[Dean's World] Dave Price: In Defense of Gay Marriage

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
In Defense of Gay Marriage
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1149766876.shtml


   In my [1]very last post at Swords Crossed, where I noted Armando has
   fled the debate due to his inability to either argue seriously (he was
   surprisingly lightweight in this department, too often employing ad
   hominems or irrelevancies in the face of link-supported assertions) or
   deal with facts that contradict his worldview (translated [2]Iraqi
   [3]memos, anyone? [4]Pew polls?) I said I would post something
   defending gay marriage, and despite the other things that happened
   today (w00t! Z-man pwned by teh JDAMs!) I feel I should do so, as I
   wouldnât to be accused of being dishonest and itâs something Iâve
   wanted to do for a while anyway.
   This is a subject that Iâve recently changed my mind on (about a year
   or two ago, I think), as I moved from a fairly conservative outlook to
   a more classically liberal viewpoint (or, more accurately, was dragged
   there by inexorable force of reason). I do remember exactly the
   circumstances under which I changed my mind: I was writing an email
   arguing against it to [5]Glenn Reynolds, who held a pro-gay marriage
   view, and I was trying to mentally model what I thought his response
   would be, were he to craft one. Well, to my dismay the Glenn-model in
   my head won the argument with the observation that this was primarily
   an issue of freedom (which I try to hold as the primary principle to
   be served) and that the objections were mostly either hysterical or
   non-empirical, and in any case did not rise to the level of creating a
   justifiable need to restrict gaysâ freedom to marry. Unable to
   formulate a stronger counter-argument, it occurred to me I was
   probably wrong.
   Hereâs my thought process, roughly. There seem to be three (or four)
   main arguments against gay marriage:
   1) Tradition
   2) Society needs marriage to survive
   3) It will lead to polygamy/polyandry/bestiality/pedophilia
   4) Eww, guys (girls) kissing each other is gross
   #1 is unpersuasive because itâs non-empirical. Tradition does not in
   and of itself offer much argument for a position, because the
   assumption is that no better way exists to be discovered, which flies
   in the face of all experience. Yes, thereâs something to be said for
   tried-and-true, but if we followed that strictly thereâd be no indoor
   plumbing or electricity and a lot less sex.
   #2 suffers from similar problems. Perhaps society would be better with
   gay marriage. Weâre not in any danger of an underpopulation crisis (no
   matter what [6]Apu says), and I havenât come across any studies
   showing gay marriage creates any real detriment, or any persuasive
   arguments as to how it might.
   For #3, my response is, probably not, but so what if it does? People
   engage in open relationships with multiple people now anyway (I knew a
   girl in college who was dating 7 guys at once, and I've met people in
   "open marriages"); giving it legal sanction wonât materially change
   society â but I donât think are going to vote to legalize those in my
   lifetime as most people think relationships should be two people.
   Bestiality may be repellent, and is prosecutably illegal and likely to
   stay that way, though itâs hard to construct a real moral argument
   against it (they end up sounding too much like anti-sodomy or
   anti-sex-toy arguments), unless youâre arguing it violates the
   animalâs rights. Pedophilia will never be accepted by any rational
   modern society, because it causes obvious harm to children.
   #4 I heartily agree with (and disagree with). Iâm heterosexual, so for
   me any man is a notch below the least attractive woman, and two
   affectionately engaged is even worse (the reverse for women, of
   course), but in any case personal predilection obviously doesnât
   amount to a serious argument for restricting gaysâ rights.
   So that was my thought process. What do you think?

References

   1. http://www.swordscrossed.org/?p=168
   2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
   3. http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news06_mar20_2006
   4. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp#1
   5. http://www.instapundit.com/
   6. http://www.simpsonscollectors.com/wospdb/environment.asp?env=E0007