Before questions of morality, we should consider the family unit
Reading Mohamed Sheriffdeen’s article “Moral arguments against same sex marriage don’t have legs to stand on”, I cannot help but wonder if the whole controversy over same-sex marriage is too caught up in what are essentially problems of legalism. After all, marriages of various forms have been present in human society long before the state deigned to grant them legal recognition, so if we are to properly address the matter we must return to a more organic understanding of the relationship between human individuals and the communities in which they live.
The state of society depends upon the state of its fundamental institutions, and no institution is more fundamental than that of the family. It’s easy to see why: families are the principal, normative means by which human beings are socialized and integrated into the larger community but, more importantly, are the means by which they are brought into being in the first place. A child’s mother and father are the very first role models or mentors it has, and its siblings (if any) are usually the child’s very first friends and peer companions. The importance of families in the physical and psychological welfare of human beings is paramount to a robust and functional society.
Which brings us to the main topic in question: same-sex marriage. Much of the debate has focused almost entirely on individual rights and freedoms, neglecting the all-important aspect of social and institutional outcomes. In short, we should really think about how this will affect the children.
Now, I do not suppose for one instant that homosexual couples cannot be loving, devoted couples and parents, nor am I considering the possibility that homosexuals have difficulty integrating with society. However, this debate is not really about preserving the common rights of homosexuals that they share with heterosexuals, such as the right to live their private lives in peace without harassment (the legal protections in this area are quite robust), but about the implicit assumption of same-sex marriage advocates that the state ought to give official recognition to homosexual couples.
As I discussed earlier, strong families are necessary to perpetuate the common welfare of all. Therefore, it stands to reason that the state, which relies upon families for its existence, has an implicit self-interest in upholding marriage, in particular so-called “traditional” marriage because only that form of marriage can reasonably be expected to be the normative one. All other forms (single-parent, adoptive, etc.) only come into being because of the breakdown of traditional marriages; their existence depends upon the destruction of the ideal form of family. To put it churlishly, even homosexuals come into being as a result of having heterosexual parents.
I do not mean to suggest that homosexual couples do not deserve some kind of legal protection and recognition, since in our pluralistic society we must accommodate as many social institutions as we can to preserve freedom. However, such arrangements ought not to displace the exclusive and special place that traditional marriage has in society. After all, everyone, including homosexuals, implicitly benefits from it.
