Momentous indeed:
It is one thing, and isn’t another—and that’s not mere subjective opinion. Or so we read in What is Marriage, a new and momentous paper authored by First Things board member Robert P. George, along with former First Things assistant editor Ryan Anderson and Rhodes Scholar Sherif Girgis.
[From What is Marriage? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog]
I had been thinking of compiling a list of articles explaining natural law (non-revelational) explaining why same-sex “marriage” isn’t marriage. This article almost does it all. It doesn’t cover every possible argument, but it is comprehensive and thorough both in presenting its own side and handling objections. It’s a true must-read.
December 15th, 2010 | 8:31 am | #1
“Momentous” Is Not An Overstatement
In the link provided, a commenter has a rather different initial impression:
“From reading the quoted portion, it would look as if these fellows are attacking a straw man. In any case, it’s an atrociously bad piece of reasoning.”
Furthermore, this commenter goes on to state:
“Also, we needn’t presuppose that marriage is a “basic good”, or that some specific basic good lies at the essence of marriage. There may be a diversity of important values at stake here, none of which is most “basic”. Likewise, we shouldn’t just presuppose that there is some essential value lying at the heart of marriage. There may be a lot of important values involved, with none of them being individually essential to the institution.”
December 15th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #2
I haven’t had time to read it yet (grading stuff), but I question the equation of “natural law” and “non-revelational” on the part of Mr. Gilson.
“Natural law” is a specific, “strong” mode of arguing that certain actions are obligatory, based on essential qualities of the actors.
One can argue that certain actions are “righter,” more appropriate to humans, apart from revelation, WITHOUT that “strong” argument.
In other words, just because the authors do not appeal to revelation to make their case, it does not follow that their case is properly described as being based on “natural law.”
December 15th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #3
The problem with the comment, TUAD, is that it concedes a point that get traditional marriage opponents off the bigot hook. If the critic is right that marriage is not a basic good–that it merely involves a cluster of overlapping inessential goods–such vagueness means that reasonable people will disagree on what precisely marriage is. In that case, those who reject same-sex marriage are in fact not unreasonable, though, of course, they may be mistaken.
Once you play the skepticism card, you can’t then play the morally indignant card. If you say, “who are we to judge?,” you’ve recused yourself from the bench.
December 15th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #4
“Once you play the skepticism card, you can’t then play the morally indignant card.
The problem with the comment, TUAD, is that it concedes a point that get traditional marriage opponents off the bigot hook.”
(Deutsch) Was? Was ist das?
(English) Ha, ha, hee, hee, ho, ho, heh, heh! Ya mean, the Lefty Libs can’t have their cake and eat it too, doc?
“I wanna call you doofus fundies (whether Prot, Catholic, or Muslim) a bunch of BIGOTS!!! AND I still get to retain my skepticism card about whether some basic good is in the essence of mawwiage! So take that, ya Catholic Fundy Bigot!”
;-)
December 15th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #5
Beckwith: I suspect “the critic” is simply raising the possibility that marriage “involves a cluster of overlapping goods,” no one of which is individually essential to the institution. As the critic said, one shouldn’t just presuppose that this is false.
Furthermore, I doubt that it is even true that someone would be unreasonable in merely having the belief that marriage is somehow supposed to be a mixed sex affair, or that it’s supposed to involve Jesus, or etc. The charge of unreasonableness comes in when such people refuse to concede that others might reasonably disagree with their peculiar view, or when such people insist upon asymmetrically limiting the basic freedoms of others in imposing their own view–a view which others, again, are entirely reasonable in rejecting. That’s when such proponents of a peculiar view become unreasonable. That’s also when moral objections may be appropriate.
December 15th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #6
“That’s also when moral objections may be appropriate.”
And no one is better at expressing those moral objections with graciousness and respect than C. Ehrlich.
Dr. Beckwith, are you familiar with Dr. John Mark Reynolds? Look at this thread and see the gentle kindness that C. Ehrlich extends to Dr. Reynolds:
The Last Romantic? Why Marriage Will Endure.
December 15th, 2010 | 12:52 pm | #7
In practice, we all proceed on the assumption that marriage has a determinate meaning and that we can recognise the relationship of husband and wife as easily as we recognise that of parent and child, or guardian and ward. That is the only reason that a marriage contracted in one country is recognised in another.
Thus, in the case of Warrander v Warrander (1835), Lord Brougham said, “If, indeed, there go two things under one and the same name in different countries – if that which is called marriage is of a different nature in each – there may be some room for holding that we are to consider the thing to which the parties have bound themselves according to its legal acceptance in the country where the obligation was contracted.”
