50March 2015
W
ITH the same-sex mar-
riage referendum to
be held on nd May, I
want to look at some of
the common arguments
that are often advanced by its opponents
and to show why none of them survive
scrutiny – either on scientific or ethical
grounds.
1. Marriage is a male-
female union
It’s sometimes said that marriage is
exclusively defined as a union between
one man and one woman. To suggest that
a relationship between two women or two
men can ever be marriage is like saying
squared circles exist, or calling a chicken
a “duck” (as one American conservative
commentator put it). Same-sex marriage
proponents can say the chicken/duck
example is not the same kind of thing as
marriage; rather is something that is an
artificially constructed, human institu-
tion that has socially evolved over time
– where the margins of which can be
arranged and rearranged for specific
purposes. Marriage that includes same-
sex couples is not what it traditionally
has been, but there’s no essential reason
to say it cannot be so in the future. In
short, it’s not something that is non-mal-
leable. Notice, too, that the argument
itself doesn’t have any ethical weight: it
merely objects to same-sex marriage on
definitional grounds.
Opponents often say that throughout
most of human history marriage has
been one woman and one man, and that
there’s no reason why it shouldn’t con-
tinue to be shaped this way. There are a
number of problems with this view.
Firstly, many cultural institutions –
like slavery or the subjection of women
– have also a long history, but no one
would say we ought to preserve those
traditions.
Secondly, it’s historically inaccu-
rate to say marriage has always been a
man and a woman. Some societies have
embraced polygamy, common-law mar-
riage, arranged marriage, and, indeed,
same-sex marriage.
Thirdly, even if we are to say most
societies have only embraced heterosex-
ual monogamous marriages, it doesn’t
mean we should continue doing so:
simply because marriage is between one
woman and one man, it doesn’t follow
that it ought to remain this way.
Another objection along these lines,
but with more normative force, is that
same-sex marriage fundamentally rede-
fines the meaning of marriage, and thus
threatens to diminish the value of exist-
ing heterosexual unions. It is difficult,
though, to see how same-sex marriage
could lead to such consequences – seeing
that gay and lesbian couples want to get
married for many of the same reasons as
everyone else. Indeed, the American phi-
losopher Martha Nussbaum has pointed
out that domestic abusers, tax dodgers,
rapists, murderers, child abusers, and
racists are all legally entitled to marry,
but same-sex marriage opponents,
curiously, don’t object to those indi-
viduals marrying on the grounds that
it would diminish the value of the insti-
tution. Accordingly, those who endorse
this argument will have to explain why
allowing law abiding gay and lesbian
couples to marry would do more to bring
the institution into disrepute than the
inclusion of individuals with a serious
criminal record.
2. Marriage is supposed to be
for engendering offspring
It’s often said that the main purpose of
marriage is procreation and the nurtur-
ing of children, and it is in our interest to
confine marriage to potentially procre-
ative couples. Reproduction, of course,
cannot naturally come from same-sex
relationships, so therefore we should not
grant them the same legal status as two-
sex relationships (where procreation is
CULTURE
Also in this section:
Shirley Clerkin 53
Michael D’s poetry 54
Community arts 56
The
philosophy
of same-
sex
marriage
State-recognised marriage
evolves, and should embrace
straight and gay – or perhaps be
abolished. By Martin O’Reilly