Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Lewis, Secular Marriage and Christian Marriage

C. S. Lewis wrote:

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

This passage suggests that we should operate with two distinct conceptions of marriage, and that we should not be looking to the government to uphold the Christian conception. While this does not provide a case for same sex marriage, it does undercut certain ways of arguing against it. Some people argue that there is a univocal conception of marriage ordained by God when he created Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve), and that that conception must be upheld by government. A person can start an affair, divorce his wife, and then marry the person he is having an affair with, and if he does so, the government asks only if the divorce was executed legally. Despite being the "guilty party" in the collapse of his prior marriage, he is free to marry again.  If we go with Lewis on this, government is free to decide who is married and who is not as it sees fit for its own purposes, and this may or may not fit with what Christian church might believe. So, opponents of gay marriage need to find another line of argument. 

I've always considered government to be a poor guardian of the sacred institution of marriage. I would expect that people who think government should be limited would recognize the limitations of government in this. 

Here is a blog post to the same effect. 

21 comments:

Crude said...

At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.

The Mahommedans didn't. But a secular law passed on secular grounds certainly did attempt that.

I've always considered government to be a poor guardian of the sacred institution of marriage. I would expect that people who think government should be limited would recognize the limitations of government in this.

So, you're taking the kind of libertarian line which argues government should be out of the marriage business altogether?

And really, who's using the government as a 'guardian' in that sense? I think most people favoring traditional marriage don't see it as a guardian so much as a bulwark in the passive sense. It's the difference between a conscious, active defender and a passive entity like a wall.

Some people argue that there is a univocal conception of marriage ordained by God when he created Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve), and that that conception must be upheld by government.

I used to believe this, until I realized it was intellectually dishonest on a very real level.

I wonder, Victor, if you ever read this article? If this is your first encounter, what are your thoughts on it?

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

I don't think Victor was saying he wanted government "out of the marriage business" altogether, but rather that he'd like to see a clear distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the institution. But there'd still be a definite governmental role.

Civil unions, anyone?

Crude said...

I don't think Victor was saying he wanted government "out of the marriage business" altogether, but rather that he'd like to see a clear distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the institution.

And my link to Stanley Fish questions the very idea of a distinction between secular and religious aspects.

But there'd still be a definite governmental role.

Why? So government is a poor guardian of the sacred institution of marriage... but it's really good at being the guardian of the civil aspects, what with no fault divorce and the like? I think Victor's argument, if it has strength, is at its strongest when it's across the board: "The government should stay out of marriage, period." He himself was echoing libertarian principles with his reply. But his argument suffers when he tries to get into a halfway house between the two points.

Civil unions, anyone?

If you still think pro-gay-marriage proponents want those, I have some bad news for you. Those were never offered sincerely - ever. They were viewed as a stepping stone to gay marriage. Opposing gay marriage and saying you support civil unions doesn't win you praise anymore. It wins you accusations of bigotry.

B. Prokop said...

I don't give a damn what either side thinks, and I care not who calls me a bigot. But civil unions seems like a good compromise. Same-sex couples get whatever benefits they desire (hospital visits, etc.), and institutions aren't compelled to act against their principles.

Crude said...

I don't give a damn what either side thinks, and I care not who calls me a bigot.

I respect that. I'm simply telling you this has become politically impractical. If you're only talking in terms of ideals, that's fine.

How do you feel about civil unions for absolutely every group, then? Polygamists, etc?

Syllabus said...

"How do you feel about civil unions for absolutely every group, then? Polygamists, etc?"

Not to be that guy, but that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope argument. You might be able to make an argument taking that line of thinking one way or another, but that's not the way to do it.

B. Prokop said...

Who, me? I'd leave things the way they are. I'm neither for nor against civil unions - just sayin' they sound like a good compromise. What I'd really love is for everyone to forget the whole thing! (Probably not gonna happen, though.)

And although there is much merit to Syllabus's bring up the slippery slope argument - before you get worried about such things, remember that the country would have to go through the whole debate process all over again for polygamists, etc., and I don't think they'd stand a chance in the court of public opinion.

Crude said...

Not to be that guy, but that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope argument. You might be able to make an argument taking that line of thinking one way or another, but that's not the way to do it.

It wasn't an argument. It was a question.

Syllabus said...

"It wasn't an argument. It was a question."

Fair enough.

grodrigues said...

@Syllabus:

""How do you feel about civil unions for absolutely every group, then? Polygamists, etc?"

Not to be that guy, but that sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope argument."

It is not a slippery slope argument but a reductio. The same logic that leads to pleading for "marriage" for same sex couples can be used to plead for "marriage" for any arrangement whatsoever.

grodrigues said...

@Syllabus:

And by the way, "slippery slope" arguments can also be -- and in this particular case, it *is* -- a slanderous term for "a posteriori, prudential arguments".

Syllabus said...

"It is not a slippery slope argument but a reductio. The same logic that leads to pleading for "marriage" for same sex couples can be used to plead for "marriage" for any arrangement whatsoever."

Whiiiiiiich is why I included this bit: "You might be able to make an argument taking that line of thinking one way or another, but that's not the way to do it." It's the construction of the argument - question, excuse me - that I objected to, not necessarily the endpoint of the argument.

