City of Brass

City of Brass


the conservative, secular case for gay marriage

posted by Aziz Poonawalla

Over at The Secular Right (one of the intellectual niches that the non-ideological Right has fractured into after the implosion of the conservative movement over the past few years), John Derbyshire makes what he calls a “secular case against gay marriage“. Now, I have a lot of respect for Derbyshire and consider him a rare intellect; I was quite surprised at how un-representative his argument was of his reasoning skill. I am happy to disagree with him on matters of principle, and do not fault him on that score, but where I do hold him accountable is when he strays from his own standards. There may well be a secular case against gay marriage (and in fact, he almost makes one, as I will explain), but what Derb offered is definitely not it.

Derb’s first point amounts to two lines of text:

(1) Anti-Minoritarianism. The majority has rights, too.

This is utter nonsense. What rights, specifically, of the majority does gay marriage infringe on? Or does he mean to assert that the majority has the right, by simple fact of being a majority, to impose its will on the minority without recourse? To argue that the gay rights movement amounts to Minoritarianism is disingenous; the movement is a legal one and thus makes use of existing frameworks and mechanisms. It’s not an imposition of any sort onto the majority, who are free to continue hetero marriage as before.

His next point, about the social value of hetero pairing, is rather obvious:

(2) The social recognition of committed heterosexual bonding has been a constant for thousands of years. … Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice of human beings buying and selling other human beings.

Actually, he’s right. Persecution of homosexuals never amounted to anything close to comparable to slavery, or civil rights for that matter (which is a fallacious comparison that homsexual advocates often make). It’s a key mistake by the gay rights movement that has done much to undermine their own cause. The injustices here are ones of dignity and family, not ones of fundamental liberty or rights. Yes there has been horrific persecution, but the gay community shares that with many other groups, including muslims and women and blacks and jews and, once upon a time, catholics. Gay marriage will not erase this persecution; it might even inflame it. I agree with Derb on the merits of this point but it doesn’t amount to a full case against gay marriage on its own, it’s more of a rebuttal of some of the siller arguments for gay marriage. The valid arguments remain, however – speaking of which, Derb’s next point takes us off the rails again:

(3) There really is a slippery slope here. Once marriage has been redefined to include homosexual pairings, what grounds will there be to oppose futher redefinition — to encompass people who want to marry their ponies, their sisters, or their soccer team? Are all private contractual relations for cohabitation to be rendered equal, or are some to be privileged over others, as has been customary in all times and places? If the latter, what is wrong with heterosexual pairing as the privileged status, sanctified as it is by custom and popular feeling?

This is the classic slippery slope logical fallacy. There’s absolutely no reason that gay marriage will inevitably lead to pony marriage or incest marriage or whatnot; it’s just scaremongering of the crudest sort. And it doesn’t even make sense within Derb’s own framework – gay relationships are an institution of their own, especially in Western civilization. It’s not an abberation but something that has occurred regularly and consistently in human societies throughout all recorded history. Marrying animals or incest are not even remotely comparable and do represent abberations outside the range of traditional moral norms. You can believe that gay marriage is a moral wrong if you want to (though wasn’t this supposed to be a secular argument? never mind…) but you can’t assert that this belief is normative when obviously it isn’t (by simple virtue of the obvious fact that the very question of gay marriage is a matter of debate in our present society). Just like abortion, there is no moral concensus, or even a majority for that matter. The slippery slope tries to put gay marriage in teh same box as things that do indeed have such a moral consensus as being wrong, both morally and ethically.

as far as “priveleged status” goes, I happen to agree, but I dont see how formal legal recognition of gay marriage threatens that status. No matter how good the gays have it, hetero marriages will always be the dominant form, numerically as well as in terms of social inertia, for the basic reason of biology. So hetero marriage already has the privelege it deserves. legal gay marriage would only give gay couples some minor benefits, like hospital visitation and inheritance. Denying this to them is just cruel. This is the main argument in favor of gay marriage, which Derb does not really attempt to rebut – fundamentally, it’s a conservative desire, to facilitate a monogamous relationship.

If Derb ended here it would have been bad enough, but unfortunately he veers even further off course in his final few points. First, he makes the bizarre assertion that we as a society are just too dumb to handle gay marriage:

(4) If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in.

Lets unpack this. First, having a mean IQ below 120 means the population is “cognitively challenged” ? Next, hetero marriage, far from being the glorious thing he extolls in paragraphs above, is now just an opiate for the masses? And now its homosexual marriage that is the province of the intellectual elites? Extend this reasoning with his earlier points and you have an argument that to preserve our social values we must abolish higher education entirely. Its incoherent reasoning.

His next point is essentially fatalistic and strangely anti-rational:

(5) Human nature exists, and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to “fit” human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against the grain of it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us.

In other words, homophobic is how we are wired. In response I might quote Abraham Lincoln, who appealed to the “better angels of our nature”. Are we prisoners of our passions, or are we enabled of something called reason and rationality that lets us rise above our forebrains’ tyranny? It’s especially odd to hear this argument from such a proponent of reason as John Derbyshire.

Finally, John’s last point might well be applied against his own piece:

(6) There is a thinness in the arguments for gay marriage that leaves one thinking the proponents are not so much for something as against something. How many times have you heard that gay marriage is necessary so that gay people will not be hindered in visiting a hospitalized partner? But if hospitals have such rules — a thing I find hard to believe in this PC-whipped age — the rules can be changed, by legislation if necessary. What need to overturn a millennial institution for such trivial ends?

The “thinness” of the argument for gay marriage is in Derb’s own perception, but is hardly objective fact. As noted above there is a simple, conservative, compassionate reason to allow gay marriage. Yes, the rules for minor things like hospital visits can be changed, but what about inheritance? filing income taxes? At some point we do need to enter the realm of law to enact these changes, and if we attempt to resolve these injustices on a case by case basis, we have a gigantic mess of legal exceptions whereas by simply recognizing gay marriage in its own right, we have a clean solution that has the added benefit of being just. They may be “trivial” to John but rest assured these are the very essential pieces by which we bind community and family together. And of course, there is no “overturning” of any millenial institution going on by recognition of gay marriage – that’s just a red herring. Were gay marriage advocates arguing for criminalization of hetero marriage then Derb would have a defensible point here.

The solution to all of this, in my opinion, is actually to dispense with legal recognition of marriage – hetero or homo- alike. The framework for civil unions, which are marriages in all but name, will suffice for all the transactional and legal niceties that married status brings. In that sense, marriage itself should be left to the religious and personal realm. The legal aspect of marriage thus becomes a secular matter, as it should be, whereas whether two people are married or not ultimately comes down to whether they say they are, in their vow and in their hearts. And isn’t that, too, a conservative solution?



  • Your Name

    You say, “Persecution of homosexuals never amounted to anything close to comparable to slavery, or civil rights for that matter…”
    I can only wonder if Carl Joseph-Walker would agree with you on that.
    Carl Joseph-Walker, an 11-year-old junior at New Leadership Charter School in Springfield, Mass., hung himself a few weeks ago. He had undergone a year of daily teasing about being gay. And now he is dead. So, I wonder…
    Or I wonder if the 100,000 killed by Hitler stricty for being Homosexual would agree with you.
    After reading your article, I can only wonder how and why Heterosexuals are even CAPABLE of treating their very own Gay & Lesbian creations in such a manner.
    Gays & Lesbians are the most persecuted group on this PLANET and have been for centuries. And most people out there believe that is OK. But it is sickening to God and his true followers.
    For you to make little or slight of what you have done to your very own Gay & Lesbian creations is disgusting. Gay & Lesbian people are murdered, raped, dehumanized and degraded BY THEIR VERY OWN HETEROSEXUAL CREATORS every single day in the country and in this world simply for being Gay or Lesbian. And most of you think that is OK, too.
    Sad.

  • hooite1fan

    If one claims to be a political conservative, you would think they would stand for equal treatment under the law and for keeping the government out of such personal decisions. Too bad too many political conservatives are really conservative at all.

  • FASDFDSAF

    The first comment said “Gays & Lesbians are the most persecuted group on this PLANET and have been for centuries. ”
    Wait? I thought it was muslims?
    This is all Bush’s fault.

  • $20OffNoTax

    If it will appease the conservative cry babies, I think most liberals would be fine eliminating the word “marriage” from the lawbooks, make them all civil unions, and get the government out of the marriage business. Let your respective church decide what can or cannot be called marriage, and choose a church or place of worship that represents your views.
    Of course, this won’t appease conservative cry babies, because they don’t want to be appeased, they want emotional wedge issues that can bring conservative christians to polls, and distract them from the fact that very little else in the Republican platform is actually christian or conservative at all. If the gay marriage issue is decided by a fair compromise, what will bring Republican voters to the polls?? Can anyone remind me, what was Jesus’ position on the estate tax?

  • Juan

    Denise, you don’t know what you are talking about… And I’m not about to give you a lesson in Theology. You need to actually read what the Bible says and stop listening to your rich mega-church con-artist pastor…
    Suffice it to say, the ‘righteous’ man who was saved from S & G, proceeded to get drunk and have sex with his daughters the next day after being saved. S&G was destroyed because of their lack of Mid-East hospitality not homosexuality.

  • BILLinBCN

    Thanks Juan. I am so tired of old testament revisionism that attributes all divine intervention on 20th century social issues.

  • hootie1fan

    If one claims to be a political conservative, you would think they would stand for equal treatment under the law and for keeping the government out of such personal decisions. Too bad too many political conservatives aren’t really conservative at all.

  • hootie1fan

    Ever notice how those who use the Bible as a source against the abomination of homosexuality CONVENIENTLY forget about all the other abominations that are mentioned?
    Or is it merely the case that the abominations they commit aren’t nearly as abominable as the ones the homosexuals do?!?!?!!?

  • Your Name

    Excellent article. I agree with those contributors who have traced modern homo-phobia to the Bible, Koran etc. Without these writings, it is unlikely same-sex relations would still be so ruthlessly opposed. As someone has already pointed out, the S& G story is simply a scurrilous legend,used in Genesis as a typically racist Jewish slur against the despised Edomites for their lack of hospitality to strangers (one of whom is of course in the story God himself). The same story is used almost word-for-word again in Judges ch19, this time against the Benjamites. Again the main focus is inhospitality. Ezekiel ch16 criticises Sodom & the other nearby towns; but their offence is pride, not sexual. Of course, Leviticus ch 18 (the sex chapter) condemns same-sex acts, and Paul repeats this Semitic prejudice in Romans & Corinthians. Yet the words he uses are unusual, being found nowhere else in ancient literature: not the usual words for homosexual acts. No-one has been able satisfactorily to define what Paul meant: it is likely he is using dirty, insulting gutter expressions referring to pederasty. If so, it throws a new, unattractive light on Paul!! The reason why we need not concern ourselves with these biblical or other “sacred” texts is, of course, because they are wholly culturally-determined, with no connection whatever with religious faith. Why in God’s name should we concern ourselves with the eccentric tribal customs or prejudices of groups living in the Middle East some 2,000 yrs ago?

  • Reverend Sarah

    I will put it plan and simple there is not a concrete Secular reason to not allow Same Sex Marriage ONLY Religious.
    Thank you Aziz for being open minded about the Subject of same sex marriage which is hard to do sometimes when religion comes into the mixture whether it is fully or just in the background.

  • Abid butt

    Dear Aziz
    I don’t understand the reason why you had to take time out and write this article. Was there any dearth of usual topics; which to me means writing about muslims.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Adnan

    This article is laughable! It is evident from your photograph that you are a Dawoodi Bohra. You have very admirably skirted around the issue of what would befall a Bohra person and his/her family in the event of their coming out. Does this mean you are not in support of excommunicating homosexuals from your own faith? If so, please stand up and make it known to the Bohra clergy. I look forward to your next blog post on their reactions.

Previous Posts

Video: (muslim) Mehdi Hasan interviews (atheist) Richard Dawkins at the Oxford Union
This is an excellent debate between the most emphatic atheist of our time, Richard Dawkins, and political journalist Mehdi Hasan. Hasan is brilliantly prepared for the debate and treats Dawkins with utmost respect, but methodically defends belief and religion as a force for good. https://www.you

posted 11:46:28am Apr. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Two Bohras come to aid of Frenchwoman attacked in Mumbai
In the past two months I've traveled to India three times, to attend the funeral and other events after the passing of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (ra). This quite shocking story happened in the Fort area of Mumbai, which is quite close to where I spent much of my time and is considered one of the b

posted 6:20:59pm Mar. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Amidst the grief, solace in the succession of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin
This is a guest post by Durriya Badani The forty day period of mourning has now elapsed, but the profound sadness at the loss of the beloved head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a spiritual mo

posted 9:48:33am Mar. 16, 2014 | read full post »

NYPD's illegal spying on Muslims was legal, says legal system
This is profoundly disappointing but not entirely unexpected: In a decision filed Thursday in federal court in Newark, U.S. District Judge William Martini dismisse

posted 12:44:10pm Feb. 21, 2014 | read full post »

Valentine's Day and Islam - the virtues of mohabbat (love)
Happy Valentine's Day! I am biased towards appreciating Valentine's Day not just for it's Gujarati origins but also because it's my birthday. However, not all Muslims share my appreciation. Here's a typical example: In its official Friday sermon text distributed to mosques in the Muslim-major

posted 6:04:27am Feb. 14, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.