RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceMarriage has been on the national consciousness, inciting spirited debate among Princetonians on campus and on the bench. The Supreme Court has recently taken up two cases challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and California’s ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Zeit Cair? Don't you mean Zeit Cai?
(Also, captcha: married)
Zach Horton continues to be the worst person on Princeton's campus, yet again.
'13 - Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make him the worst person. Please be more classy.
Flattered, Mr. '13. Delighted to see that you took the time to read our dissent and provide such insightful critiques of our arguments.
With a view of marriage towards procreation, do you think infertile couples should be barred from marrying then? What about couples who marry at an old age? You state that consent isn't enough to establish marriage because that doesn't preclude groups of people from getting married. Couldn't we reasonably define marriage to be a union between two (no more, no less) consenting adults? Your argument seems to hinge on the premises that (1) marriage primarily exists to encourage procreation and family and (2) because they can't procreate, homosexual people shouldn't qualify for marriage. (1) is definitely debatable, but even if we take it to be true, I don't think it's true that a homosexual couple can't help contribute to society by raising a family. Many gay couples raise adopted children in much better environments than they would have grown up in otherwise. I'm interested in hearing your responses to these points.
Thank you for your keen comments. Indeed, we would have liked to address those points in the dissent had we the space, but I'll respond briefly here (alas I have only a moment).
Regarding cases in which heterosexual couples are unable to bear children due to fertility issues or age: Indeed, it is easy to construe our argument as to mean that actual procreation is all that matters. Not so. The capacity and ordering towards such is the distinction. The marriage of infertile/elderly couples still has the unique capacity for the comprehensive union that defines marriage, even if the orientation towards procreation cannot be fulfilled. That fact is unfortunate, but accidental to such specific cases. On the other hand, with homosexual couples, while they can certainly share in profound relationships emotionally and intellectually, there is no such capacity for the aforementioned comprehensive union such that the two could become one flesh with procreative potential. With homosexuals, there exists no potential to be actualized, whereas with infertile heterosexuals, there exists potential that - by circumstance - cannot be actualized. In sum, the marriage of infertile/elderly heterosexuals is entirely valid since it is in keeping with the definition of marriage as a comprehensive union of body and will that has procreative potential (to put it succinctly).
The issue of homosexual couples adopting is a separate issue, and one that will certainly venture into difficult waters. Indeed, I would rather not make particularly strong statements here other than to note that sociological evidence suggests that children fare best with a married mother and father. (That's sure to generate a storm of nasty comments coming my way...) Nevertheless, I would hold that that is the ideal and that adoption should approximate that since biological parents are sadly not always living or capable of raising their children. Whether we should enter a utilitarian framework and say, "well, even if not the ideal, don't homosexual couples still provide better circumstances for lots of these potential adoptees than an orphanage?" is problematic in its own right. For one thing, how would we determine which children get placed in ideal homes with a mother and a father and which are placed in the less ideal circumstance? It seems difficult to avoid injustice here. Though I can anticipate a few counterarguments. I think this issue is substantially less straight forward than the definition of marriage, but nevertheless, I find it hard to fully accept the utilitarian logic.
Thank you for your civil comments and inquiries.
zach horton you the man. You speak out when all the other conservatives on campus are afraid to. Thank you for representing us.
15, thank you for your comment - I appreciate it. I would also encourage you and all likeminded thinkers on campus to step up to the plate and speak out as well. Together we speak louder.
So it looks like the main difference in how we're reaching our conclusions is you're valuing potential for procreation over "love, justice and equality" and I'm doing the exact opposite.
While I understand the means by which you're reaching your conclusions, I think that in today's society, "love, justice and equality" absolutely should take precedence over procreation. Humans are firmly established; there's no pressing need to further encourage procreation for the proliferation of our species. We can and should accordingly take advantage of our species' prosperity to prioritize things like "love, justice and equality," - higher order goods I'd call them - over procreation.
If humans were in danger of becoming extinct or something similar, then yeah I agree with you, incentivizing homosexual relationships probably doesn't lie in our best interests. In today's society though, I think the procreational harm coming from legalizing gay marriage is negligible compared to the benefits arising from equally legally recognizing the relationships of homosexual couples across the US.
Although I appreciate diversity of opinions on all topics, when it comes to something as important as marriage equality, backward thinking justified with big words always makes me sad.