Same-Sex Marriage - English

Biology Is Irrelevant

By Jörg Friedrich30.04.2013Culture and Society

The debate over same-sex marriage shows that we have already abandoned a definition of love based in biology.


Soulness /

In the debate over whether same-sex partnerships should be equal in all legal and fiscal matters to marriage between a man and a woman, one argument goes as follows: If the two partners share the responsibilities and duties of caring for each other, the burden on the rest of society decreases. The state thus ought to recognize and promote such arrangements, for example by making it easier for same-sex couples to transfer and co-own property or by extending tax breaks that have historically been limited to heterosexual couples.

Yet another question emerges: If the granting of benefits hinges on lessening the burden on society, why should tax benefits be limited to two-person partnerships? In the case of heterosexual marriage, the answer is pretty straightforward: Society places value on procreation and on the raising of children, and at least the former requires the active participation of a man and a woman. Additionally, heterosexual marriage has long been seen as the most practical institution to ensure a peaceful and sheltered upbringing of kids. Alternative constellations are possible – in the West as well as in other cultures – but the idea of a two-person heterosexual marriage is most firmly entrenched in our current social fabric.

It’s a different question when same-sex marriage enters the picture: Arguments from procreation aren’t available in this case, and one of the basic distinctions between two-person marriages and other forms of romantic partnership fails. Three or four people may also love each other dearly, vow to take care of each other until death, run a household together, purchase property together, and support each other through sickness and existential sorrow. Indeed, we might say that polygamous relationships remove a bigger burden from the rest of society and should thus be especially valued: Even if one partner dies, the partnership of the others may survive intact.

Why monogamy?

The current fixation on monogamous relationships (which most advocates of same-sex marriage embrace as well) is another holdover from the paradigmatic example of traditional heterosexual relationships. It doesn’t really matter for the political and legal analysis whether we should prefer monogamous relationships for biological reasons – just as biological arguments aren’t helpful in the debate over same-sex marriage. Biology might help us understand why heterosexual couples usually outnumber homosexual couples, but that’s irrelevant in the debate over recognition.

If we abandon the idea that marriage is fundamentally sanctified by the ability to procreate, we’re left with a changed understanding of the family, and of what constitutes its social value: Family can be seen as the community of people who are so devoted to each other that they have agreed to share all important material and immaterial possessions. Politically and legally it doesn’t matter whether this sense of devotion is rooted in biology or not, especially since adoption law now allows for an alternative way of bringing children into the family.

The quest for marriage equality is another step towards a complete re-imagining of personal and intimate partnerships. A few decades into the future, today’s paradigmatic ideas about kinship, family, and partnership will seem unrecognizably antiquated.



Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

What decisions would we make if we deliberated carefully about public policy? Alexander Görlach sat down with Stanford's James Fishkin to discuss deliberative democracy, parliamentary discontent, and the future of the two-party system.

A Violent Tea Party?

For many Europeans the massacre in Arizona is another evidence that political violence is spreading in the United States but this unfortunate event was the deed of a mentally ill person, not a political activist. There is no evidence of an increasing political extremism tearing America apart. Using

Passage to India

The US and Russia don't agree on much - but they are both keen to develop a good relationship with India. How do we know? Look at the arms trade.

"Cities are making us more human"

More than 50 percent of the world's population now live in cities – and there is no end of urbanization in sight. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser believes urbanization to be a solution to many unanswered problems: pollution, depression and a lack of creativity. He spoke with Lars Mensel about the

No Glove, No Love

Contrary to the mantras repeated by the press, HIV infections are not increasing. We need to move away from activist scare tactics and towards complex risk management strategies.

Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept

Nick Bostrom directs the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. He talked with Martin Eiermann about existential risks, genetic enhancements and the importance of ethical discourses about technological progress.

Mobile Sliding Menu