Race, Sex, and Marriage

You may have already seen Rev. Dr. Phil Snider’s two-minute speech to the Springfield City Council in support of adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the categories of protected people in the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.

Snider began by giving religious arguments against the ordinance. Then, in a surprising twist, he revealed that all of his comments were quotes from white preachers in the ‘50s and ‘60s; he had merely used the phrase “gay rights” instead of "racial integration." Snider closed by saying, “I hope you will not make the same mistake. I hope you will stand on the right side of history.”

The video has been viewed over two million times and is being used to argue that opposing same-sex marriage is analogous to opposing interracial marriage. Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian had this to say about Snider’s video:

I wish he hadn’t called his skit an argument. It wasn’t one. It was a play, a set piece with a surprise ending that generated emotion where reason is called for; a drama play-acting as reasoned discussion. It had a powerful effect, but that’s a poor substitute for honest communication.

You can see the video of the speech (which Gilson calls “reason steamrolled by emotion”) and read Gilson’s full analysis of Snider’s argument and why it fails over at Thinking Christian.

But what about the charge that traditional marriage supporters are making the same mistake as the racial segregationists? In a Public Discourse article, Francis Beckwith explains why anti-miscegenation laws are not analogous to opposing same-sex marriage. In fact, he says, it’s the opposite. It’s the same-sex marriage advocates who are making the same mistake as the racial segregationists:

The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [anti-miscegenation] laws was to enforce racial purity, an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science” when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19th and early 20th centuries….

Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing….

[T]he fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.

This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.” Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ [and same-race-only marriage] is completely a creation of the state…” [emphases mine].

We don't have separate bathrooms for white people and black people. We do have separate bathrooms for men and women. This is because men and women are different in ways that are significant enough for society to acknowledge and take into account when those differences are relevant. And while differences in race are not relevant to marriage, differences in sex are relevant to creating and raising children. The important thing to note here is that the government is merely acknowledging an already-existing institution (one based on biological realities) when it recognizes male–female marriage. The public effect of the male–female union is unique, and therefore, the government is uniquely interested in it.

Comments

[Sam]

It's interesting that technique Phil Snider was trying to use to condone same sex marriage is the same technique many used to oppose same sex marriage. In both cases, the argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

Contrary to Tom Gilson, Snider actually was making an argument. Although he didn't explicitly state it in the form of a syllogism, this was his point:

1. Whatever reason you have to oppose same sex marriage can equally be applied to interracial marriage.
2. The arguments against interracial marriage are fallacious.
3. Therefore, the arguments against same sex marriage are fallacious.

Those who oppose same sex marriage argue this way:

4. Whatever reasons you have to condone same sex marriage can equally be applied to incest or polygamy.
5. The arguments for incest and polygamy are fallacious.
6. Therefore, the arguments for same sex marriage are fallacious.

The question, really, is whether 1 and 4 are true.

[Sam]

Here's the funny thing. The reaction of the homosexual community to the above argument is to say, "Stop comparing my lifestyle to incest and polygamy! I'm offended!" Imagine if the reaction of the anti-same-sex marriage community to the above argument was to say, "Stop comparing me to racists! I'm offended!" Do you think anybody would take that seriously?

[Rich]

Sam,

Even if the grammatical structure of 1 and 4 are similar or the same, it does not follow that they are both therefore true. As to 1, it is not true that *whatever* reason someone has for opposing ssm can be applied to interracial marriage. Beckwith gives ample reason for that. As to 4, it is true that justifications offered in favor of ssm do actually justify other revisions of natural marriage too.

In other words, you have gone half way...for your point to work, not only do you need to show sameness of structure, but you also need to show sameness of content too. The justifications offered in each argument are different in content.

[Sam]

Even if the grammatical structure of 1 and 4 are similar or the same, it does not follow that they are both therefore true.

No, of course not. That's why I said, "Even if the grammatical structure of 1 and 4 are similar or the same, it does not follow that they are both therefore true."

In other words, you have gone half way...for your point to work, not only do you need to show sameness of structure, but you also need to show sameness of content too.

My point is that they are both reductio ad absurdum arguments. They have the same structure. My point is not that they are both sound or that they are both unsound.

[Sam]

Woops! I said:

No, of course not. That's why I said, "Even if the grammatical structure of 1 and 4 are similar or the same, it does not follow that they are both therefore true."

I meant to say:

No, of course not. That's why I said, "The question, really, is whether 1 and 4 are true."

[SteveK]

The important thing to note here is that the government is merely acknowledging an already-existing institution (one based on biological realities) when it recognizes male–female marriage.

A great video on the idea of biological realities. Note the absence of a religious argument.

Marriage = Biology (Not Bigotry)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cQCi4ehXkg

[Garry S]

When an act is legalized,The Human Rights Acts of Western Nations also makes the legalized act a Human Right and Social Justice that is then normalized to impressionable, schoolchildren, by adult schoolteachers who ought to know better. Then precedents are set for even more unhealthy folly to be imposed. When The Centers For Disease Control data is looked at then the consequences of legalizing morbid behavior become apparent.Thus legalizing unhealthy acts harms society, by socially engineering innocent children who are taught to accept legalized harmful behavior as normal.This is what Western Democratic societies are allowing today. They can politically unite and have bad Government and Supreme Court Laws reversed,if they so desire.

[Rich]

Sam,
Ok, gotcha. Given your second comment, I thought you were casting aspersions on the polygamy, etc argument natural marriage (or anti-ssm folks) proponents advance.

[RonH]

Is it forbidden to write or perform a 'skit' in support of a position now?

[brgulker]

I reject the notion that we must respond to human beings and the issues that are important to them with reason and reason alone.

Especially when it comes to how we treat other human beings, emotion - compassion, love, empathy, sympathy - is critically important. We cannot have a conversation about marriage without those things.

[Darth Dutch]

I agree that one does not have to divorce emotion from reason when making an argument or stating one's case. However, it is all too easy to allow emotion to overshadow all so that, in a case like this, the pro same sex marriage crowd need only appeal to things like compassion, love, empathy, & sympathy as an end-all be-all reason for their argument, thereby making those against it automatically unloving bigots. Perhaps the other side has a reasoned answer as to why they are against it, but the pro side could never hear it because they are reacting primarily emotionally.

Emotions can cloud judgment and logic and I think that was the point of that particular part of the post. Are we able to look at things more objectively and not let our emotions get in the way.

And, in my experience, as in the case of many others, the moment one speaks out again same sex marriage, the response is not a "let's talk about this", but a "you are a hateful bigot" type of response, which I hope we can all see is not the best way to have a conversation.

Darth Dutch

[Brad B]

Whether one determines to deliver a message with less energy doen't necessarily reflect the passion one may have for that message. Emotion is powerful, if genuine. Still, it is not without rational content, [not necessarily rational regarding truth].

Whether the rational content is coherent should be always up for inspection to see if the emotion is justified. Remember: thought always preceeds feelings. It may take a little digging to uncover the thoughts behind feelings because many times people do not want to inspect their innermost passions for coherency but nevertheless, thoughts are there--reasons why I'm angry, hurt, in love, or even dont care.

[Tom Gilson]

Thanks for the comment, Sam,

You have misunderstood the form of Dr. Snider's rhetoric, however. He said nothing about anti-miscegenation laws. What he did instead was hold the Bible up for ridicule, and then by transfer of association he conveyed that biblical views of SSM should be ridiculed. But as I wrote in my post, his ridicule of the Bible was misinformed in the first place and essentially dishonest, and the parallel between racism and SSM in the second place just does not apply.

So while your closing question in your first comment is an interesting one, it has nothing to do with Dr. Snider's presentation. (By the way: your statement #4 is generally speaking a true statement.)

Later you say, "My point is that they are both reductio ad absurdum arguments. They have the same structure. My point is not that they are both sound or that they are both unsound."

RonH: the answer to your question is no, it's not forbidden. Why do you ask?

(Thank you for the link, Amy.)

[Tom Gilson]

Further on anti-miscegenation laws: even though Dr. Snider didn't bring them up (and therefore Sam's assessment of his argument is faulty on that count), Dr. Beckwith's analysis is still helpful and very informative. It helps considerably in straightening out the confusion between civil rights and gay "rights."

[Mo]

A "Reverend" pushing for something that is condemned in the Bible he claims to believe, represent and follow?

***

I refuse to give this man's video any more hits, so I will not watch it. (Besides, I've heard this "argument" countless times.)

As to his speech being all emotion and not a well-reasoned argument, the truth is that emotion is the only thing people use when discussing same-sex marriage. No one is willing to talk about this issue in a reasonable, thoughtful manner. No one is willing to listen to such arguments.

The most horrifying thing is that even Bible believing Christians have given in to the nonstop bullying of our culture on this matter! I rarely - if ever - see Christians speak out against SSM or even homosexuality in general. They are terrified of being called names and losing friendships, so they stay quiet.

Or worse, they have actually bought into the culture's lies about this issue, and they somehow find ways to justify it even from Scripture.

Those Christians who do still speak out are now being called judgmental by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. This blindsided me when it first happened to me!

***

I hate to be a pessimist. But as far as I can see, Christians have lost this battle. I'm not saying we should stop fighting against SSM when it comes up for a vote. But the truth is that no one - anywhere - is willing to hear our arguments on this topic, no matter how well thought out or presented we may make them.

I would love to hear Greg address this on the radio show. I'm at my wit's end.

[God Killer]

Garry S.,

Same old song, I hear this all the time.

"

Republicans
will ruin this country with their bad government if they so wish."