We’re often told that “you can’t legislate morality.” But Anthony Esolen notes “there is one group in America that has been, perhaps inadvertently, conceding the point, that good laws not only reward good behavior but encourage it, and help people to become good. Who are they?”
The male homosexuals arguing for the right to “marry”.
Anyone who has paid attention to the self-described lives of homosexual men must be struck by the mind-boggling promiscuity — in fact, by the acceptance of promiscuity, and even group sex, as a matter-of-course part of the homosexual life. Yet, as the argument goes, such promiscuity is not simply the result of the desires of homosexual men themselves. It is also, it is said, the result of their inability to form legally binding marriages. If marriage were available to them — a biological absurdity, but let’s ignore that for the present — then that would not only recognize and reward those men who would have devoted their lives faithfully to one another in any case. It would encourage other men to do the same. It would restrain the promiscuity; it would change the world of the homosexual male.
Now I don’t believe that the marriage go-ahead would actually achieve these effects to any significant degree, because I don’t believe that the relations of male homosexuals are analogous to the relations of married men and women. I’ve written elsewhere that, from what I’ve read and from what homosexual men themselves have told me, it seems rather that the relations are sexualizations of male friendships, and friendship is a different thing, not necessarily a greater or even a lesser thing but a different thing, from what men and women experience when they give themselves to one another in marriage. Still, I’d like to note the presumption of the argument. It is not, “People will do whatever they do, sexually, regardless of the law.” It is, “Laws can make people better, not just by deterring the bad, but by encouraging and teaching the good.” For people who make this argument assume, tacitly, that it would be a good thing if the relationships of male homosexuals were more permanent, and since they would not be more permanent if the men involved did not want them to be so, we must conclude that the goodness includes the desire, now made more frequent, of the men to form permanent relationships. In other words, the tacit assumption is not simply that a law permitting male-male pseudogamy would be just, but that it would make many of the men themselves more virtuous.
And that, dear readers, gives the game away.
November 29th, 2010 | 11:12 am
1. I don’t understand the “giving the game away” remark. Strawman alert. Just about every thinking person on whatever side of the issue recognizes ALL LAWS legislate morality.
The larger, more valid point is in a pluralistic society one group shouldn’t attempt to implement its comprehensive system of morality on the rest. If that were so, it would be desirable to forbid Protestants, legally, from using contraception.
I do understand the counterpoint that recognizing gay marriage goes too in the other direction of legally establishing a moral system that contradicts those of other viable groups in a pluralistic society.
2. I also don’t get how anyone’s mind is boggled by male-male promiscuity. Men are by nature, promiscuous and straight men would, sans the institution of marriage and consenting nature of women be just as promiscuous.
Therefore if we are going to exclude gay men from marriage, religious conservatives, it seems to me have no moral authority to scold gay men for acting promiscuously.
November 29th, 2010 | 11:25 am
What a bizarre and offensive piece. Since neither Joe Carter nor Anthony Esolen apparently believes there would be anything moral about same-sex unions, or that legalizing and encouraging same-sex unions would have the effect of making anyone more virtuous, how can they claim advocates of same-sex unions are tacitly endorsing the idea that you can “legislate morality”? What morality are they talking about?
From Carter and Esolen’s point of view, legislation favoring same-sex unions would simply be official authorization of immoral behavior in a new, state-sanctioned form, and would not have any effect in encouraging virtue. This comes close in my book to gay baiting. “You folks are appallingly immoral, you ask for something (same-sex marriage) that is absurd, and by doing so you — the personification of immorality — prove our point that morality can be legislated. The joke is on you!”
It seems to me that the saying “You can’t legislate morality” can be interpreted in a number of different ways, none of them particularly important, and it’s a pointless endeavor to try to prove the statement true (or false, for that matter).
November 29th, 2010 | 5:43 pm
snort
Slaves were unable to form legally binding marriages and unlike homosexuals could be separated by force. Yet a black slave woman was more likely to have all her children by the same man than a black woman is likely to nowadays.
They were promiscuous because they wanted to be.
November 29th, 2010 | 9:01 pm
Gay marriage is simply the latest political fad. Before that, the reigning dogma was that extreme promiscuity was necessary and “liberating”. (I’m writing, of course, about gay men. Lesbians are far, far more sensible–dare I say sane?–about matters of fidelity and commitment.)
Certainly legally-recognized marriage might encourage fidelity, but any claim that it would be a significant factor is, to put it politely, knowing dissimulation. If gay men wanted to be faithful then they would be faithful.
December 1st, 2010 | 4:10 am
Funny how so many discussions about same sex marriage leave lesbians out of the picture. As Jon Rowe notes, gay male promiscuity is explained by the fact of male sexuality. If that’s your argument against same sex marriage, you’re left with precious little reason to exclude lesbian couples from nuptials.
December 2nd, 2010 | 7:04 am
Gay male promiscuity? Where?
I live quite close to two areas with a much higher than average LGBT population. I have many gay male friends. Very few of them are overly promiscuous in any sense. The same holds for my gay male friends online, in other areas. In fact, I would even go so far as to say this: in my experience, gay males are *less* promiscuous than straight males.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact