19 January
2011

Gay Equality vs. Traditional Marriage: Clash of Rights or Clash of Civilisations?

Posted in Christianity, Culture, Legal Affairs, Marriage & Family, Public Policy, Same-Sex Marriage

Marazion, West Cornwall

We commented here recently on the case of Christian hoteliers sued for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to share a room at their hotel in Cornwall. A Judge yesterday ruled against them, arguing that their refusal constitutes an act of ‘direct discrimination’ on grounds of sexual orientation.

Similar claims of persecution against Christians have previously been dismissed. In the well-known cases of Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida, it was claimed by some that wearing a cross was not a fundamental requirement of the Christian religion. In the present case, the Judge accepted however that the hotel owners were expressing a ‘perfectly orthodox Christian belief’, that such belief is covered by the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and that Christian hoteliers, no less than homosexuals, are entitled to protection from discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR.

Yet, ruling in favour of the homosexual couple, he said that it was inevitable that equality laws would ‘cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals . . . These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes. The standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next’.

Declining to engage in feeble attempts to give a rational justification to equality laws, Mr. Justice Rutherford admitted that they are based on nothing more than vague ‘attitudes’ – the shifting sands of public opinion. Rather than claiming that the hoteliers’ actions did not constitute a requirement of their religion, or that they were not covered by the law, the ruling admitted that their opinion was legitimate and protected by law, but nevertheless needed to be bulldozed in the name of gay rights. A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who bankrolled the case declared that ‘[this] decision means that community standards, not private ones, must be upheld’.

That community standards ought to be upheld over private ones I do not seek to dispute. Previously, both religious believers and secular defenders of traditional marriage have painted such cases as ‘clashes of rights’. After the infamous case of MacFarlane v. Relate Avon, Steven Cave of the Evangelical Alliance called for ‘a better way of dealing with cases such as this outside the courts, which allows space for people of faith and no faith to live and work together, freely and respectfully able to express their diverse beliefs in public’.

Lady Justice

Leaving aside the issue of faith, it is difficult to see how the creation of such a space can be achieved, because what we are dealing with are irreconcilable views about man and society, and by extension, the nature and purpose of the public sphere. We must stop fooling ourselves that we can treat fundamental disagreements about such topics as the very nature of marriage – the institution from which human life itself originates – as if they were along the lines of controversies over whether it is wrong to eat pork, or whether women should cover their heads with scarves. A life in common is possible amongst people who disagree about the latter, but not amongst those who disagree about the former. This case highlights the fact that what we face is not so much a clash of rights but a clash of civilisations. One civilisation views humans as having predetermined natures and happiness comes from living in harmony with these natures. Man is a social creature who needs to live in communities which are directed toward the common good, seen not as the good of a majority, but as the perfection of every individual. The family is the most fundamental of communities and the basis of all others, rooted in the union of man and woman for the purpose of procreating and nurturing children. Life is an adventure of seeking to discover more about the world and our human nature, and to live more perfectly in accord with it through the exercise of virtue.

The second views man as an isolated individual in a meaningless universe, ordered toward nothing in particular. Society is akin to a dog kennel: no-one sees beyond his own cage and there is nothing ‘out there’ to be discovered, because we create our own values, re-define, and re-engineer reality as we please. Social institutions like marriage cannot survive in recognisable forms, precisely because they are social, and in this world there can be no such thing as genuine community, but only a collection of individuals in close physical proximity. Life is simply an interlude of grasping at ephemeral pleasure before it passes from nothingness into nothingness. There is a paradox in such an atomistic view however, for in order to reinforce our own self-created conceptions of reality, it is necessary to force these ‘realities’ upon others, hence the absurd claim by the EHRC in this case that ‘the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay’ is ‘one of the most fundamental rights a person can have’. Radical individualism, paradoxically, travels a full circle to become enforced conformity. The role of the political community is not to direct all toward the common good, or even to direct anyone toward anything at all, but simply to act as a sort of hapless referee amidst the social chaos which is inevitable in a society run along such lines.

