AN ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
P1. Straight people and gay people should have equal rights
P2. Straight people have the right to marry
C. Therefore gay people should have the right to marry
CONSERVATIVE COMMENTARY
This argument is also used for:
The argument is misleading because gay people do have the right to marry, namely someone of the opposite sex. The argument should therefore be clarified such as:
P1. Straight people and gay people should have equal rights
P2. Straight people have the right to marry each other
C. Therefore gay people should have the right to marry each other
This argument appears intuitive but traditional marriage law does not even consider sexual orientation or differentiate between “straight” and “gay” people. In traditional marriage law, straight people do not have any more rights than gay people, the law grants everyone the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
What this argument attempts to convey is that traditional marriage laws, though equally applied, affect straight and gay people in unequal ways. Gay people cannot fully access the goods of marriage like straight people can. Consider a cookie jar placed on the top shelf, everyone may have the same right to eat the cookies but only tall people can actually reach them. Moving the cookie jar to a lower shelf allows tall and short people the same ability to access them. Similarly it is argued that marriage law should allow straight and gay people to equally access the goods of marriage:
P1. Straight people and gay people should have equal access to the goods of marriage
P2. Straight people have full access to the goods of marriage
C. Therefore gay people should have full access to the goods of marriage
However why single out straight and gay people? Shouldn’t everyone have full access to the goods of marriage, not only straight and gay people? What is it about gay and straight people that necessitates only they should have full access to the goods of marriage but no one else? The population is not perfectly split into straight and gay people, there are also autosexuals and those seeking open, temporary, polygynous, polyandrous, polyamorous, incestuous, or bestial unions. After all, people can find themselves experiencing sexual and romantic desire for multiple partners (concurrent or serial), or closely blood‐related partners, or nonhuman partners. The logical conclusion of this argument is that the goods of marriage should be fully accessible to everyone, no matter their sexual orientation. This is no longer an argument for same-sex marriage, but an argument for any marriage.
A slightly different approach to the equality argument is to argue not on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of sex, as follows:
P1. Men and women should have the same rights
P2. Men have the right to marry women
C. Therefore women should have the right to marry women
However the argument fails, as demonstrated by the following counter argument:
P1. Men and women should have the same rights
P2. Women have the right to enjoy women-only spaces
C. Therefore men should have the right to enjoy women-only spaces
Men and women should clearly not have the same rights but should have equal rights. In traditional marriage law, men and women do have equal rights. Both have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Several cases have been brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights to argue that denying same-sex marriage discriminated on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, but each has been rejected and ruled that a country was not in breach of human rights if it does not recognize same-sex marriage.
EXTERNAL LINKS:
- Discussing Marriage – The Objection from Due Process
- Public Discourse – The Red Herring of “Marriage Equality”
- Richard McDonough – Is Same-Sex Marriage an Equal-Rights Issue?
- ABC Religion and Ethics – Why the Argument for Same-Sex Marriage is Not Sound