'Fickle' author, fickle arguments
Matthew Taylor
Issue date: 1/29/09 Section: Opinion
A tragedy occurred at the end of last semester. An interesting debate on the legalization of gay marriage was concluded by a sophomoric stunt authored by Jake Morgan, entitled "Fickle is the fear of gay marriage" (Opinions, Collegian, Dec. 4). According to him, opposition to gay marriage is based on little more than the widely-held instinct that anal sex is "icky." The audacity of this sweeping statement astounded me. Multitudes of honest people hold any of dozens of good reasons against it.
Since Mr. Morgan holds so many rational opinions of his own, he might find the courtesy to believe the same capacity of his countrymen. And how casually he avoids the obvious: the reaction is an aesthetic judgment. The instinct in man for beauty is an important guide for our moral sense, worth paying attention to.
Mr. Morgan smugly cites his carefully researched statistics from the U.S. Government Accountability Office 1997 report on the number of federal rights based on marital status, counting them at 1,049. Incidentally, he failed to check their updated 2004 report, which puts the current number at 1,138. He implies that this number represents a cornucopia of benefits for the freely choosing individual, as well as authoritarian discrimination against certain sexualities, but he ignores the early statement in the report that "no conclusions can be drawn from its identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people."
Details matter. For instance, under national law, singles enjoy more tax breaks than those married. But really, the laws are not for or against marriage. They are the consequence of multiple legislatures facing an irrepressible institution, about which, like any other institution, laws must be made.
Consequent on his observation, he presents an argument the twisted absurdity of which I haven't heard since the People's Front of Judea left Brian hanging to be martyred on the cross. Apparently, limiting the marriage of homosexuals to members of the opposite sex is identical to forcing "unwilling citizens" to forfeit that choice. Thus, I should be allowed to marry a cactus if I wanted. But I expect he would deny me such a right, because he probably believes that there is something fundamental to marriage that limits the right of the individual to define it for himself; certainly that the right to marriage is not simply a right to a basket of economic benefits. This limit is exactly what the current law recognizes, and has recognized even from the days of the Athenian Empire, when homosexual relationships were openly practiced and occasionally celebrated.
Since Mr. Morgan holds so many rational opinions of his own, he might find the courtesy to believe the same capacity of his countrymen. And how casually he avoids the obvious: the reaction is an aesthetic judgment. The instinct in man for beauty is an important guide for our moral sense, worth paying attention to.
Mr. Morgan smugly cites his carefully researched statistics from the U.S. Government Accountability Office 1997 report on the number of federal rights based on marital status, counting them at 1,049. Incidentally, he failed to check their updated 2004 report, which puts the current number at 1,138. He implies that this number represents a cornucopia of benefits for the freely choosing individual, as well as authoritarian discrimination against certain sexualities, but he ignores the early statement in the report that "no conclusions can be drawn from its identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people."
Details matter. For instance, under national law, singles enjoy more tax breaks than those married. But really, the laws are not for or against marriage. They are the consequence of multiple legislatures facing an irrepressible institution, about which, like any other institution, laws must be made.
Consequent on his observation, he presents an argument the twisted absurdity of which I haven't heard since the People's Front of Judea left Brian hanging to be martyred on the cross. Apparently, limiting the marriage of homosexuals to members of the opposite sex is identical to forcing "unwilling citizens" to forfeit that choice. Thus, I should be allowed to marry a cactus if I wanted. But I expect he would deny me such a right, because he probably believes that there is something fundamental to marriage that limits the right of the individual to define it for himself; certainly that the right to marriage is not simply a right to a basket of economic benefits. This limit is exactly what the current law recognizes, and has recognized even from the days of the Athenian Empire, when homosexual relationships were openly practiced and occasionally celebrated.
Be the first to comment on this story