"And by the way, "slippery slope" arguments can also be -- and in this particular case, it *is* -- a slanderous term for "a posteriori, prudential arguments"."

I'm not saying any formulation of this kind of argument is incorrect, only that certain kinds are.

B. Prokop said...

I'm missing something here. Why is a slippery slope argument considered an a posteriori? I don't see the connection.

Crude said...

Bob,

And although there is much merit to Syllabus's bring up the slippery slope argument - before you get worried about such things,

Who said I'm worrying? As I said, I just asked a question.

That said...

remember that the country would have to go through the whole debate process all over again for polygamists, etc., and I don't think they'd stand a chance in the court of public opinion.

First, they may only have to go with a single state.

Second, public opinion shifts pretty fast. Gay marriage was unthinkable a decade ago.

Third, while I appreciate pragmatism, I also like to know what ideal should be striven for. So your entire response is weird to me: it's like you're trying to be pragmatic (here's a good compromise!), without actually being pragmatic (LGBT groups won't settle for this, conservative groups that used to no longer will because they now realize it really was intended to be nothing more than a stepping stone anyway). I'd say you were ditching pragmatism for idealism (this is the best solution!) but you already ruled THAT out too.

So it just doesn't seem to go anywhere as a suggestion.

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

It's like a lot of other things in society - there is no solution that is simultaneously practical and possible. Lump this matter in with smoking, drugs, guns, deficit spending, pornography, and gambling, etc. None of these issues have a snowball's chance of ever being solved in the real world. But that doesn't prevent me from having thoughts on how they ought to be solved.

grodrigues said...

@Syllabus:

"I'm not saying any formulation of this kind of argument is incorrect, only that certain kinds are."

This is derailing a bit off topic, but this claim is vacuous. In order to show that a given argument is invalid, it does not suffice to show that instantiates an invalid, fallacious form, for after all it could also instantiate a valid one, and the latter *is* sufficient to assert the validity of the argument. After all, every argument, including a *valid* one, instantiates some invalid form. To take up just one example, consider the modus ponens deductive rule. In symbolic form:

p, p -> q : q

The two premises p, p -> q are logically equivalent to the conjunction of p and p -> q. Rename this conjunction r, and you have

r : q

which is about as fallacious as can be.

So certain forms of the argument are invalid? Shrug shoulders.

@B. Prokop:

"I'm missing something here. Why is a slippery slope argument considered an a posteriori? I don't see the connection."

My bad. The reason I inserted a posteriori is because the slippery slope argument, or better said the prudential argument, is logically dependent on the reductio form of the argument. More precisely, the first necessary move of SSM advocates is to deny the natural law conception of marriage and the essentialist picture that goes with it, and replace it with a conventionalist picture ultimately grounded on the private will of the involved parties. But if what counts as marriage depends solely on the diktats of private wills, then anything and everything can count as marriage. The reductio being done, if anything and everything can count as marriage in theory, then anything and everything will count as marriage in practice because marriage has become an airy nothing that cannot be confidently located. And a woman can marry the Eiffel tower. A man can marry his dog. A man can marry himself.

Syllabus said...

"This is derailing a bit off topic, but this claim is vacuous. In order to show that a given argument is invalid, it does not suffice to show that instantiates an invalid, fallacious form, for after all it could also instantiate a valid one, and the latter *is* sufficient to assert the validity of the argument. After all, every argument, including a *valid* one, instantiates some invalid form. To take up just one example, consider the modus ponens deductive rule. In symbolic form:"

Did you actually read all I wrote? I said explicitly that I don't object to the endpoint of the argument, only to certain ways of getting there.

grodrigues said...

@Syllabus:

"Did you actually read all I wrote?"

It seems we are talking past each other, as this exact same question is my reply to you.

Syllabus said...

We may in fact be doing so. From what I understand, you're saying that in order to falsify a point, it is not sufficient to show that a formulation of an argument leading to that point is incorrect. Is that more or less a summation of what you're doing? Because if it is, then I'm completely with you there.

I'm not saying that the point is wrong because a certain version of an argument leading to that point is fallacious. What I am saying is that I think certain ways of getting at the point are at best unhelpful and at worst wrong. Does that clear things up?

grodrigues said...

@Syllabus:

"From what I understand, you're saying that in order to falsify a point, it is not sufficient to show that a formulation of an argument leading to that point is incorrect. Is that more or less a summation of what you're doing?"

Pretty much.

"I'm not saying that the point is wrong because a certain version of an argument leading to that point is fallacious. What I am saying is that I think certain ways of getting at the point are at best unhelpful and at worst wrong. Does that clear things up?"

Yes. With the caveat that, as a corollary of my point, saying that there are "certain ways of getting at the point are at best unhelpful and at worst wrong", while something I agree with, is not the most helpful or informative of sentences. But if you complain that at this point I am being an insufferable pedant, then I am also forced to agree.

Syllabus said...

Nah, it's fine. I've just mashed through these swamps enough times to want to head off any avenues of conversation that seem to be non-starters at the pass - which sometimes means I make hasty generalizations and don't clarify other things.

So yeah, a bit pedantic, but that's just a euphemism for thorough in my book.