Universal Benefits

by Frank Turk

OK - we are back for part two of this conversation.  A couple of things from yesterday:

To the concern that this is a hypothetical conversation, and especially that the "Not-LGBT" guy is too nice, sometimes it matters how you approach someone.  I'm not saying every exchange like this (especially on the internet) will turn out this reasonable and Socratic, but I'll bet if you worked on your delivery you could get at least half-way through this exchange with a real person.

To the concern that the "Not-LGBT" guy isn't engaging hard enough, maybe.  We haven't gotten to the back half (more like back third) of the conversation, but the conversations this exchange were based on demonstrated one thing to me personally: the other side doesn't think they have a lot to justify.  Their answers tend to be rather terse, and their willingness to say more than a little to defend their position is not very robust.  What that says to me as a person listening is that they don't really think they have a great argument -- they just feel a certain way and they don't want anyone taking away that feeling.

Last time we covered the definition and cause of marriage.  Today we cover a secular/legal argument.

Play nice.

Not-LGBT: It still bothers me that you think gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people.

 FT: Well, what do you mean by that?

Not-LGBT: You know what I mean.  Why can't gay couples have the same tax breaks and access to medical benefits that straight couples have?  They say that there are 1000 legally-sanctioned benefits that married couples have that gay people can't get to. Is that fair?  Is that equal protection?

 FT: I see.  What if I told you that I think it's unfair to single people that they don't have access to those benefits, either?  In other words, what's the reason these benefits are not merely a universal benefit of citizenship -- if they are somehow "rights"?

Not-LGBT: [thinks for a minute] Well, married people are in a different circumstance than single people.  Being married is not the same as being single.  I think you said it someplace -- Marriage has a "special meaning."

 FT: Huh.  I didn't actually say that -- U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker actually said that when he ruled against Prop 8 in California.  But do you believe that -- that there's a "special meaning" in marriage?

Not-LGBT: Yes.  [thinks about it again]  Yes I do think that.

 FT: So it's different than, for example, people who only live together for a very long time.

Not-LGBT: Yes.

 FT: But it's a right?  See: I think you're confused about what you mean to say.  What I think you mean to say --

Not-LGBT: No.  What I mean to say is this: because marriage has special meaning, and it gives special benefits to people, the law has the responsibility to give it to whoever wants it.  There's no reason to deny it to two people who love each other.

The Law shouldn't decide who gets special benefits and who doesn't.  There should be equal treatment under the law.

 FT: Well, then I'm stumped.

Not-LGBT: You mean you agree?  You give up?

FT:  No, I mean I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.  See: when we started, I thought that the problem was that you didn't understand the men and women were different.  Well: that's not true.  You know they are different because you wouldn't marry a man, only a woman -- and you know that seeing it that way is not like racism because the differences between men and women are real, not imaginary or ideological.

But you're committed to the idea that any two people are the moral and legal equivalent of two married people -- if they want to be.  Is it because two is a magic number?

Not-LGBT: No.  Stop.  Don't even go there.

 FT: Go where?


Not-LGBT: Polygamy.  Just stop it -- nobody is saying polygamy is a great idea, but even if they were, I'm ready to accept that at face value.  I'm ready to say that two is not a magic number.  You can't scare me into thinking that somehow gay marriage is a bad idea because maybe I can't imagine other kinds of marriages that might make somebody else happy.

 FT: I see: not that there's anything wrong with that. right.  No, actually -- I'm still stuck on one.  I'm still stuck on the idea that somehow the government has the charter to keep special privileges away from citizens.  Two people can have those benefits; you just said maybe 3 or 4 or 5 or some number "x" people could marry up in any permutation of men and women.  But it sounds to me like the people getting unequal treatment is single people -- people like yourself.

Why can't you have all those privileges?  What's the government have against you?


Not-LGBT: Well, I'm not married.  I choose not to be married right now.  If I would choose to be married, those other benefits would be an incentive to seal the deal.  If I had any doubts, the tax benefits, and the inheritance benefits, and the employment benefit, um, benefits -- they could help me overcome my doubt that I was doing the right thing.

 FT: What?  The "right thing?"  Listen: that's not on your list of objectives here in affirming that any two people are the moral equivalent of a man and a woman joined in marriage.  There's a whole list of right things you're walking past to get right here to suddenly claim it's the "right thing" to do anything.


Not-LGBT: Well, it would be an incentive -- you can see that, right?  That it's an incentive to do something.

 FT: Look -- you have to stop teasing me, OK?  Because if that's what you really really mean now, you have to simply change your mind and go back to traditional marriage.

Let me spell it all out for you.  We already talked about the fact that heterosexuality is not like racism -- it's a fact, not an ideology or merely a feeling.  It's the kind of fact that has a basis in biology, in the way humankind are made, male and female.  So marriage is fundamentally a necessary conclusion, a function of the biological facts.  To that end, it's not even really how two people feel about each other because feelings can change and then change back again.  That is actually the "special meaning" of marriage -- that's where we cross over into this half of the discussion.  Because even you can admit that the government has a stake in that kind of marriage, and in seeing that stake the government can make incentives to make marriage better than, well, anything else two people can legally get involved with.

