The Syllogism: Conclusion

Gays Ought To Be Married

Let us once again clarify a few things about this conclusion.

Shouldn't the conclusion be modified by "some"?  Yes, as we noted this reasoning applies to certain (hundreds of thousands) same-sex couples.  It does not follow, as Mr. Bateman suggested, that marriage ought therefore be restricted to these couples only.  On the contrary this is just one reason, albeit a certainly important one, to support same-sex marriage.  As I noted earlier, why should we restrict marriage only to couples who currently have children?  That being said an acknowledgement that at least some same-sex couples should be allowed to marry would I believe be worthwhile.

Does "ought" mean they "ought" to be permitted to marry, or rather if permitted they should marry?  Both.  Basically I noted that marriage would be of great benefit to the children.  Therefore I believe the government has an obligation to permit the marriage, and--at least in general--the couple should marry.  Ultimately the last decision is up to the couple, I am not urging required marriage here.   And as I noted I believe there are some specific exceptions to the general rule.    

If there can be exceptions to the rule, why shouldn't same-sex couples be an exception?  If one is making an excpetion to a general rule, the question should become why is the exception justified.  I don't believe infertility justifies an exception, especially when we become quite selective about which infertile couples get exempted.    

Does this mean I believe marriage is about child rearing?  No.  I believe marriage is about establishing a legal kinship relation between two unrelated individuals.   I believe that if a couple is going to start a family, it would be advisable to do it within marriage (if possible) because of the great value of marriage to childrearing.  And I believe there is no justification for denying children of same-sex couples these protections.  It also probably goes without saying that I don't think marriage is about procreation either, at least in the sense that I don't see procreation as a necessary component of marriage.  I think couples who do not or cannot conceive are just as married as couples that do conceive.  While we're at it, I don't view marriage as a governmental reward for child producing or child rearing.  In fact, I don't view it as a reward for anything.  Rather the law recognizes kinship relations and the incumbent rights and responsibilities they entail.  Stable families is a perfectly legitimate goal of government which I include in "to promote the general welfare".  By the way, even if one did think that marriage was about child rearing it certainly does not follow that we should encourage people to marry their siblings and sleep around.  Nor is the only reason for sexual fidelity to prevent out-of-wedlock babies.  Nor is the only harm of incest the babies that might be produced.  The implications of such thinking are absolutely horrible.

What's the point of this whole syllogism thing?  I get tired of hearing how supporters of same-sex marriage don't care about children, or are putting adult interests before that of children.  I believe same-sex marriage would be great for children, especially those children of same-sex couples.  Anyone who is going to argue about "defending families" needs to at the very least demonstrate that they have taken these families into consideration.  The standard response I have seen is that the welfare of these children, who they claim are already in a less than ideal situation, is not sufficient reason to harm all of those other children who would be effected by this change in marriage.  But when asked how those other children will be effected all I hear is that same-sex marriage will change marriage so that it is not about children.  This makes no sense to me.  We can't allow people to marry even though it could help their children, becaue people might somehow get the idea that marriage doesn't help children.