NOM BLOG

Philosophy Prof: Same-Sex Marriage Would Discriminate

 

Richard Berquist is an emeritus professor of philosophy, University of St. Thomas, and writes in theĀ StarTribune:

"...The paradoxical result of all this is that while there is no discrimination in refusing to recognize the homosexual relationship as marriage -- since it is essentially different from the heterosexual relationship -- there would be discrimination in granting the privileges of marriage to homosexual couples while denying them to other personal friendships.

Imagine two dear friends of the same sex, or a brother and sister who live together. Although their relationships would not involve sex, they might find it advantageous to enjoy the legal and economic privileges of marriage. Why would their claim for these benefits be any less reasonable than the claims of homosexual couples?

So if we wish to subsidize homosexual friendships, we must, to avoid discrimination, subsidize all loving personal friendships. If that is absurd, so is gay marriage."

4 Comments

  1. Pat
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    Kinda given up on even *trying* to make sense, then?

  2. Ash
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    "So if we wish to subsidize homosexual friendships, we must, to avoid discrimination, subsidize all loving personal friendships. If that is absurd, so is gay marriage."

    Great point. To sanction and subsidize all relationships is the ultimate goal of many ssm supporters in university circles.

  3. Zack
    Posted November 4, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    @Pat

    I think the left has given up on "trying" to understand.

  4. Chairm
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:41 am | Permalink

    It is a good point that SSMers dodge.

    What is it about the same-sex sexual relationship that supporters of SSM deem to be of such great societal significance that it merits a special status.

    Marital status is a special status. So how is the same-sex sexual relationship superior to the range of relationship types that populate the non-marriage (and non-SSM) category?

    They fail on this simple query, because their SSM idea is a conceptual mess and its imposition would need be a brazen example of the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. That is the meaning of an unjustified act of government.

    What makes SSM so very special such that it merits special status? But what makes it so different from nonmarriage? SSMers are really at loss to explain and, thus, to justify their demands.