|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
March 11, 2004
We received this letter via e-mail from Anthony W. in response to the Academy's coverage of the gay-marriage issue. I believe that Anthony has some important comments to make and should be heard. I am responding to his comments. Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty
|
||||||||||
|
Dr. Dolhenty: Maybe you can clear up the following confusion about gay marriage. I do not oppose gay marriage, nor do I believe homosexuality is "immoral" unless, like any sexual activity, it is used immorally (ie. used to take advantage of someone, used abusively, etc.). But I am deeply troubled by the logical fuzziness of some of the pro-gay marriage arguments I'm hearing. Specifically, I don't understand why the statement "a homosexual marriage is equal to a heterosexual marriage" is anything less than a violation of the Law of Identity. They are not equal. One is between two persons of the opposite sex (A), the other is between two persons of the same sex (not-A). To say that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are "equal" is either to say that biological gender doesn't exist (obvious nonsense) or that A equals not-A. I'm afraid that's what Roger C. and Andrew Sullivan are asking for in insisting that gay unions be called marriages and nothing else. They are insisting that we all pretend A equals not-A, hardly acceptable to a classical realist. Roger's further use of the phrase "separate is not equal" invites comparison to racial segregation, but differences between black and white schools during the era of segregation were much more tangible, objective, and comprehensive than perceptual differences between the terms "civil union" and "marriage." Now, I agree that the logical differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriages may be justifiably ignored for political or moral purposes. We may wish to ignore these differences with respect to civil rights and equal protection just as we quite correctly ignore differences in skin color. I personally think we should, which is why I favor civil unions. It may even be that we wish to ignore these differences with respect to morality, a view I also endorse. But surely classical realists should not persist in the illogical, albeit polite, fiction that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are "equal." They might be equal in merit, they might be equally protected under the law, but they are not logically equal. Therefore, justification for their equality under law or morality must be made on political or moral grounds, not on the error that they are "equal in fact." This is more than linguistic pedantry. As I'm sure you'll agree, HOW one reaches a conclusion is just as important -- sometimes more important -- than WHAT conclusion is reached. In this case, maintaining clear logical language about marriage retains for civil society the option of choosing not to ignore logical differences which may be presented in the future -- group marriage, for example, or marriage between adults and children or people and animals or brothers and sisters, etc. In short, it prevents us from slipping into the creeping anti-realism, so infectious in the civil rights "movement," which treats us as if we're abstract minds floating above reality. Anti-realism appears to undergird civil rights when battling illiberal traditions or materialist determinism, but it's a false appearance. In the long run, it's detrimental to liberty, as you've often pointed out. So I say "NO" to the statement "homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are equal" and "YES" to the statement "homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are not equal but deserve to be treated equally under law." Thank you, Dr. Dolhenty, for your fine website. It is a beacon of intellectual sanity in a world that could use more sanity. Anthony W.
Dr. Dolhenty responds: Anthony, you raise some interesting points but I'm afraid that logic has little to do with the gay-marriage issue. The Law (or Principle) of Identity applies in two orders of reality, the logical order and the ontological order. In the logical order, the Law simply says "If a statement is true, then it is true." The specific content of the statement is irrelevant. In the ontological order, the Law simply says "Being is, non-being is not." In both cases it can take the form of "A is A"; and, I'm afraid, this is not going to be very helpful in the gay-marriage debate. The reason I say this has to do with the nature of the definition of marriage. Unfortunately, marriage is one of those things that is not physical or material, and we can't simply go out and examine some object, note its essential characteristics, and come up with what is called a "real" definition. The definition of marriage is really a legal matter and its definition in any place at any point in time depends upon what some recognized legal authority says it is. Marriage is a "legal contract," and as such is a legal "relationship" which is usually defined in some statutory manner. It is true that some argue that "marriage" has a "traditional" meaning in our culture and that is correct. Usually when we speak about marriage, everyone "understands" we are talking about a special type of relationship or contract that exists between two people of the opposite sex. The term "marriage" can be considered to have a "lexical" definition, one based on established usage, since all dictionaries of the English language (at least, at the moment) define a marriage as between a man and a woman. Usually, but not always, a legal definition of a term will rest on a lexical definition which rests on established usage. Since, in the United States at the moment, the laws recognize as marriage only a valid contract between a man and a woman, and also takes into consideration the ages of the participants (the individual states differ on how old one must be to be able to contract a marriage), there have been no gay marriages in spite of the fact that those in San Francisco keep referring to them as such. They are not even, technically speaking, invalid marriages! This is because they are not marriages at all, at least in any legal sense. The basic problem in this whole marriage issue is that the entire matter is fraught with confusion, inconsistencies, and contraries. We have the State with its definition and criteria (which are not entirely uniform from state to state); then we have religions with their own definition and criteria (which are hardly uniform from religion to religion); and then we have the social-cultural-traditional very general idea of what a marriage is (which varies from individual to individual and generation to generation). Get the picture? Do you see why the concept of "identity" in any philosophical sense is of little help? Another problem we get into regarding this issue, and you have somewhat raised this in your letter, is the matter of "identical," "similar," and "equal." There is a sense, of course -- if gay-marriage becomes legalized -- that gay-marriage and straight-marriage are identical, in so far as it relates to the statutory status of the relationship and to the benefits enjoyed by the parties. On the other hand, there is a sense that they are not identical, in so far as one involves partners of the same gender and one involves partners of opposite genders. So it may be quite proper to use the term "similar" rather than "identical," although "identical" would be appropriate in the former context. See how difficult this can be? Regarding the term "equal," we can also have a problem. "Equal" is one of those terms which can mean different things to different people at different times. Would a gay-marriage (assuming it's now legal) be "equal" to a straight marriage? Well, it seems to me to depend on the context. If both forms of the marriage contract have exactly the same relationships and benefits, in that sense they would certainly be judged, I would think, as "equal." If, however, we choose to equate the term "equal" with the term "identical," then in one sense the two types of marriages are not equal because they are not identical within one context (involving different gender relationships). I'm afraid that the principles and tenets of Classical Realism will not lead one to an easy conclusion regarding whether or not gay-marriage should be legalized or socially sanctioned. It is a practical policy issue about which even Classical Realists disagree. There really is no "logical" or "ontological" issue in play here. The Law or Principle of Identity (either in the logical or the ontological order) must always be related to "context"; and a description of this Principle should always include the phrase (although we usually don't say it aloud), "within this context" or "in this case" or "in this respect." The same thing applies, by the way, to the Principle of Contradiction. We must be aware of the "context" in which or about which we are speaking. So, all in all, Anthony, I suspect I have not been very helpful here except to point out the many confusions that exist in regard to the gay-marriage issue. Ultimately, the solution from a legal perspective lies in the hands of the civil authorities and the people as members of a secular democracy. But one fact is clear. There are no gay marriages at the moment in the USA and to refer to those ceremonies performed in San Francisco and elsewhere as "marriages," is illogical and irrational in the sense that one is saying that something does in fact exist when in fact it does not. Your letter does show, however, that you have thought philosophically about this important policy issue and you are to be commended for that. Your comments and analysis are sophisticated. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, logical analysis is not going to be much help here. Of course, I could be wrong and I will certainly be open to a critical analysis of my position. To provide everyone with some historical background about this whole issue, I am going to recommend two very controversial books by the late Professor John Boswell, professor of history at Yale University, who did extensive research into the matter of same-sex unions in Western Culture. While you may disagree with his analyses and conclusions, you will find it difficult to fault his sources.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.