New Zealand has just done itself credit by legalizing same-sex marriage. It's 'the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to do so'. In the process it has also brought forth a new effort at silliness in opposing same-sex marriage. This one is due to Professor Rex Ahdar of the Faculty of Law, University of Otago, and it is at least novel in trying to add some philosophical depth to the argument against change.
What is this Ahdarian depth? It consists of holding that there is a 'true nature' or 'true essence' of marriage - being the conjugal model in which 'marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman' - such that opposite-sex unions are a 'real phenomenon, not just a human invention or convention'. This is similar to the fact, Ahdar says, that while 'a crocodile is a crocodile, a tree is a tree'. Yes, that is indeed so. Even if we decided to have a single word covering both crocodiles and trees, there would remain a natural difference between the one type of thing and the other. And there are also, of course, differences between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, as suggested by the qualifiers. But where does it come from that only one type here may be called 'marriage' and included under a given set of legal conventions and procedures? Who decided this? Ahdar again: 'We did. We decided that marriage involves the comprehensive sexual union of a man and a woman' - we being 'every culture, tribe and race since antiquity etc.' So then we can decide afresh, no?
Apparently no. Why not? Because, says the man, earlier ages didn't get it wrong. Or, at any rate, he thinks not. Just like the natural difference between a crocodile and a tree, the social bond of marriage has to remain forever what it was because Ahdar thinks previous ages got things right on this score. His 'deeper' philosophical argument, in other words, amounts to no more than the unsupported opinion that an existing institution shouldn't be changed.
For a contrast read the column by Fintan O'Toole here:
I don't respect the arguments against gay marriage. I don't respect them because I don't think they are really arguments at all. They are a pseudo-rational veneer on irrational prejudice.
(Thanks: AW and CT.)