But this is not the case; “therefore,” says Lord Brougham, “all that the Courts of one country have to determine is whether or not the thing called marriage – that known relation of persons, that relation which those Courts are acquainted with, and know how to deal with – has been validly contracted in the other country where the parties professed to bind themselves. If the question is answered in the affirmative, a marriage has been had; the relation has been constituted; and those Courts will deal with the rights of the parties under it according to the principles of the municipal law which they administer.”
Naturally, Lord Brougham made an exception for polygamous unions; otherwise, as Lord Penzance explained, in Hyde v Hyde (1866), “the Court would be creating conjugal duties, not enforcing them, and furnishing remedies when there was no offence.”
December 15th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #8
It’s an excellent paper: surprisingly thorough for its length, well-researched, well-argued, and quite readable.
December 17th, 2010 | 1:01 am | #9
It may be momentous, but in the end it probably will not matter very much.
December 18th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #10
Hate Card is Way Overused
“Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.
First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage’s defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are “anti-gay thugs” or “theocrats” or “Taliban,” as some critics have said.
Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.
Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality – here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy – and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.”
From In the gay marriage debate, stop playing the hate card
December 30th, 2010 | 1:49 am | #11
I had trouble finding a good argument in this “momentous” paper.
So here’s a question for other readers: what is the most substantive argument offered by these authors that you found compelling? Can you spell out that argument?
December 30th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #12
George, Anderson, and Girgis have been doing an excellent job of responding to attempts to refute their arguments here by a few notable scholars and writers who not only understand the seriousness of the arguments but are not too lazy to substantively articulate their concerns.
December 30th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #13
So, Albert, what’s the most substantive argument of theirs that you find compelling? Can you “articulate” it?
December 30th, 2010 | 2:42 pm | #14
It seems to me that when someone wants to challenge an argument that has been placed on the table, it behooves that person actually to challenge it.
December 30th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #15
The challenge is this: can anyone here articulate any argument from this paper that is both substantive and compelling?
Given the silence, one wonders how many “readers” here are praising the paper simply because of the names attached to it and their uncritical eye.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:14 pm | #16
The silence here does not reflect uncritical reading of the paper. It reflects an awareness of how discussions like this work. Here’s how they don’t work:
1. Arguments x, y, z, are presented
2. JGY finds them uncompelling, and with no further explanation calls for someone else to present them again.
3. JGY thinks that because the arguments haven’t been presented twice, he can claim victory for his side.
In fact JGY’s side hasn’t even showed up. Only the cheerleaders are there, yelling “boo” at the other team.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #17
In other words, JGY, if you’re going to challenge an argument, challenge the argument. Bring some kind of counter-argument against its premises, evidences, logic, etc. Challenging others to argue the arguments all over again, as you did just now, is not the same thing at all. Do you have a problem with anything the authors wrote? Then what is it?
December 30th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #18
Tom Gilson, if your feelings have been hurt by past reproof, please don’t drag them here. It’s unproductive.
The question I’m asking is as fair as it is modest: can anyone point to any argument from this paper that is both substantive and compelling?
December 30th, 2010 | 3:29 pm | #19
JGY,
Thank you for your solicitousness toward my feelings, but they are not hurt. It’s odd that you would have read that into what I wrote here. (It was odd before, but even more so this time.)
December 30th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #20
You can call your question “as fair as it is modest,” but I don’t find that either “substantive” or “compelling.” I am of course intentionally echoing your words, hoping that thereby you will see that for what it is. It is a statement about myself, just as your statement that you find nothing in the authors’ paper to be substantive or compelling is about yourself. It is not a statement about the arguments, or at least not one with any substance—and that statement is not about myself, but about what you have written.
December 30th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #21
Tom, you’re free to disagree, just as you’re free to spend all your time coming up with excuses for evading simple questions rather than trying to answer them. To the others, here’s all I ask:
Can anyone point to any argument from this paper that is both substantive and compelling?
December 30th, 2010 | 3:54 pm | #22
Our main disagreement is over who holds the burden of presenting an argument. Since the authors have already done so, it seems strange you would call on others to do so again without taking your own turn first.
But it’s interesting how your approach with me here reflects your approach to the paper. The paper presented arguments that you have labeled as not being, in your view, substantive and compelling. Other than so labeling them, you have not interacted with those arguments in any way.
I have now argued reasons why you should not draw certain conclusions (#15) from others’ lack of interest in responding to your “challenge,” as you put it. I note that you haven’t even bothered to disagree with me. You have only labeled my responses with emotionally-laden epithets. That’s not interacting, that’s just another way of standing on the sidelines and shouting “boo.”