The most evident thing in yesterday’s ruling was the confusion of the Judge trying to manoeuvre his way through the labyrinth of legislation which has attempted to accommodate both conceptions of society, and ultimately failed. Let’s stop kidding ourselves that we can create a shared space in which both of these polarised views of man and society can co-exist, and decide which world it is that we want to live in: the real world, or a fantasy world of our own making.

Related Posts:

(Photo of Iustitia: CC: © belgianchocolate. Photo of Marazion: CC: © Bob Jones. No endorsement implied.)

16 Responses to Gay Equality vs. Traditional Marriage: Clash of Rights or Clash of Civilisations?

Dave Towert says: 26 January 2011 at 8:31 pm

It is these types of musings that puts people’s backs up and give the likes of Christopher Hitchens the motivation to want to diminish the influence of organized religion, especially the Catholic Church. You simply don’t get secularism nor humanism when you attempt to describe the “second view”, and do a great disservice to your followers, not to mention, contribute to the unnecessary divisiveness in society. But then that’s standard operating procedure right?

Your whole argument is based on the false premise that marriage is “the institution from which human life itself originates”. And gay couples are perfectly able to raise children into constructive world citizens, albeit, probably not Catholic.

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 28 January 2011 at 2:46 pm

Thank you for leaving a comment, Dave.

I don’t see why you mention either the Catholic Church or the question of whether homosexuals are capable of raising healthy children, since neither of these topics was mentioned in the article.

If marriage is understood in its most basic sense as the committed union of man and woman, it seems silly to deny the obvious fact that it is an institution – indeed the only institution – established by nature for the procreation and nurturing of children. There is nothing even remotely religous, in itself, about such a view. One might believe that it is the product of an entirely random process of evolution, but however nature came to be the way it is, the fact is that this is the way the world works, and it seems more than a little foolish to deny this.

Even if it were true that gay couples were capable of raising children to become ‘constructive world citizens’, where would they procure these children from in the first place? Gay couples certainly aren’t capable of procreating.

I think it is fair to say that – aside from the moral considerations – the jury is still out on the empirical effects that being raised by a homosexual couple might have on a child, although there is good evidence to suggest that, in most cases, it would be quite detrimental to raise children in such a setting. (For example, see here: http://occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online/egorsuch/Apa%20data03.doc)

Reply
Dave Towert says: 2 February 2011 at 10:04 pm

I guess I mentioned the Catholic Church because of the connection to Thomas More and the fact that Catholics have particularly draconian views on marriage, i.e. that it’s a contract between the couple plus God, the requirement and procedure of annulment, etc. This, and the question of whether gay couples can and already do raise healthy children, are absolutely relevant to the topic for me when I contemplate the question of a clash between rights and civilizations. If one starts with false premises, then one ends up with meaningless conclusions. This article and your response builds on false premises seemingly based on narrow minded thinking or “tunnel vision”.

For example, the description you provide of the alternative (second) civilization is a far cry from the secular civilization that I live in (I’m a never-divorced happily married for 20 years heterosexual father of two), where we embrace all kinds of religions including humanism, pantheism, enlightenment, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Our community has lots of gay couples raising wonderful children, and in many cases, the kids are doing much better than those from traditional families.

Another example of a narrow minded false premise is your suggestion that marriage is the only institution established by nature for the procreation and nurturing of children. You’re conjoining marriage and copulation yet they’re two different things – neither of which is necessary today for either procreation or nurturing children. Were you really serious about asking where gay couples would ‘procure’ children from? Of course they don’t grow on trees – everybody knows the storks deliver them! Seriously, have you never heard of adoption? Surrogacy? In-vitro fertilization and sperm donors for lesbian couples?

One last comment: From my own observations, nothing is more detrimental to children being raised by gay parents than the effects caused by the judgment of and discrimination by hypocritical intolerant religious bigots stubbornly living in a civilization tied to the doctrines of ancient tribes who viewed homosexual acts as sins. What happened to the Golden Rule? You want to be able to marry the person you love, so why not let gay people?

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 3 February 2011 at 2:51 pm

Dave, thank you once again for taking the time to comment.

Yes, I would like to be able to marry the person I love, but it doesn’t follow from this that I should be able to marry anyone I like purely on my own preference, and that other people should be obliged to recognise this. Marriage is a social institution, not merely a private, personal commitment. That seems to be precisely what is at issue here: i.e. the social recognition of homosexual relationships. I’m afraid I do find it very odd that you disagree that marriage is clearly the only institution established by nature for the procreation and nurturing of children. You mention adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, and in-vitro fertilisation, yet none of these were established by nature, but by human ingenuity or scientific experimentation. I am not, of course, opposed to the use of all medical technology, but the purpose of good medicine is to assist nature, not to override it. Also, all of the practices you mention still require the need for both a male and a female, which again seems to reinforce the (rather obvious) point that homosexual relationships are not capable of producing children. Even if homosexual couples spend thousands of dollars on medical engineering, they still cannot escape the fact that the co-operation of both sexes is required to produce a child.

Secondly, human beings are infinitely more complex creatures than even higher primates like apes and chimpanzees. We develop physically and psychologically at a very slow rate compared to other animals, and because we are rational creatures we have all sorts of complicated developmental needs relating to the correct exercise of our rational and emotional faculties that animals don’t have. Hence it is not enough to simply engineer an act of procreation in a laboratory. Human beings require nurturing for many years as well. This is why nature established the institution of marriage – found universally among all cultures – to provide a stable environment both for procreation to take place, and for a child to undergo its long period of necessary nurturing, under the watchful eye of two biological parents, who, through their decision to be open to the possibility of having a child together, similarly reinforce their binding commitment to each other. It is a simple, easy, effective, and successful method which has worked since the dawn of time. It is much cheaper, and works better, than surrogacy, sperm donation, or in-vitro fertilisation! That male-female marriage is the only natural institution for begetting and rearing children is so self-evident that I doubt there are even a large number of homosexuals who would really attempt to argue otherwise. As much as we might be tempted to do so, we can’t recreate reality.

Your comment suggests that you seem to know a significant number of homosexual couples who are raising children. I would not attempt to deny your own experiences, and I do not assert that in every single case a child raised by a homosexual couple would turn out as a walking disaster, but in general, I do think it tends to have a detrimental effect on a child relative to being raised in a heterosexual household, and I provided a link with a wealth of studies supporting such a contention. Your assertion that these detrimental effects are created by the ill-conceived prejudices of ‘hypocritical intolerant religious bigots’ is, I think, not borne out by evidence from countries such as Holland, which are very tolerant of homosexuality. Internationally recognised standards of human rights concur that being raised by one’s biological parents in a heterosexual household is the ideal, and indeed that to deliberately deprive a child of this where it would otherwise be possible is a violation of their rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, holds that children ‘have the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents’ (Art. 7), and that they ‘have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them’ (Art. 9).

Best Wishes.

Reply
Dave Towert says: 15 February 2011 at 7:05 am

You happen to be born heterosexual and therefore you can marry the person you love if you want to. The golden rule says that you should want the same for another person. Just because others are born gay, doesn’t mean they’re a lesser people.

You cannot win this argument and it’s only a matter of time before it becomes as obvious as being born black doesn’t make one a lesser person than being born white, or being born a woman isn’t lesser than being born a man. Don’t you see that nature or God made gays, just like it made different races and different sexes?

People used to say slavery was fine because it benefited society as a whole, and has always been around since ancient times. That didn’t make it ethical. Same with segregation in the US, and not allowing woman to vote.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has nothing to do with this issue because in many cases with gay couples, such as with in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy, children are raised by at least one biological parent, and the other person is still legally a parent. And what about adoption? Those kids are not raised by their biological parents anyway. You make no sense.

And since when do we have to conform to a so called ideal society (raising children by “biological parents in heterosexual households”)? Where do we draw the line with the “ideal society”? Do we euthanize people with down syndrome because they’re not “ideal”? Do we kill or castrate homosexuals like Islamic extremists do because they’re not “ideal”? Do we starve obese people? Do you not allow people to get divorced or put unwanted kids up for adoption because it’s not “ideal”? Do we burn people at the stake for holding different religious beliefs because that’s not “ideal”? Oh yeah, we already tried that and it didn’t make us a better species did it? I’ll spell out my point for you: we don’t live in an ideal world! And in any case, you’ve probably already noticed that it’s already happening – committed gay people are raising children and in many enlightened communities around the world, some of them are even, gulp, getting married!

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 15 February 2011 at 4:20 pm

Dave, thank you again for your response.

I am genuinely glad that we seem to have some common ground in regarding the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) as a rule of conduct for civilised persons and societies.

I don’t, however, agree that the Golden Rule requires that we allow people to marry whoever they want. Should people be allowed to marry underage partners? What about close blood relatives? My point is that any civilised society has ground rules about who can and cannot get married, which are necessary both for the common good of society and for the individual good of people who may want to enter into a relationship which would ultimately be detrimental to one or both partners. Homosexuals are, of course, free to get married just like anyone else. That is to say, they can marry a member of the opposite sex if they so wish. I don’t think that it is possible to redefine the nature of marriage through a sort of legal absolutism, and even if it were, it would not necessarily be for the benefit of either society or those individuals involved.

It can also be suggested that the Golden Rule applies to the case of children being raised by same-sex couples. As I have suggested previously, there is a wealth of evidence to show that being raised in such settings is detrimental to the child’s best interests. You are correct to point out that we do not live in an ideal world. You mention the example of obese people and ask if I think they should be starved. The answer is no, I do not, and I think you will generally find that those who have a principled objection to same-sex marriage are also amongst the most vocal opponents of forced starvation, euthanasia, slavery, and the other degradations of human dignity you mention in your response. However, obesity is clearly something which is not ideal, and I think most people would agree that it would be cruel to deliberately feed a child to the point of obesity. We would rightly call this a form of abuse. Similarly, there are children in the world who do not have parents, such as orphans, or who have been given up by their parents, such as adoptees. We should have special compassion for these children precisely because they are deprived of the ability to know and have a relationship with their natural parents. I doubt there are many orphans or adoptees who would say that their situation is ideal. The overwhelming majority would want to have known, and be loved and cared for by, their biological parents. To deliberately ‘engineer’ a child in a laboratory simply to meet the demands of a same-sex couple is in effect to manufacture a ready-made orphan. What would the Golden Rule tell us about this?

Reply
Dave Towert says: 16 February 2011 at 7:40 am

I don’t remember saying that the obeying the Golden Rule means allowing one to marry literally anyone? I said it meant allowing what YOU want: marrying the one you love, the one you want intimate relations with, the one you want to spend the rest of your life with, and the one you want to raise a family with. That is what we ALL want, gays and heterosexuals alike. You and I both draw the line at what is harmful – for example, neither of us would want to marry to marry an underage partner, or a close blood relative, therefor the Golden Rule is still honored even though we do put limitations on marriage, because we are still treating others as we would want to be treated. What harm can there possibly be in letting gay couples get married? It’s not like this would cause more people to become gay, or is that what you think? It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what you thought based on your suggestion that gay people have a legitimate choice to marry a member of the opposite sex. Bisexual people do, but not homosexuals. Truly heterosexual people simply are not interested in a same sex partner and would be repulsed if forced to try, and would not be gratified. Anybody who thinks otherwise, that is, who thinks there is a choice involved, is most certainly bisexual even if they don’t know it. Based on what you’ve written, I suspect that applies to you. Why not? About 1 in 10 are.

Why do think in-vitro fertilized babies are orphans? There’s a lesbian couple in my community who are the biological parents of a beautiful daughter conceived in-vitro with an egg from one mother and the sperm from the other mother’s brother. Nobody is harmed. At least not in this community. Perhaps if this family lived in the American bible belt, or in your community, they’d be ostracized and suffer terrible emotion turmoil at the hands of homophobes, bigots, and many Christians and Muslims.

And there’s nothing morally wrong with ‘engineering’ fertilization anyway. Logically it’s a perfectly natural thing to do when you don’t want to have intercourse, or you don’t have a willing partner, or you can’t conceive via intercourse. And I say ‘natural’ because either nature or God has given humans the wherewithal to do it.

What is so great about Holland that we can single them out and say they are “very tolerant of homosexuality” as you put it? Why can’t we all be? Oh right, now I remember – it’s because of religion and the hypocrisy of the Golden Rule. So I stand by my original admonition: It’s people with views like yours who give others the motivation to fight against Abrahamic religions in the name of liberty and justice. History repeats.

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 16 February 2011 at 2:49 pm

Dave, you seem to be changing your mind. You previously said that the Golden Rule means we should be allowed to marry anyone we want, but now you say that we shouldn’t be allowed to marry close blood relatives because it is harmful. But why is it harmful if, as you claim, marriage and procreation are two different things? Moreover, if you want to permit same-sex marriage, then we shouldn’t someone be allowed to marry a close blood relative of the same-sex, since there is no possibility of offspring? This conclusion seems to follow naturally from your own arguments, as indeed any and every form of sexual deviancy follows naturally from attempting to separate marriage and procreation. If we are going to separate marriage and procreation and allow homosexuality, why not incest too, since the only argument from utility argument against incest is the likely harm to offspring?

In the particular case of the lesbian couple you mention, you again appear to contradict yourself. You claim that this lesbian couple are the biological parents of a child born through IVF, but then you claim that one of the child’s parents is actually the brother of one of these ladies. Which is true? Or does the child have three biological parents?

I wish you all the very best, but we don’t seem to be getting anywhere here. You seem intent on making inappropriate speculations about my personal life, as well as categorising anyone who disagrees with your views on same-sex marriage amongst supporters of slavery, forced starvation, and burning at the stake.

Reply
Dave Towert says: 16 February 2011 at 5:01 pm

You have a wonderful writing style which I admire, but unfortunately you don’t seem as good at reading and that’s why we’re not getting anywhere. Where did I previously say the Golden Rule means we should be allowed to marry “anyone” we want? The only way that your interpretation is accurate is if YOU expected to be able to marry anyone you wanted such as a child or close relative. And I did assume you wouldn’t want that; was I wrong then?

My point about the biological lesbian parents was simply to point out that there often is a biological connect to their children, i.e. in this case, the DNA from both couples is present in their daughter, and they are both her parents. Albeit technically only one parent is the biological parent, but what’s wrong with that? Many children are raised by a single parent, and many others have a step parent in the household.

Also, where did I categorize anyone who disagrees with my views on same-sex marriage amongst supporters of slavery and burning at the stake? I used these examples as analogies for how societies and institutions of the day rationalized these barbaric acts as perfectly moral and just when clearly they were not. One day we will look back on this topic again and wonder why it wasn’t obvious to all just like we slavery, burning heretics, and inequality for woman was wrong. Equality is important in a civilized society so perhaps you are right – there is a clash of civilizations at play here – modern versus ancient!

I’m sorry you were insulted by my speculations about your own sexuality, but unfortunately, you are right that I am intent on raising the question because it is absolutely relevant to the debate when you draw conclusions based on the premise that homosexuals have a choice, that they can have happy and gratifying marriages with a member of the opposite sex. It means you have a choice otherwise you wouldn’t say that. And if you have a choice, then you are bisexual. But it is wrong for you to assume that all homosexuals are bisexual. Perhaps if you discovered this to be true, your views on this topic would broaden.

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 17 February 2011 at 2:52 pm

Dave, your assumption was correct – I personally would not want to marry either a child or a close relative. My point was – however revolting you and I might find it – there are people in the world who do want to do such things. And if, as you seemed to be arguing, people should be allowed to marry who they like, providing they are not hurting anyone, it is very difficult for you to argue against incestuous marriages – particularly if they are between members of the same-sex, since there would be no danger of deformed offspring or anything like that. I was trying to highlight the fact that, actually, despite our disagreement over same-sex marriages, you and I both probably agree that it is not right for people to marry anyone they like, and that societies must set rules about who can marry whom. The question is: what should these rules be, and what principles should they be based on? I’ve already outlined the position that marriage is first and foremost a natural institution for the purpose of procreating and nurturing offspring, and that it must therefore be between two people of the opposite sex. I appreciate that you disagree with that position.

I understand your explanation about the situation of the lesbian parents and the IVF child. I think I have already outlined the main objections to such situations. The first is that it is not right to deliberately conceive a child knowing that it will not be raised by its own parents. Of course, we do not live in a perfect world. Sometimes one or both of a child’s parents may die, or they may separate, or they may be such bad parents that the child has to be taken into care. This is why we have things like adoption, benefits for single parents, and so on. Society realises these kinds of things will happen. But there is a world of difference between trying to make the best of a bad situation which is beyond our control by limiting the damage done to the child, and deliberately engineering a situation which is detrimental to the best interests of the child. Beside this obvious objection, there is also evidence to suggest that being raised by same-sex parents has other detrimental effects on children. I linked to a dossier outlining this position earlier.

I also understand your point about the fact that in the past many people rationalised practices such as slavery and burning at the stake. My objection was to the fact that you seem to be implying that opponents of same-sex marriage can be categorised in the same way – i.e., that they are all simply bigots who are trying to ‘rationalise’ their own prejudices. Do you not appreciate that it is possible for good people to examine this issue and come to a different conclusion to your own?

Reply
Dave Towert says: 24 February 2011 at 6:18 am

Let’s get one thing very clear: I do NOT appreciate that it is possible for good people to examine this issue and come to a different conclusion than me anymore more than I can appreciate that a good person can come to the conclusion that slavery is acceptable, or women can’t be trusted with a vote.

Remember that interracial marriages in the United States have only been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Now we all see that this is just and only “not good” people would argue otherwise. If you’re not too old, then one day you will see that I am right. Soon enough another Supreme Court decision will force people like you to grant equality to gays, and improve your ethics to not discriminate against people for something they have no control over: their sexual orientation (which is perfectly “natural” in the sense that God or nature made them that way).

Reply
Thomas More Institute says: 24 February 2011 at 9:35 am

Dave, I wasn’t aware that anti-miscegnation laws had been held to be constitutional in the U.S. until 1967. That is interesting to know, thank you. Here in the United Kingdom, we have never had anti-miscegnation laws.

However, I don’t think this is analogous to same-sex marriage. What we are discussing is not a characteristic of a person, such as race, but a deliberately chosen course of behaviour – a course of behaviour which has, throughout history, almost universally been condemned as immoral by almost all cultures. This is, perhaps, why those who support the normalisation of same-sex relationships often need to resort to the courts (as you point out), which are unelected and unaccountable, as the democratic majority often oppose such practices.

I am not saying that majority opinion in a democracy is necessarily correct. Clearly, there have been cases in which it has been wrong, and drastically so. However, if the case for homosexual marriage is as strong and self-evident as you think it is, then it should be possible to convince people of good will in a democratic society. The argument against slavery in the U.S., after all, eventually prevailed through democratic means, leading to the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Yet, as I understand it, whenever a vote has been had amongst the general population on the issue of same-sex marriage in the U.S., the vote had invariably been to ban the practice.

Your general argument for homosexual marriage, as I suggested before, could be used to justify all sorts of things, including polygamy and incest. Someone else might as well say: “Remember that interracial marriages in the U.S. have only been fully legal in all states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Soon enough another Supreme Court decision will force people like you to grant equality to people who want to marry their own brothers and sisters, and improve your ethics to not discriminate against people for something they have no control over: their attraction to their own blood relations (which is perfectly “natural” in the sense that nature made them that way).”

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

Please prove you\'re not a robot *