merely saying that it must be limited to two without a reason why that is stronger than the reason we've given for marriage being between a man and a woman (a reason they reject as being not good enough) does not work at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "it's legally complex" rejoinder is a technocratic evasion and cannot stand against the rights-talk that SSMers have used when they have denounced the man-woman criterion of marriage law as a "ban" based on sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the reason that they look outside of the SSM idea in their attempt to swat away the obvious flaws in their argumentation?
They deny there is a core meaning for the social institution of marriage; they deny that the law reflects that core in various significant ways. So they are happy to have gutted marriage and replace it with the hollow SSM idea. There is no core there, for SSMers, and so they cannot justify limitations of eliglibity (i.e. "bans") even when discussing the bans on some same-sex scenarios.
This is where the term, same-sex, comes into sharp relief as a deliberately vague code word for homosexual -- or rather gay -- in the lexicon of SSMers themselves.
The government does issue licenses to groups for all kinds of other stuff. It even issues licenses to individuals. The legal system manages complexity and often creates more of it. So the twosome limit is not due to some lack of precedent in our legal system.
The twosome limit arises from the marriage idea, and is justified by societal regard for the core meaning of marriage; the limit cannot arise from the SSM idea which is an outright rejection of the core meaning of marriage and, thus, of the limitations society has set on marriage.
SSMers might object that they have mouthed support for the twosome limit, but that would mean their argumentation is at odds with their lips.
In fact, SSMers very often justify the stand against multi-marriage by pointing at marriage rather than SSM. They need to look at the same-sex scenario first and foremost; decide how the twosome limit is a just "ban" within that same-sex scenario alone. Then, they can extrapolate to the two-sex scenario.
Afterall, they insist that their view of SSM is superior to the man-woman view of marriage. So much so that they demand the marriage idea be replaced by the SSM idea. Sure they say it a little differently: they say that SSM is marriage and marriage is SSM -- and say this via axiomatic assertion. But the do seek replacement and expect government to enforce it forcefully.
If the twosome limit can be justified from within the same-sex scenario, and that justification survives the same rules of argumentaiton that SSMers have used to attack the marriage idea, then, okay, we can see how that justification would fit the husband-wife type of relationship.
SSMers often talk about polygamy as being hard on women and hard on men; and the evidence they point at comes from societal regard for the significance of integration of the sexes. Yet they say they can't comprehend that significance in the marriage debate. Likewise, they talk about polygamy and the problems for children; yet that is pointing at the societal concern for responsible procreation even though they say they can't understand how that fits the marriage idea.
The upshot: SSMers are challenged to start with the one-sexed scenario and justify the twosome limit for that scenario alone. First. Then test it with the same rules they have used in the marriage debate when they have talked about procreation. And, if their attempted justification survives, then, and only then, see how it would apply to the two-sexed scenario.
"Basically, our argument is that marriage, as a legal institution, is set up to allow two unrelated adults to become each other’s closest legal kin."
ReplyDeleteWhy can't two platonic friends, who even live across town from each other, hold the legal status of marriage if that is the closest unrelated kin they choose to designate?
What's the rational basis to treat these two groups differently if all marriage is about designating legal unrelated kin?
Single people have sexual orientation too. You don't need to be in a relationship or have sex to identify one own's sexual orientation.