I find that both sides of the same-sex marriage debate most often use stale, simplistic arguments that fail to respond to the critiques of the opposing side.  The lack of nuance and intellectual seriousness, outside of a handful of very thoughtful voices, is almost certainly the result of people simply preaching to their own choir, a choir that cheers slogans and is not particularly interested in anything with intellectual depth.  There is a greater interest in hectoring people into supporting equality or love or human rights or Christianity or tradition or God than in actually convincing people of a position using dialogue and appeals to reason.

The reaction to Jeremy Irons raising the fairly ridiculous possibility of a father-son marriage for tax purposes highlights this poverty of thought (of course, it is not entirely ridiculous given the fact that one of our two major political parties is centered around the minimization of taxes and some people seem willing to do virtually anything to avoid rendering unto Caesar what’s his).  While not providing anything resembling a powerful reason to oppose gay marriage, Irons did highlight a basic flaw in the pro-same-sex marriage side’s case for what they define as marriage equality.

The foundation of their arguments is most typically that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is unjust and unconstitutional because same-sex marriage harms no one, there is therefore no state interest in defining marriage as something between a man and a woman, and the principles of equality and justice before the law demand that the government provide equal access to marriage and its benefits to same-sex couples.

Yet the primary foundation of laws against incest is a harm that would not be risked if both individuals were men (or women), namely birth defects in the progeny of the incestuous couple.  Other arguments are typically based on moral judgments of that particular lifestyle.  Often same-sex marriage supporters turn to mockery when questioned about this, evoking marriage to dogs or inanimate objects to make those who bring this up look silly.

In reality, the case for same-sex marriage is often based on one of the following two premises: (1) ‘Traditional marriage’ is an archaic, oppressive institution and it should be destroyed, replaced by equal incentives to support the ‘family life’ of anyone who shares an emotional bond, opening up new forms of family life that reflect the supposed values of the LGBTQQIAAP community.  (2)  The far more common premise is a moral judgment: traditional marriage is often more compatible with human flourishing and the good life, which is why the state should provide incentives to foster and support this particular lifestyle.  Traditional marriage should be preserved—it should remain exclusive, monogamous, permanent, and between two persons—with the only change being allowing same-sex couples to marry in this way.

The problem I see is that this second premise is rarely articulated in a clear, honest way, even when supporters of same-sex marriage must explain why they want to discriminate against the polyamorous (and incestuous gay couples).  On numerous occasions I have seen them turn to mockery because they do not want to simply admit that they think it is morally wrong to live that way or at least for the state to incentivize such living.

But the push for same-sex marriage is supposed to be about the simple application of equal rights for all, the judgment-free application of justice.  It is not.  The mainstream pro-same sex marriage movement is about incentivizing a particular lifestyle and restricting those who do not live that way from access to civil marriage.  That’s fine.  But there is a responsibility to own that, explain why, and stop hiding behind the standard of ‘preventing harm to others.’

The shift in rhetoric from tolerance and lifestyle preferences/choices to “I was born this way” is a step in the right direction.  But instead of just imagining themselves to be the heirs of Dr. King and Selma, supporters should engage in the hard work the heroes of the Civil Rights movement undertook to convince others of the moral righteousness of their cause.  Address and answer the hard questions.  Convince.  Persuade.  There is nothing wrong with appealing to gut reactions, but there is still a need for intellectual coherence.

As for the pro-traditional marriage side, there are direct parallels to this intellectual laziness and/or lack of clarity.  Perhaps the most problematic issue is the failure to explain how if procreation is necessarily at the heart of marriage and central to its proper constitution, sterile couples (including those who lack the body parts required to procreate and the elderly) have fully legitimate marriages and should be free to marry.  Some offer weak responses to this, but most simply dodge the question.  There is a particular cruelty in this, as infertility can be devastating to couples who are desperately trying to have children yet are nonetheless unable.  Making arguments that undermine the legitimacy of their marriage or sexual expressions of love and communion can add salt to the wound.

I want the debate over same-sex marriage to be carried out in a civil way without undue charges of bigotry or malevolence, but beyond that I want to see intellectually deep, coherent arguments made on both sides (assuming they exist).

The supporters of same-sex marriage seem to be winning the argument, so perhaps they see no reason to move beyond slogans.  Maybe opponents will up their game, forcing supporters to do the same.  Then we can have a debate over how marriage should be defined by the state (and why) and what role the state should have in promoting that lifestyle.