If anyone decides to take you up on your “challenge” I’ll be rather surprised. In the form you’ve presented it here, lacking any interaction of your own with the authors’ arguments, it just isn’t interesting enough. Just my opinion, and you’re free to disagree. But you might try addressing the questions in #17 if you want to attract some real response.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:11 pm | #23
Imagine that all your friends have been raving about a film. Perhaps, in this circle, it’s even cool to rave about this particular film. One guy even goes so far as to call the film “momentous.” After hearing all this, you go and watch the film, but it leaves you completely cold. You try to appreciate it, but you don’t see what all the fuss is about. So you ask a simple question to everyone who has been raving about the film: can anyone say what, in particular, they found so great about this film?
Now, to this question, the guy who maybe went a bit overboard in his praise of the film takes particular offense, making all manner of excuses why no one should try to answer your simple question. He spends so much time protesting your simple question that you realize that it would have been far easier for him to simply answer the simple question–if indeed the film was as momentous as he claimed. So it kind of makes you wonder.
Compare now simple question I’ve asked:
December 30th, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #24
What is compelling about art is different from what is compelling about arguments; and disagreements about what is compelling in art are different from disagreements over what is compelling in arguments. If I find a film to be momentous, and the same film leaves you cold, then you are not likely to say (as you did in #15), “well, I wonder if you were really paying any attention to the film.” You wouldn’t say that even if I failed to explain what I liked about it. You would just see it as a matter of personal differences between ourselves.
Persons’ responses to movies, as in all art, are as much statements about themselves as about the film. Now, if you one of us made an objectively assessable statement about the movie, we could actually interact on that. “The editing was way too choppy and distracting.” “No, I thought it fit the mood it was trying to convey.” Those are statements about the movie, more than about the speakers who are discussing it (though nothing in art is completely objective).
When you find a paper full of arguments to be completely uncompelling and lacking in substance, that could be a statement about yourself. That’s how it appears to me in the form you’ve presented it, since you haven’t said anything substantive about the paper itself. If so, then it’s not very interesting. There isn’t even (as there would be in the case of the movie analogy) any sense that we have a shared experience about which to compare our personal responses. There’s nothing to talk about, with the little you have offered.
I could respond to you in kind, pointing to arguments x, y, and z in the paper, saying, “I found these to be very powerful,” and leaving it at that. That would be a statement about myself and nothing more, and it wouldn’t be very interesting either. I wouldn’t bother doing that; it would be a waste of time. That’s why I haven’t done so, and that’s one reason the conclusions you were tending toward in #15 were off target.
Or when you say the paper’s arguments are unsubstantial and uncompelling, you might be making a statement about the arguments themselves. That kind of thing can be much more objective than any art form could be. You might be saying that they are based on poor evidence, or argued weakly. If that were the case, you would probably have some reason to bring forth for saying so. I might find that interesting to respond to. Lacking some interaction with arguments on your part, though, there is nothing there with that sort of interest, either. That’s the other reason your tentative inferences in #15 were incorrect from the get-go.
You can keep asking your question if you want. I’ll still be surprised if anyone finds it interesting enough to answer. My only interest here has been in your implication that it means anything important that no one has decided to take you up on it. It doesn’t. I thought that was worth my time. As always, you’re free to have your own opinion on that. If you think I was wasting my time, then that’s what you think; but it was my time and my decision to spend it this way.
You also have the opinion that I wasted a lot of time arguing why no one should answer your question. Look back through what I wrote and you’ll find I never made that case. I only argued why you ought not expect anyone to answer your question (or draw any inferences if they do not), which is a completely different subject. Again, you’re free to have your opinion, but this one was wrong.
(I note, by the way, that you still haven’t interacted with my arguments, though you have taken the opportunity to apply more labels upon them.)
If what you’re really looking for is some interaction, my suggestion in my last comment still stands.
December 30th, 2010 | 4:57 pm | #25
Curious are the lengths Mr. Gilson will go in making excuses for not simply answering my question:
December 30th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #26
Curious are the repetitions of the pejorative labeling. Explanations are not excuses.
You’ve shown who you are, and I have nothing further to add.
December 30th, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #27
My simple question stands unanswered:
December 30th, 2010 | 5:37 pm | #28
Prof. Yoshino, provides an excellent refutation, of George, and the other authors, in the Dec.18,2010 SLATE. Indeed, Tom, provided a link, for it (188, THE ESSENCE OF MARRIAGE, AGAIN). I also, provide another argument, (comment 184), against the George position.
December 30th, 2010 | 7:57 pm | #29
See also here.
December 31st, 2010 | 3:29 am | #30
I had trouble finding a good argument in any of JGY’s comments in this thread.
So here’s a question for other readers: what is the most substantive argument, if any, offered by JGY that you found compelling? Can you spell out that argument?
January 3rd, 2011 | 7:16 am | #31
Girgis, Anderson, and George answer Yoshino’s latest.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact