#publisher next Google+ National Review Online February 9 Issue [pic_header_look-inside_2012_G.png] Subscribe Print Subscribe Digital Gift: NR Print Gift: NR / Digital NRO Header Navigation * Home * Corner * Agenda * Campaign Spot * Home Front * Right Field * Bench Memos * Media Blog * Feed * Planet Gore * Unnaturally Political * Audio, Video & Galleries + The Latest + Three Martini Lunch + Mad Dogs & Englishmen + Between the Covers + Opinion Duel + Ricochet + Firing Line + Slideshows * Kudlow * Pryce-Jones * Phi Beta Cons * Postmodern Conservative * Human Exceptionalism * Tweet Tracker [icon_twitter-bird_nav.png] * Log In * Register Secondary NRO Navigation * Articles * Authors * RSS * Store * Donate * Media Kit * Magazine Help * Contact * NR Institute Close To: ________________________________________ Your Email: ________________________________________ Your Name: ________________________________________ Subject: How Academic Philosophers Are Trying to Submit January 23, 2015 4:00 AM How Academic Philosophers Are Trying to End The Gay-Marriage Debate — And Getting It Wrong Philosophers won’t tolerate some viewpoints, and they’re trying to make traditional marriage one of them. By Spencer Case * Archive * Latest * RSS (Chip Somodevilla/Getty) Print Text [icon_text-less.jpg] [icon_text-more.jpg] Comments 799 Is there any point in continuing to debate same-sex marriage? Despite their field’s reputation for interminable controversy, academic philosophers do consider some topics resolved — and a number now think the same-sex marriage debate is one of them. The case in favor of same-sex marriage has been so firmly established, they believe, that further dialogue is at best a waste of time, and at worst an affirmation of bigotry. “The topics seem, to me, settled, and the controversies over them frankly silly,” writes philosopher Justin Weinberg at his widely viewed philosophy blog, Daily Nous. “As far as I can tell, there are zero plausible arguments for opposing homosexual sex and zero plausible arguments for a state offering different kinds of marriage rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.” Weinberg plans to continue teaching same sex-marriage as a controversy in his contemporary-ethics course, but primarily in order to shed light on other issues and to expose the “highly problematic” arguments of those who oppose it. He mulls relegating the topic to a course on “historical moral problems,” where it can be discussed alongside slavery and other topics he considers settled. As a graduate student in philosophy, I’ve heard other tenured philosophers say far less temperate things off the record. Some seem to think that treating same-sex marriage as a controversial subject at all is itself tantamount to legitimating bigotry. They look forward to the blessed day when skepticism of their enlightened views is no longer tolerated in any university classroom. Granted, some Catholic philosophers — Robby George, for instance — are still vocal in their opposition to same-sex marriage. Some other thinkers, like self-described “Gay Moralist” John Corvino, continue to respectfully debate conservative opponents. Nevertheless, the recent political victories of the gay-rights movement seem to have tempted a growing minority to adopt a smug, and sloppy, intellectual intolerance. Some philosophical conclusions really are uncontroversial, and for good reason. One could not question the immorality of the Rwandan genocide without showing callousness to the victims of its horrors. To start, though, discussion of same-sex marriage doesn’t so obviously show callousness to homosexuals: Conservatives’ dispute with liberals is over the details of what a “right to marry” means, not whether some people have this right while others do not. Philosophers have been thinking — and, it goes without saying, disagreeing — about marriage since the time of Plato. In Family Politics, Scott Yoner demonstrates that modern philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, and others have developed sophisticated and wildly different accounts of marriage. That is enough to show, at least, that there are many unsettled philosophical questions about the nature of marriage. Conservatives prefer to frame the same-sex marriage debate around questions such as, “What is marriage?,” “What role(s) does marriage play in society?,” and “What relationships should be eligible to count as marriages?” Proponents of same-sex marriage generally decline to give answers to these questions, preferring instead to make their case on the alleged arbitrariness of the “one man, one woman” norm. That argument may be effective, but it cannot settle the debate in the way the triumphalists claim it has been. To resolve this question rigorously as a philosophical matter, proponents must also account for how the “one man, one woman” norm stacks up alongside the likely alternatives. In saying this, I’m not appealing to any presumption in favor of tradition: Philosophers uninclined, or even disinclined, to tradition still sometimes find themselves stuck with views because the rivals seem even less palatable. Pages * 1 * 2 * Next › * Last » Print Text [icon_text-less.jpg] [icon_text-more.jpg] NATIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS POLICY View the discussion thread. Subscribe to National Review * Print * Digital * iOS * [icon_google-play.png] Google * Android Connect with NRO * [facebook.png] * [twitter.png] * [google-plus.png] * [youtube.png] * [email.png] * [rss.png] NRO Live Blog Feed Forcing Doctors to Kill Human Exceptionalism Love Affair Between Iowans, Ted Cruz Continues The Corner R.I.P., Mr. Cub Right Field This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—January 24 Bench Memos Footballs. Footballs! Always Refer to Them as Footballs! The Campaign Spot Secrets, Perspectives, and Accreditation Postmodern Conservative The Minimum Wage Referendums The Agenda [spacer.gif] © National Review Online 2015. All Rights Reserved. Home | NR / Digital Home | Donate | Media Kit | Site Problems | View Mobile Site | Contact Us | Privacy Policy