January 27, 2004
Kurtz, Marriage, Gays, and Speciousness
File this article from Stanley Kurtz under "Correlation Does Not Equal Causation". Kurtz spends almost all his time in the article discussing the decline in heterosexual marriage and the increase of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births in Scandinavian countries, then blames the homosexuals. He even manages to undermine his own argument with these two paragraphs:
In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?
Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.
So, he lays out the very reasons for the decline in marriage then, in his hasty conclusion, writes this:
This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.
We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.
In other words, since these other cultural factors led to the decline of heterosexual marriage and increased the acceptance of homosexual marriage, homosexual marriage is a Bad Thing. His claim that gay marriage "lock[s] in and reinforce[s]" the cultural attitudes that have led to this decline in the first place is particularly weak. It is akin to claiming that the act of eating dessert has locked in your choice of entree.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with him that marriage as a norm may be healthier for both those married and any children they may have, but if Kurtz is serious about increasing heterosexual marriage rates, he should be advocating that, not using the choices a bunch of breeders have made to blast queers. Otherwise, he's just being intellectually dishonest and hateful.
Nevertheless, Kurtz does score one point by showing that arguments like Andrew Sullivan's that homosexual marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage are almost equally feeble. However, gay marriage proponents' motivations in advancing this line are quite different from Kurtz's. They are trying to combat prejudice and ignorance in service of social goods - tolerance and acceptance of homosexual relationships and recognition that homosexuals can be just as committed as heterosexuals. That this particular argument is largely speculative just means they should choose a better one. There is a plethora of good reasons to support gay marriage; the primary one, for me, is the simple recognition of gays as equal to and deserving of the same rights as heterosexuals.
This is what Kurtz hopes to destroy through his fallacious reasoning and fear-mongering.
For the most part I think you hit the nail on the head. I've said before that gay marriage is really just the culmination of cultural trends that have been at work for some time. As a person opposed to artificial contraception (a view that puts me on the fringes of even mainstream Catholicism even though it remains the official teaching of the Church) I think I can be a little bit more consistent on this issue. The Christian Evangelical Right on the other hand, hates gay marriage but at the same time don't dare take away their pill. They completely fail to see how their acceptance of contraception paved the way for gay marriage.
Not to start a religious debate, but why are you against artificial contraception? I'm just curious to know what your reasoning is.
I’ll keep this short and basic. Basically the Church understands marriage to be an icon of the union between Christ and the church. That is to say the church sees the relationship between herself and Christ to be that of a bride to bridegroom; and that “marriage” reaches its climax in heaven where the church enjoys perfect union with the God. This is a great mystery and so it is difficult for us to understand without the aid of a symbol, sign, image or icon. Marriage is the earthy sign of that heavenly reality. So for those of us called to marriage we are to model ourselves on the relationship of Christ and the church. Christ gives himself completely to his bride (in some sense the consummation of Christ and the church took place at the crucifixion) and holds nothing back; the church is ideally completely open to Christ and when the church receives Christ completely, it is life producing. Not coincidently this conjures up sexual imagery. The man is called to make a total and complete gift of himself (this includes his body and soul) to his wife and she is called to receive the gift with openness. If things work correctly, a new life is created. In other words for the married couple, sex is not simply a pleasurable activity, rather it is in many way the summit of their relationship. It is the height of intimacy and not coincidently it can result in new life. To close oneself off to the life creating possibility is – in part – to tell a lie with your one’s body. The body says I give myself completely to you but the reality is that you are holding back your procreative powers.
I certainly don’t expect to convince anybody but let me know if it least makes sense to you mallarme. As you probably can tell it’s a topic near and dear to my heart so I try to get it right.
Here is a great article that says it better than I did:
http://www.theologyofthebody.com/article1.htm
And if you ever get really interested you should take a gander at “Love and Responsibility.” It was written by Karol Wojtyla who later became Pope John Paul II. Before he became pope, John Paul II was actually a quite well respected Polish academic who was an expert on phenomenology.
Here is a great post by a mother that says it better than I did.
http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed_contra/2004/01/a_great_witness.html
I understand the reasoning behind the decision, yes. Thanks for the explanation.
