ALARM! :: I should have told you that movies in the afternoon are my weakness.

"Nobody should be a mystery intentionally. Unintentionally is mysterious enough."

Thursday, December 22, 2005

The Risks of Deregulating Marriage

Here's an essay by Stanley Kurtz from NR a few years ago arguing that the real danger in legal homosexual marriage is that it breaks the social requirement for monogamy in marriage. It attempts to answer the "libertarian question" of why those who're hesitant to regulate personal freedom should be in favor of not legalizing gay marriage.

He also has the cover story in this week's Weekly Standard, which tackles the growing trend toward polyamorous relationships and how, in Sweden, there's a movement that seems poised to push for legalized polyamorous marriage, which would likely follow in the US as soon as gay marriage becomes legal nationally.

I'm just iffy on this, though. I agree with him that polyamorous, non-monogamous lifestyles are often detrimental to those who practice them. And I'm even willing to concede, to a degree, that legalized homosexual marriage and polyamorous marriage will further break the taboo on extra-marital relationships; it will weaken our already fragile will for monogamy. But it still seems pretty precarious to me to want to regulate this sort of risk, but not, say, that of smoking. Everyone agrees that smoking is bad for your health, and I think it's obvious that portrayals of smoking in movies, video games, etc... makes people more likely to do it themselves: it's advertising, and big, glamorous, idealized (even if villianous) images are influential. (Why else would companies spend billions each year on advertising?) But this doesn't mean we should regulate smoking or smoking in the media. Transfer that logic to the marriage debate and it becomes quite the thorny question.

The government's job isn't to protect people from risk or unhappiness, and neither should we want that to become its job -- the government just isn't very good at it. So why marriage and not smoking? Why marriage but not anything else, for that matter? Risk is a part of life. Individuals should inform themselves about it and have the power to make their own decisions about how to proceed. Right?

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not a matter of mere danger to the person or protecting people from themselves. Marriage is a public institution - it has many many legal ramifications and social ones. To look at it apart from Christian revelation and merely as a natural institution it is designed to protect and provide for children and posterity generally. To grant homosexual relationships teh same status of marriage will dislodge that institution from any natural moorings - it will just be a contract of sorts with whatever social meaning people want to add to it.

But if you accept libertarians formulations of what an individual is and what he owes (or rather doesn't owe) society - than there is little argument against gay marriage.

December 22, 2005 10:24 AM  
Blogger Peter said...

Maybe, but I'm not convinced that that hasn't already happened. Secular marriage doesn't mean much at this point; it's a tentative agreement to stay together until one or both parties don't feel like it anymore. Churches (or any other institution), of course, should never be forced to recognize any type of marriage they disagree with, but as far as the state goes, I'm not sure why it has to protect Christian ideals of marriage (much as I might think that people are better off adhering to them).

December 22, 2005 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, there is no reason inherntly why a state couldn't or shouldn't encourage Christian marriage. It is certainly in the interest of society to do so.

But as for the American state- you may be right. Marriage has been so degraded over the past 100 years - and social anomie is so widespread that it is difficult to not give this over to homosexuals as well. It may even spur a more independent mind among Christians.

December 22, 2005 12:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home