Can Marriage Really Be Redefined?
By Alex Clampett
Same sex marriage in Australia has become a heated debate over recent years and
whilst public support has risen there has yet to have been any major political moves to
legalise it. Coverage of the subject has been prolific and numerous blog posts, articles
and news stories are published on the topic every week. Whilst opinion polls from the
likes of Galaxy Research Polling and Nielsen indicate that between 64 and 68 percent
of Australian’s are in favour of marriage equality, support from politicians and people
in power appears to be considerably lower. Former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard,
famously stated that gay marriage was against her conservative upbringing whilst our
current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has consistently affirmed his opposition to same
sex marriage with statements like “Coalition party policy is that marriage is between a
man and a woman”.
Arguments within the media have explored both sides of the debate regarding
marriage equality, with opinions differing greatly. Two opinion pieces, “Same-Sex
Marriage – what is really at issue” by Andrew Errington for the ABC and “Gay
Marriage Push Is a Slippery Slope” by Andrew Bolt for the Herald Sun, provide
contrasting arguments on the same-sex marriage debate. Although both articles delve
into reasons against legalising same-sex marriage, they have distinctly different
viewpoints on the matter and use language that appeals to their intended audiences as
a tool to progress their arguments. Interestingly, the two articles target different
audiences despite, their shared opposition to gay marriage.
Bolt’s article asserts through its central claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry
destroys the definition of marriage. The article assumes that his audience shares a
similar worldview and uses a causal argument to express how same-sex marriage is a
“slippery slope” that could lead to further degradation of the traditional values that
underpin the institution of marriage. Errington’s article takes a different, more
impartial approach, as he is targeting an audience that supports marriage equality. His
central claim is that same-sex marriage is inherently different to traditional notions of
marriage. This claim is expressed using evaluative-based arguments that seek to
convey his opinions in a fair and objective manner.
Andrew Bolt’s article, Gay Marriage Push Is a Slippery Slope, makes its claim clear
from the outset and gives the reader an immediate understanding of Bolt’s opinion on
the topic. The article, written in December of 2011, was in response to minor changes
that the Labour government made regarding the Marriage Act but his arguments
remain relevant in regards to the overarching marriage equality debate. He opens the
article using emotive language by stating, “it was meant to stop us worrying, but one
bit of Labor’s new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning”. In using the word
“warning” Bolt sets up a causal argument, which insinuates that Labor’s amendment
to the Marriage Act is the first step in a series of damaging events. His use of opinionladen language indicates that he is appealing to a likeminded audience that views gay
marriage as detrimental to society.
Bolt is guilty of relying on a circular argument to express his claim. He makes
frequent use of rhetorical questions to restate his opposition to redefining marriage.
Furthermore, he fails to recognise the fact that the majority of Australian’s are in
support of gay marriage, instead focusing on the population that doesn’t “approve”.
This highlights the “flag waving” nature of the article as he attempts to rally together
a likeminded audience that already shares similar values and concerns:
“what more is gained by same-sex "marriage", a word and tradition reserved
in every culture for the union between a man and a woman?”
“But is it right or useful to get "respect" from those who still don't approve of
same-sex unions just by changing the law to make them call those unions
"marriages"?”
“And where does such forcing stop, once you start?”
Bolt’s main supporting argument, which is explicitly stated in the title of his article, is
that legalising same sex marriage is a “slippery slope” that will lead to further
changes to the Marriage Act. This style of argument is manipulative as it aims to
persuade people to agree with his views by instilling fear and uncertainty regarding
the potential consequences that legalising same sex marriage would have on society.
“When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and
a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite
more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also "respect" unions between a man and two
women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not - religious
backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.”
The language used in this argument is emotive and characterizes gay marriage as
“damaging” and destructive towards traditional notions of marriage and the family
unit. This is a common argument used against gay marriage, but is rendered
ineffective by a lack of evidence to prove his claim. Instead he relies on likening gay
marriage to legalising polygamy, a completely unrelated topic. Bolt is self aware that
his argument is built on an informal fallacy and is quick to dismiss any potential
counter-arguments that would discredit his article.
“Yes, this is the slippery slope argument that social "reformers" sneer at,
arguing we're smart enough to know how much is enough when we start
smashing.”
Bolt’s use of quotation marks around the word reformers is indicative of his contempt
for gay marriage advocates. He uses patronising language to discredit and trivialise
the issue. In order to exonerate himself of relying exclusively on informal fallacy,
Bolt uses an appeal to comparison and likens the gay marriage debate to previous
social causes like abortion and euthanasia.
“In 1969, a Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal in Victoria "to preserve
the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health".
But now that's been tweaked and interpreted to effectively allow even healthy
women to abort healthy babies just weeks from birth.
Second example: Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke started his crusade
by offering death to people he claimed were in terrible pain from terminal
diseases.
But by 2002, as shown in the documentary Mademoiselle and the Doctor, it
appears Nitschke was offering suicide even to healthy people who simply
wanted to die.”
These comparisons indicate that Bolt’s intended audience is primarily Christian, as
abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage have historically received opposition from this
group. By comparing gay marriage to other issues that he deems justify his “slippery
slope” argument Bolt aims to convey the dangerousness of gay marriage. This is
somewhat illogical as both comparisons he uses are reflective of one law leading to
further changes on the same matter. However, his concern that gay marriage will lead
to the legalisation of polygamous marriage is a false analogy, as homosexuality and
polygamy are categorically different topics.
The article, which is primarily built on opinion, is unlikely to effectively persuade
marriage equality advocates into abandoning their beliefs. It is an article that would
appeal to an audience that shares Bolt’s worldview, and overarching warrant, that
marriage is strictly between a man and woman. Additionally, due the arguments
causal claim and its strong appeal to consequences, it may persuade relatively neutral
readers’ who are unsure about any potential ramifications that gay marriage could
instigate.
In contrast to Bolt’s article, Andrew Errington’s article uses much subtler language
and provides a more cohesive argument against same-sex marriage. In fact, Errington
does not explicitly state his warrant and the piece is considerably less blatant in its
opposition to gay marriage. It acts as more of an argumentative explanation of the
values which underpin some people’s opposition to same-sex marriage. It would be
callous to label this article as a “fact based” argument given the subjective nature of
same sex marriage, however, Errington has structured his argument like a factual
report detailing various reasons that a significant proportion of society remains
unsupportive of the issue. This can be seen in the various headlines, such as “Two
Views of Marriage”, “Upholding the Honourable Estate” and “The Desire For
Recognition” which break down his article into a comprehensive report. However, his
argument is evaluative and passes judgment on the ethics of reshaping an ancient
social convention to accommodate same-sex couples. Thus, Errington uses social
facts in conjunction with an evaluative argument in order to convey his, and others’,
values.
Unlike Bolt’s article, Errington is seeking out an audience that supports gay marriage.
His argument does not attempt to change their opinion, but instead to make marriage
equality advocates understand the reasoning behind some opposition towards the
issue. He avoids the excessive use of emotional language and hyperbole, instead
opting for a more balanced and reasonable approach. This is evident in the following
quote, which inadvertently states the articles underlying warrant:
“While we should respect the desire for a publicly visible relationship, we
need to ask whether the demand for recognition is really well-served by giving
the name “Marriage” to same-sex relationships.”
Errington begins his argument with an appeal to authority by quoting US Senator
Clair McCaskill and Australian author Michelle Dicinoski in order to highlight the
growing attitudinal shift towards support for marriage equality. The language used in
the introduction gives the initial impression that the article is in favour of marriage
equality, as he describes the attitudes of opponents to gay marriage as “knee-jerk
conservatism” and “inconceivable”. However, this is intentionally done to set up his
main argument, that not all opposition to same-sex marriage is fuelled by bigotry.
This is explicitly laid out in his central claim:
“I hope to show that opposition to same-sex marriage is not simply irrational
conservative prejudice. Hopefully this will aid mutual understanding, and may
perhaps also reveal some potential common ground when it comes to the deep
issues of recognition at stake for gay and lesbian people.”
This is a highly effective way of introducing the article’s central claim whilst directly
addressing Errington’s intended audience. By using language like “common ground”
and “deep issues of recognition” Errington is appealing to popular opinion and is able
to capture the attention of gay marriage advocates in a non-aggressive manner.
Although the underlying warrant of the article is that marriage should be between a
man and a woman, it is communicated in a more nuanced and thought provoking way
than Andrew Bolt’s article. Perhaps this is because where Bolt relies mostly on
opinion, Errington’s personal opinion is implicit and the article uses argument to
reasonably justify its claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is not merely
“irrational conservative prejudice”.
Errington’s first major argument against same-sex marriage is that it is inherently
incompatible with the traditional meaning of marriage. He appeals to precedent by
quoting the Anglican Book of Common prayer to convey that marriage is an
institution, which is defined by a structure that is not in line with common notions that
marriage is defined solely by “love”.
“An expeditious way to get a handle on this older understanding is through the
preface to the marriage service in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer,
which until only a few decades ago was read at most weddings. Marriage, it
declares, is "an honourable estate," meaning that it is an "institution" which
demands respect in and of itself, and not simply by virtue of the choices and
sincerity of those involved.”
“It is here that the point of difference with the view common today appears
most clearly. For the preface lists three causes, or purposes, of marriage.
These are:
- the procreation and nurture of children;
- as the only proper place for sexual intimacy; and
- for the sake of lifelong companionship.”
Next Errington uses an appeal to both precedent and facts by arguing that malefemale marriage is a historically significant union, which should be upheld as it has
shaped the very foundation of human life and society. He states that:
“The central underlying conviction of the older view can be summed up as
this: male-female marriage is a natural good that ought, therefore, to be
respected. In other words, marriage cannot be reduced to a social convention.”
“Yet it should be remembered that the older view is not without empirical
support or intuitive credibility. There is wide and ancient cultural testimony to
marriage as a basic fact of human life.”
This argument is effective in connecting with Errington’s intended audience as it does
not ridicule the idea of same-sex marriage but instead seeks to convey an
understanding that the historical significance of marriage means that it “cannot be
reduced to a social convention”. However, the idea that “marriage is a basic fact of
human life” is a hasty overgeneralisation, as organised marriage is a religious concept
that does not take the same form in every culture and was non-existent, at least in its
current form, before Christianity. For example, before Christianity, societies in
Ancient Rome, Greece and parts of China had same-sex marriages that were equally
as valued as those between members of the opposite sex. Thus, an effective counterargument would be that same-sex marriage also has a “wide and ancient cultural
testimony” and should be legalised to uphold historical precedent.
In his final argument Errington addresses the notion that same-sex couples are
seeking equal recognition in history and law. He describes this as a “completely
normal and reasonable human concern” which “can and should be understood by
opponents of same-sex marriage”. This type of language is indicative of the balanced
and fair tone of the article and increases its appeal for those that disagree with his
worldview. He then launches his counter-argument and conclusion by appealing to
consequence and questioning whether same-sex marriage will harm an ancient and
fundamental societal structure:
“Nevertheless, we need to ask whether the demand for recognition is really
well-served by giving the name "marriage" to same-sex relationships. On the
surface, certainly, this is precisely what it achieves, because marriage is still
regarded by many, in one way or another, as "an honourable estate."
“And so, while we may and should respect this desire for the stability and
value of a relationship to be publicly visible, and seek ways to enable that
to happen, we should also recognise that if in fact marriage is not simply
any loving relationship of lifelong intention, but something else - if
marriage is in fact a natural good of the kind it has traditionally been
understood to be - then it is no true service to anyone to declare it to be
so. This is the proper argument against same-sex marriage. We may not
agree with it, but we should at least understand it.”
Errington’s article is strongly argumentative and it systematically seeks to
provide balanced reasoning to account for opposition to same-sex marriage. He
assumes his audience is in favour of same-sex marriage and appeals to
precedent, facts and consequences in order to justify his claim, whilst retaining a
fair and objective tone in order to effectively reach an understanding with his
audience.
In contrasting the two articles it is clear that they operate under the same
warrant that marriage is between a man and woman and cannot be redefined.
Bolt’s article addresses a likeminded audience using a causal argument laden
with evaluative language and informal fallacies in order to manipulate his
audience and skew their views on the repercussions that gay marriage will have
on our society. In juxtaposition, Errington uses a structured evaluative argument
and a balanced tone in order to convey the values of opponents of gay marriage
to an assumed audience of gay marriage supporters. Errington’s article presents
a superior argument as it strives to be objective and provides justification for its
arguments, whilst Bolt’s piece is largely opinion based and does not include
significant support for its arguments. Both articles provide valuable insight into
the gay marriage debate and the worldview of that underpins continued political
and social opposition to marriage equality.
Links to Articles
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-push-is-a-slipperyslope/story-e6frfhqf1226213562479?nk=68a56b0ceee7a65b7f691873d22ce9d2
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/30/3747877.htm