I actually read that TOB article earlier today, too, oddly enough. :)
I think the "locks in and reinforces" thing seems more valid if you interpret Kurtz, not as saying that gay marriage is an objective confirmation of the failure of marriage as an institution (which it's clearly not), but as highlighting that most people's perception will read it that way. I hate to sound so condescending, but I think that many people would read gay marriage as a government endorsement of moral relativism, and this has to have at least some effect on individual behaviour. I think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, so we can't let these sorts of concerns hold us back, but I really think Kurtz, and the Right, may be on to something with this - most people just don't have a moral compass fine-tuned enough to process that gay marraige is legitimate, without calling into question other moral assumptions in their lives.
And with all due respect to those present, I think that those whose morality is based on religious doctrine (which is to say, most of the people in this country) are particularly susceptible to this, which is one of the obvious reasons the right is so opposed. Of course, those with more subtle and thoughtful religious views are able to see the true significance, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction.
Umm... for someone who's not trying to be condescending, you sure manage it well. Regardless, I also disagree with your argument. Your first point is that the population will see governmental acceptance of gay marriage as implicit approval of moral relativism. This is the same argument that people who support the War on Drugs use and the same that people who supported Prohibition used. Making something legal does not imply an endorsement on the part of the government. Furthermore, people have historically shown the ability to distinguish between what they feel is right and what is legal.
However, even if I were to grant you this point, you go on to claim that, at its heart, gay marriage is a civil rights issue, which I agree with. But, as this is the case, then you need only promote it as such in order to combat any public perception of moral relativism if that is truly a concern. It is in line with the long tradition of equal rights for all people that our country has shown itself committed to slowly enacting. Even the most morally conservative people now accept and agree with women's suffrage and equal rights for minorities.
Next, your claim that "most people just don't have a moral compass fine-tuned enough" is ridiculous. If you're basing this claim on the rather rigid morality of organized religions like Christianity, which I think you are, then you don't need to worry. Believers typically have very well defined ideas of what is right or wrong, regardless of what the government legalizes. Even if it were to lead some to question the other moral assumptions in their lives you can't claim that that's a bad thing. Life is a continual process of refining and redefining what one believes, not a contest that one wins by being the most philosophically consistent for seventy years.
This leads to your claim of why the Right, in general, is actually opposed to gay marriage. To state this is because they're afraid that all their unthinking sheep will suddenly wake up is not only condescending, but plain wrong. The reason they're opposed is because their moral system states that it is wrong, not because they're afraid of losing believers. You may disagree with them, as I do, but that does not mean they're all simpletons with paper-thin convictions.
I didn't say I wasn't trying to be condescending . . . just that I hated to sound so condescending. Important distinction. Anyway, you generally make better points than I did. I think there is a difference between this and the prohibition/war on drugs angle simply because of the endurance of the taboos involved. Booze, for example, until around 1850 was an almost completely unquestioned part of the fabric of American life - it was like Russia up in this bitch. In contrast, homosexuality has been a no-no in the west for thousands of years, almost without exception.
My point about people's moral compasses wasn't well thought out. I'm not exactly sure what the fallout would be, but I think it would do major damage to the government, the Church, or both. Though I think you're probably right on the civil rights thing as the right way to sell it.
As for the Right's opposition to gay marraige, they oppose it on moral grounds, sure, but the "slippery slope" argument has come up again and again - I won't make the right claim Santorum, but his is a rather extreme version of what I think many of them believe. It's not that THEIR sheep will suddenly wake up - their sheep are fine, upstanding citizens. It's that all those who are not their sheep will be confused. And just to be clear, that's what they believe, not me.
You're right that the taboo against homosexuality does have a longer history than the short-lived one against alcohol; my point was simply that people made the same argument in both cases.
I'm interested to know why you think legalized gay marriage would have a major negative effect on either the government or the church. Care to elaborate?
As for the "slippery slope" argument, you're right. It does get used quite a bit, but that doesn't mean it's correct. :) Also, I guess I misread your original comment as agreeing that many might become morally confused. It seemed like that's what you meant when you wrote:
...most people just don't have a moral compass fine-tuned enough to process that gay marraige is legitimate, without calling into question other moral assumptions in their lives.
Oh, and sorry for assuming you were trying not to be condescending. :)