If the Government doesn't have that kind of charter, then it's absurd to say that the government has the charter to license drivers, or to issue permits for guns, or to enforce any laws -- because what is law enforcement if its not a system of incentives and disincentives?  If the government can't choose how to encourage what's in the best interest of the country -- that is, the general welfare of the citizens -- how can it claim the authority to punish anyone for doing the wrong thing?


Not-LGBT: Wow.  You're forgetting Justice now?  To win an argument?


 FT: Nope.


Not-LGBT: Nope?  That's it - just "nope?"

 FT: No, I was just going to open my Bible to Romans 1-2-3 so we can talk about Justice so you can understand what my real objections are here -- what my purpose is in trying to reason with you through your very confused state of thinking.  Do you want to talk about Justice?  Let's start in Romans 1, and talk about what the basis of Justice is ...

---

Not That There's Anything Wrong with That

by Frank Turk

First things first: Pack a Lunch, and I am out of the office today -- in Toronto actually for a conference for work.  I have a love/hate relation with Toronto (having grown up in Rochester), and I hope I can at least get out for a bite at someplace fantastic in this multi-cultural city.

Before any of the traditional nay-sayers start frowning at this post, it is an adaptation of a couple of conversations I have had in the last 2 weeks, and then some feedback from the most popular blogger at this site (which always has been, and always will be, DJP).  This is not a hypothetical straw man: this is the guy you talk to when someone says, "I'm not gay, but sure: let them have marriage."

I am the other guy.

I am hesitant to keep the comments open because I will not have time to play hall monitor today, but at the same time this post deserves comments.  What I am going to do is put the comments on moderation so you can have your say, and then wait for them to get approved when I have 20 minutes to comb through the carnage.

Play nice.

FT: Dude -- let me ask you a serious question. If I told you that there is no difference between saying, "Marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman," and "marriage is meant to be a union between two people," would you say that I'm being sane and reasonable, or that I am being unreasonable and illogical?

Not-LGBT: Sounds reasonable to me.

FT: Then why is anyone trying to eliminate the first definition for the sake of the second definition? That is: the objective of the current push is to say that the first is wrong – too restrictive -- and the second is right. Why?

Not-LGBT: That's not at all true. The second is inclusive of the first where the first is exclusive of the second. Because one is right doesn't mean the other has to be wrong.

FT: Dude: that's false. While it is true that under the second it doesn't matter if the two people are parts-compatable or parts-identical, the second demands that the first not be the definition of marriage. If the first statement means the same thing as the second statement, no one should have their ideological rainbows in a knot -- they should just marry under the existing definition and move on.

But: what is at stake is that the first is not the same as the second -- and that the second makes the first obsolete, or that the first makes the second impossible.

Not-LGBT: [thinks for a moment] Would you agree that the phrase "All men are created equal" includes women? For a long time it didn't but now it’s generally accepted that it does.  So why didn't the founding fathers allow women to vote? If they intended them to be equal wouldn't they have given them equal rights?

What I'm saying is the meaning behind laws and definitions change over time with society.

FT: The idea that indiscriminate moral change is just a market force and should be welcomed is utterly fatuous.

Are you personally married, Dude?

Not-LGBT: No, I am not.

FT: Since you are not married, let's test your thesis on you: you can marry any person. What if it turns out some fellow at work decides you're the right man for him -- would you accept his proposal? Would you be interested?

Not-LGBT: No, but that would be my choice. There are several women I wouldn't accept a proposal from either.

FT: Dude: but no men, right? If all people are interchangeable, why are there no men possible on your list?

Not-LGBT: If I loved him then I would accept, I guess. You're reaching here Frank, I've answered all of your points and now you're making fatuous suppositions. We'll likely never agree (on a lot of things) but let's not be foolish about it.

FT: I’m not reaching in the least.

Let's remember that the point in contention here is this:

If I told you that there is no difference between saying, "Marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman," and "marriage is meant to be a union between two people," would you say that I'm being sane and reasonable, or that I am being unreasonable and illogical?

It's your contention that to say that marriage is simply to be "between any two people" is utterly interchangeable with "between a man and a woman". But your clarification is this: not for you personally. You wouldn't accept "any person."

Not-LGBT: Ok – sure. But let’s not forget choice. I'm free to choose who I love and who makes me happy. Having a right doesn't mean you must exercise it or be opposed to it.

FT: I would say, without any reservation, that whenever what I do requires "my choice" to be justified, that I am probably going the wrong way.

Look: let me help you out here.  What if I said, "I want to be the pastor of a confessionally-centered church, but if someone else wants to be the pastor of a gas station or a strip club, it's a big world --  a big tent.  Live and let live, I say."

