On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 9:21 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> One such rational justification is that one ought not modify > – or modify further – rules for an institution that is very old and > foundational in society, as well as important to our legal system, until one > sees more than a few years’ experience with such an institution. Again, one > might disagree with this justification (I do, on balance), but I find it hard > to see how it’s irrational. Here's how it's irrational: How can one gather experience with such an institution if it doesn't exist because it's not codified? If gay marriage doesn't exist, how can you gain experience to make a modification based on experience of it? > > Another justification is the view that opposite-sex relationships are better > for society (for instance, because they produce more children, More children in a country already suffering from disparate resource distribution, wage inequality, wars, famine, disease, pollution? How is that "better"? > or because they provide children with both male and female parents) Please demonstrate how having both a male and a female parent is "better". A recent Australian study suggests that children of same-sex marriages are healthier than opposite-sex marriages. > than same-sex relationships, and that the fact that many > non-entirely-heterosexual people are bisexual rather than purely homosexual– > especially among women – suggests that there are at least some people who > could be influenced to choose heterosexual relationships over homosexual > relationships. (See Laumann et al. (1994), reported in relevant part at > http://www.volokh.com/posts/1184344872.shtml, for data on the relative number > of bisexuals vs. pure homosexuals.) One can be born a Jew, or one can "convert". It's still irrational to discriminate against them. Why is this important to the debate about same-sex marriage? > One might disagree that we want more children, With good reason! See my list of horrors above > or that in the long term opposite-sex relationships will produce more > children (given reproductive technology) --what are your reason for wanting more children? Especially since given reproductive technology now allows same-sex couples have children, and that we're seeing more and more children of such unions? > , or that having a male and female parent is indeed markedly beneficial for > children, Which has been shown no better than same-sex families, and there's a list of such studies over at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting > or that any significant number of bisexuals will indeed be swayed towards > heterosexuality by the marriage rules; And just *how* is that a good thing? Considering the high rate of heterosexual divorce (which, IMO, isn't such a bad thing, considering it's cruel to force a person to stay in a marriage with someone they don't love), wouldn't offering them the chance to "pursue happiness" where they can find it be much more magnanimous? > or one may conclude (again, as do I) that the benefits of same-sex marriage > (e.g., reduction in sexually transmitted diseases, more stability for the > many children who will in any event be raised by same-sex couples, etc.) > outweigh the possible costs. But again I don’t see how the justification I > outline above is irrational, as opposed to not sufficient to carry the day. They are irrational because they are not based in fact, Mr. Volokh. But considering we are an irrational species, it's not such a bad thing. We're dealing with nebulous concepts that have never been fully defined: "good", "bad", "moral", "obligation". These are things that shift and slip, and are pretty hard to pin down. > > Finally, one can of course conclude that as a matter of moral obligation, > same-sex relationships should be treated equally with opposite-sex > relationships even if there are social costs to this – or that there should > be a presumption of equal treatment that can only be rebutted if we are > really quite confident that the equal treatment would generate social costs. > But that’s not an argument about scientific fact or rationality. Scientific fact give us a basis, Mr. Volokh; If someone tries to say that children do poorly in a same-sex family, science steps in and says to take that argument off the table. It's not true. It's irrational to continue to say so if you have no proof to the contrary. Rationality comes in and asks questions--"what, exactly, is "good" and "moral" in denying/allowing marriage equality?" Irrationality is refusing to even consider answering those questions. "Because I said so, that's why!" > > Eugene > > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Jean Dudley > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:00 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent > > Would you kindly provide one argument that isn't irrational? Understand that > it will indeed be scrutinized for basis in scientific fact, and that it if > fails, it will have to be deemed irrational. > On Jul 1, 2013, at Mon, Jul 1, 6:35 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" > <richard.esenb...@marquette.edu> wrote: > > > My intended point is that the notion that opposition to same sex marriage - > even if based on traditional arguments about the morality of homosexual > relationships - cannot be dismissed as irrational or hateful. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
