The Same Sex Marriage Debate BACKGROUND Same sex

  • Slides: 27
Download presentation
The Same Sex Marriage Debate

The Same Sex Marriage Debate

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

Same sex marriage laws in the US (wikipedia)

Same sex marriage laws in the US (wikipedia)

Same sex marriage around the world (wikipedia)

Same sex marriage around the world (wikipedia)

Supreme Court Cases (March 26 -27) The DOMA Case – “At Issue: Whether the

Supreme Court Cases (March 26 -27) The DOMA Case – “At Issue: Whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their own state. ” (CNN) The California Prop 8 Case – “ At Issue: Whether the Constitution's 14 th Amendment guarantee of ‘equal protection’ prevents states from defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. ” (CNN)

THE DEBATE

THE DEBATE

Arguments For and Against Same Sex Marriage AGAINST FOR I. A. B. I. Religious

Arguments For and Against Same Sex Marriage AGAINST FOR I. A. B. I. Religious Arguments Biblical—Leviticus ? REBUTTAL II. The argument from public disagreement (Jordan) REBUTTAL: BOONIN Religious Arguments REBUTTAL II. Argument from purpose of marriage (Rauch) REBUTTAL: GALLAGHER

ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

I. Religious A. Biblical Leviticus 20: 13 --“If a man has sexual relations with

I. Religious A. Biblical Leviticus 20: 13 --“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. ” 1. Every ethical pronouncement in the bible is true. 2. The bible says homosexuality is detestable. 3. Marriage laws should prohibit what is detestable. THEREFORE, 4. Gay marriage should be illegal. REBUTTAL Other pronouncements in Leviticus 20

II. The argument from public disagreement (Jeff Jordan, 1995) DEFINITIONS 1. Discrimination – treating

II. The argument from public disagreement (Jeff Jordan, 1995) DEFINITIONS 1. Discrimination – treating differently; not always morally wrong (e. g. we rightly discriminate against children when we don’t let them vote)

Definitions 2. Parity thesis – “homosexuality has the same moral status as heterosexuality” (p.

Definitions 2. Parity thesis – “homosexuality has the same moral status as heterosexuality” (p. 237) so there should be no discrimination against homosexuality 3. Difference thesis—”there are morally relevant differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality which justify a difference in moral status and treatment” (p. 237) So “there are situations in which it is normally permissible to discriminate against homosexuals. ”

Definitions 5. Moral impasse—some believe X is morally wrong and some believe it’s permissible

Definitions 5. Moral impasse—some believe X is morally wrong and some believe it’s permissible 6. Public dilemma—a moral impasse with public policy ramifications, so the government must take a stand

Definitions (two ways to resolve public impasses) 7. Resolution by declaration—government declares a winner

Definitions (two ways to resolve public impasses) 7. Resolution by declaration—government declares a winner and loser (e. g. slavery, prohibition) 8. Resolution by accommodation—government “gives as much as possible to all sides of the impasse” (p. 239), there’s a compromise

Jordan’s first argument (p. 241) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Jordan’s first argument (p. 241) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. “There are conflicting claims regarding whether the state should sanction same-sex marriages. [religious opposition] And, this controversy constitutes a public dilemma. [taxation, social security, law, etc. ] And, there is an accommodation possible if the state does not recognize same-sex marriages [i. e. choice in private realm]. And, there is no accommodation possible if the state does sanction same-sex marriages [religious opponents stuck supporting & recognizing same sex marriages]. And, there is no overriding reason for a resolution via declaration. [no basic rights involved] Hence, the state ought not sanction same-sex marriages. And, the state ought to sanction heterosexual marriages. So, there is at least one morally relevant case in which discrimination against homosexuals, because of their homosexuality, is morally permissible. Therefore, the difference thesis is true. ”

Jordan’s second argument (p. 243) 1. “No just government can coerce a citizen into

Jordan’s second argument (p. 243) 1. “No just government can coerce a citizen into violating a deeply held moral belief or religious belief. ” (“A” on p. 243) 2. If same sex marriage were legalized, there would be no “exit right”—no way for opponents to avoid supporting it, in violation of their deeply held moral/religious beliefs. THEREFORE 3. Same sex marriage should be illegal while heterosexual marriage is legal. (i. e. the difference thesis is true)

Argument for the parity thesis (p. 238) (Jordan rejects) 1. “Homosexual acts between consenting

Argument for the parity thesis (p. 238) (Jordan rejects) 1. “Homosexual acts between consenting adults harm no one. And, [Jordan says this is questionable when the act is marriage, as opposed to private sex] 2. respecting persons’ privacy and choices in harmless sexual matters maximizes individual freedom. And, 3. individual freedom should be maximized. But, 4. Discrimination against homosexuals, because of their homosexuality, diminishes individual freedom since it ignores personal choice and privacy. So, 5. the toleration of homosexuality rather than discriminating against homosexuals is the preferable option since it would maximize individual freedom. THEREFORE, 1. the parity thesis is more plausible than the difference thesis. ”

David Boonin, “Same-Sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement” OBJECTIONS AGAINST JORDAN

David Boonin, “Same-Sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement” OBJECTIONS AGAINST JORDAN

Boonin’s three objections 1. Jordan’s accommodation isn’t really an accommodation. People for same-sex marriage

Boonin’s three objections 1. Jordan’s accommodation isn’t really an accommodation. People for same-sex marriage are losers on the marriage issue; people against private homosexual sex acts are losers on the private sex issue. 2. Reductio ad absurdum involving inter-racial marriage 3. Jordan overlooks a pivotal, overriding right: the right to marry anyone you choose

Reductio ad absurdum (“reductio” for short) 1. Suppose argument or claim A were correct.

Reductio ad absurdum (“reductio” for short) 1. Suppose argument or claim A were correct. 2. Then by similar reasoning, we would have to conclude that B. 3. But B is absurd. 4. So A must not be correct after all.

Slippery Slope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Suppose A were done. Then B

Slippery Slope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Suppose A were done. Then B would happen. Then C would happen. Then D would happen. D would be really bad. So A should not be done.

Reductio ad absurdum vs. Slippery Slope Arguments Reductio ad absurdum Slippery Slope 1. Suppose

Reductio ad absurdum vs. Slippery Slope Arguments Reductio ad absurdum Slippery Slope 1. Suppose argument or claim A were correct. 2. Then by similar reasoning, we would have to conclude that B. 3. But B is absurd. 4. So A must not be correct after all. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Suppose A were done. Then B would happen. Then C would happen. Then D would happen. D would be really bad. So A should not be done.

Boonin’s reductio ad absurdum against Jordan 1. Suppose we should prohibit same sex marriage

Boonin’s reductio ad absurdum against Jordan 1. Suppose we should prohibit same sex marriage because a. it’s a public matter b. some have deep religious or moral objections c. there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 2. Then by similar reasoning, we would have had to prohibit interracial marriage too. 3. But prohibiting interracial marriage is absurd. 4. So we shouldn’t prohibit same sex marriage after all.

The similar reasoning Same sex marriage Interracial marriage • it’s a public matter •

The similar reasoning Same sex marriage Interracial marriage • it’s a public matter • some people have deep moral and religious objections • there’s no way to give opponents exit rights PROHIBIT, PROVIDED THAT PRIVATE BEHAVIOR ALLOWED

Other forms the reductio could have taken? 1. Suppose we should prohibit same sex

Other forms the reductio could have taken? 1. Suppose we should prohibit same sex marriage because a. it’s a public matter b. some have deep religious or moral objections c. there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 2. Then by similar reasoning, we should prohibit ________too. 3. But prohibiting ______ is absurd. 4. So we shouldn’t prohibit same sex marriage after all. What else could go in the blanks?

Jordan’s response: dissimilarities Same sex marriage • it’s a public matter • some people

Jordan’s response: dissimilarities Same sex marriage • it’s a public matter • some people have deep moral and religious objections • there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 1. public dilemma 2. prohibition involves sexuality discrimination; not a settled matter that this violates any rights 3. objection is to behavior only, not identity of participants Interracial marriage • it’s a public matter • some people have deep moral and religious objections • there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 1. no dilemma, settled 2. prohibition involves racial discrimination; settled matter that this violates rights 3. objection is to identity of participants, not behavior Jordan: because of these differences, we can rationally support a ban on gay marriage without supporting a ban on interracial marriage.

Boonin’s response to Jordan Same sex marriage • it’s a public matter • some

Boonin’s response to Jordan Same sex marriage • it’s a public matter • some people have deep moral and religious objections • there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 1. public dilemma 2. prohibition involves sexuality discrimination, not a settled matter that this is bad 3. objection is to behavior only, not identity of participants True? Relevant? Does it really involve racial discrimination? Interracial marriage • it’s a public matter • some people have deep moral and religious objections • there’s no way to give opponents exit rights 1. no dilemma, settled 2. prohibition involves racial discrimination, settled matter that this is bad 3. objection is to identity of participants, not behavior False!

NEXT • Boonin says we have a right to marry whomever we wish •

NEXT • Boonin says we have a right to marry whomever we wish • Is there such a right? • What is marriage really for? Why does the government support it? • Jonathan Rauch vs. Maggie Gallagher • Have a great spring break!