You should be right to say, "Well, wait: being the pastor of a Strip Club sounds awesome.  Why won't you do that?"

It sounds less than straightforward to say at that point, "well, that's just a matter of preference."  In fact, it sounds like you're trying to hide something.

Not-LGBT: No.  I reject that.  You're putting words in everyone's mouth now.

FT: I'm willing to say, "maybe."  Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth.  But you're a young fellow -- maybe you feel like you have a lot of time.  What if you're 40 and you don't find the right person of the opposite sex?  What if you're 60?  Would you rather die without a spouse than take a spouse of a the same sex?

You know: I'm asking because you say there's no difference between same-sex unions and marriage.  If there's no difference in theory, in general, why is there a difference for you personally?

Not-LGBT: Because it is my choice.  I already did say, btw, that if I loved the other guy, I would marry him.  Listen: nobody can force me to marry someone ... nobody can force me to marry someone I don't care for.  Just because I don't care for someone doesn't mean I hate them.

FT: True enough -- but you are mixing classes now.  Your attempt to fix the problem here says that somehow the chemistry might just be wrong, given the million variables possible between two people -- you're not a bigot if you fall in love with Rachel and not Leah.

Not-LGBT: Exactly.  That's exactly what I mean.

FT: I might say, "I think you are forgetting that, for you personally, we're not talking about the million variables in the chemistry between two people: you have eliminated a class of people in spite of your affirmation that people are people."  The only reason I won't say that is the reason you paused when you said, "Listen: nobody can force me to marry someone ..."  You were going to say, "someone ugly, or smelly, or who couldn't cook," or something along that line of thinking.  But you realized that saying that really says, "for me, being gay is like being ugly."  You knew you couldn't say that and still maintain that any ol' two people can unite and form a marriage.  You personally are not just looking for the right person.  You personally are looking for the right woman.

Think of it this way: If you were to say, "marriage is meant to be a union between two people" but then add the qualifier,  "except when I think about me personally; I will only marry a person of the correct race," what is that?  If you told me that you would never consider marrying a person who was something other than you idea of racially-fit for marriage to you, how would that sound?  No number of "not that there's anything wrong with thats" would escape the howling objections of 10,000 angry anti-racists.



Not-LGBT: No.  [Thinks a minute] No.  Because heterosexuality is not the same thing as racism.

FT: What?  Wait a minute -- make sure you mean what you say here, because this is critical.  This may be the place where you solve the problem forever.  What do you mean by that?

Not-LGBT: Heterosexuality is not the same thing as racism.  Racism ... racism isn't fair.  It's bad.

FT: Why is racism bad?

Not-LGBT: Because it is.  It means people hate each other.  I don't hate homosexuals if I'm heterosexual.  Just because I prefer women sexually doesn't mean I hate men.

FT: That's it.  That's exactly right.  The dictionary says "racism" is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."  In "racism," is the superiority of one kind over all others real, or imagined?  Does it have a basis in fact?

Not-LGBT: [Thinks for a minute]  No.  If racism is false, saying one kind is better than another is false.  It's an ideology, a lie.

[Thinks for a minute] So wait: you're saying marriage is based on some kind of fact and not based on some kind of preference?

FT: Yes.  I am in fact saying that.  I am saying that the institution of marriage is based on the fact that there are two sexes in our kind, and that they are intentionally, inherently, on-purpose compatible.  You know this: you can't avoid it.  It is not anything like racism to say that you hope to find a woman to marry, and will not even consider a man.

This, for what it's worth, is why advocating for marriage -- one man, one woman, one flesh, not to be torn asunder -- is not any kind of homophobia.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with the way our kind is made.

You know that marriage isn't for any two people because you personally want your marriage to be with a woman.  You know it's not any kind of sexism or racism or homophobia to say that the marriage for you is as a man to a woman, and inconceivable otherwise.  And here's the thing: that's why marriage exists in every single culture in the world: because the obvious, default setting is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of establishing the basic, self-propagating social unit.  It's a fact that pre-exists all laws.

Not-LGBT: But you are forgetting something: gay people don't feel the same way.  Their feelings tell them that they should be paired with someone of the same sex.

FT: I agree that their feelings tell them that - but you're changing the subject again.  Heterosexuality is not a feeling, but a fact, and marriage is based on the fact of heterosexuality.  Having different feelings doesn't change that.

Not-LGBT: As you say here at your blog, "Aha!"

Now you're saying that Homosexuality is not a fact.  That, my friend, is the problem.

 FT: Well, maybe for your point: not mine. I am completely willing to say that Homosexuality is a fact -- but such a fact has nothing to do with marriage.  I'm not saying Homosexuality isn't a fact: I'm saying that whatever biological fact causes Homosexuality, it's not the biological fact that stands behind marriage and for which purpose marriage is established.

... to be continued tomorrow...

POSTSCRIPT, 2019: Back in 2013, people thought the line of reasoning in this fictional conversation was cruel and uncharitable.  2013, meet 2019:

---