In Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times, he makes what he might call "enlightened" case against the legalization of gay marriage.
Mr. Douthat
He basically argues that lifelong, procreative, heterosexual monogamy should be defended not because it is universal and natural, because it is not. But rather because it, as an ideal, is "one of the great ideas of Western civilization."
He somehow makes the leap from an unsupported declaration that this vision of marriage is ideal to the conclusion that we need to "defend" it by excluding from the definition of marriage homosexual unions, without excluding serial and/or non-procreative heterosexual unions, without any explanation.
But I want to note a spectacular 180 degree shift in anti-gay marriage arguments here. For years, those against gay marriage (and any gayness at all) maintained that homosexuality itself is unnatural. Humans were given a Tab A and a Slot B, and the instruction manual clearly explains what to do with them. And if it's natural, it's good; doing something unnatural with those thingies is an abomination.
Yet here, Mr. Douthat argues that monogamy is unnatural.
"Nor is lifelong heterosexual monogamy obviously natural in the way that most Americans understand the term. If 'natural' is defined to mean 'congruent with our biological instincts,' it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available."
So while some argue that heterosexuality is natural and therefore is good, in this case, Mr. Douthat argues that promiscuity and polygamy are natural, but we must rise above that, and act in a civilized, rational manner, in keeping with our finest cultural traditions.
Why is the ideal of true heterosexual monogamy so worth cherishing?
"This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship."
Isn't a commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually same human beings an even greater surrender of their reproductive self-interest? Shouldn't that make it even more admirable?
Of course not. And neither type of fidelity is necessarily against reproductive self-interest. Nor would that make it any more deserving of legislative support.
This conservative obsession with what is "natural" is laughably disingenuous because it's used all the time on both sides of its own argument. Heterosexuality, the mother-child bond, the idea that the strongest of the group leads it and takes the most rewards — they're all the natural way, and that, in and of itself proscribes it as admirable and desirable. Violence (well, certain violence — violence against property rights), promiscuity, cheating — they're natural, primitive, animalistic impulses and it's our obligation to rise above them. Wouldn't it be a bit more intellectually honest to say that regardless of what's deemed natural or unnatural, we're going to rationally decide on a behavior's morality on its own merits?
But this "nature" obsession is also fallacious because it's all a bunch of meaningless hooey (pardon my French) in the first place. Humans are animals, so if humans do it, it's natural, Chester.
Of course homosexuality is natural. We're pretty sure there's a human genetic component to it. And various forms of homosexual behavior is seen all over the animal world.
And of course monogamy is "natural." And "congruent with our biological instincts." Lots of other animals practice monogamy: countless species of birds form monogamous bonds for a breeding season or for life. Rumor is that many mammals, such as foxes and beavers form these bonds that are "arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable." Even our fellow apes, gibbons, enter into monogamous relationships for most of their lives. They must have heard about Western Civilization's Greatest Idea. (Our closest relatives, chimps, on the other hand, are total sluts.)
In more biological ignorance, Mr. Douthat implies that our more "natural" state is polygamy. Actually, there is an excellent indicator of how strong a species' impulse for polygamy is: sexual dimorphism in size. Males are often larger than the female of a polygamous species so that they can fight off other male invaders to their harem. One of the most fiercely polygamous animals is the elephant seal, with one male roaring and brawling his way to exclusive access to up to fifty cows. In this species, the male typically weighs more than three times what a female weighs.
Mr. Elephant Seal, with one of the Mrs.'s
Closer to home, gorillas form polygamous relationships, and the males are over twice the size of the females. Gibbons are monogamous, and the males and females are exactly the same size. Where do we fall? Human males apparently weigh on average about 10% more than females, so while there may be some propensity for polygamous behavior in humans, there may not be great evolutionary pressure on that behavior.
All this is to say that our "natural" state is not only undefined and unknowable, but ultimately irrelevant to morality and public benefit.
But the truly breathtaking aspect of this column is how Mr. Douthat thinks it's okay to use this flimsy, sloppy bit of sophistry to justify denying millions of good Americans a right they want and deserve.