AN ARGUMENT AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
P1. If a view of marriage does not offer a meaningful, non-arbitrary distinction between marital and non-marital relationships in a way that explains why government should be involved in the first place, then that view of marriage more than likely gets marriage wrong.
P2. Same-sex marriage does not offer a meaningful, non-arbitrary distinction between marital and non-marital relationships in a way that explains why government should be involved in the first place.
C. Therefore same-sex marriage more than likely gets marriage wrong.
Let’s use a metaphor to explain this more fully: Most nations have decided that education is a social good worth promoting, so much so that they offer primary and secondary education for free, and give generous grants, scholarships, and tax breaks to university students. This does not demean those who have no interest in pursuing a degree, and wish to go straight into the workforce instead — it just means that education is considered something worth encouraging.
Imagine, however, that non-students claimed that the law unjustly treated students preferentially, and wanted the same grants, scholarships, and tax credits. Extending those same benefits to non-students would undermine the very reason for those benefits, since they would no longer encourage people to pursue an education. What public interests would it serve? If we are going to eliminate the distinction between students and non-students, why not just get rid of the grants and tax breaks altogether instead?
In a similar way, the revisionist view of marriage undermines whatever public interests marriage serves, by eliminating any non-arbitrary distinction between marital and non-marital relationships. Not only is there no reason to exclude same-sex couples in the revisionist view, there is only a very weak case for formalizing any marriage relationship at all.https://discussingmarriage.org/the-argument-from-public-interest
- Discussing Marriage – The Argument from Public Interest