• 26/02/2023
• By wizewebsite
• 355 Views

There is no need to change the marriage institute.Shouldn't we have the arguments for homosexual marriages thought out better?|Civic institute<

David Černý in his comment defends the confession of the Institute of Marriage and Homosexual couples.There are no reasons to make them the possibility to marry their marriages.At the same time criticizes the arguments of supporters of marriage as a bunch of man and woman.It also copes with the attitudes of the so -called.new theory of natural law.As a result, black text exceeds the common arguments in the Czech debate about the same -sex marriage.But some of his positions lead to deeper questions that cannot be neglected.Their fuller reflection illustrates the pitfalls of the debate on the legalization of homosexual marriages.

How to understand marriage?

Its argument begins with a black overview of motifs that lead people to join marriage.It mentions factors such as expression of love and devotion or signaling the creation of a family environment.Homosexual couples are also able to do such things, and therefore marriage should not be denied.But if the black essence of marriage is linked with love, devotion or raising children, people would easily fit into the definition of a marriage in larger groups.Would not say black that they are eg.Polyamorists also capable of love, devotion or parenting?If yes, then he is missing in his text reflection of other consequences of his concept.

Black also draws that "the nature of the relationship between man and woman and between individuals of the same sex is the same".This is perhaps too strong assertion due to its premise.In addition, we have the reasons to assume that this does not necessarily have to be so systematically.Some experts speak in some homosexual couples eg.by a greater tendency to the so -called.to open relationships.E.g.According to psychologist Colleen Hoff from the State University of San Francisco, they do not have fays or infidelity as negative as in pairs of heterosexual.Michael Bronki of Harvard also talks about the greater diversion from monogamy.

Such an approach to relationships is therefore rather in contradiction with the current concept of marriage and family in our country.Perception of loyalty as a sign of an institution of marriage is eg.Formally anchored as amended by current legislation.It's not just about pure formalism, because even this aspect of legislation can sometimes play a role in court proceedings.In addition, the citizens themselves perceive infidelity as an important factor in relationships.According to the survey of the 2019 family conducted by the Research Institute of Labor and Social Affairs, infidelity is one of the main reasons for the break -up of Czech families.

Marriage institution and heterosexual relationships

In addition, Black does not pay any other motivations of joining marriage, for example.out of economic theory.Gary Becker, Nobel Prize winner at the University of Chicago, in his classic work on family economics, sees marriage as an institution that allows reducing transaction costs and work specialization.This is also allowed by biological differences between men and women.About this aspect of relationship complementarity, however, the same -sex pairs are typically deprived of.

Nor can the aspect of the pro -section that are usually tightly linked and homosexual couples with the nature of their relationship with heterosexual relationships.Some members of the LGBT community also talk about the differences in this area.As Andrew Sullivan wrote, an intellectually influential supporter.At the same time, the reproductive aspect was sometimes perceived in connection with the characteristics of the marriage institution - eg.with a requirement for the persistence of a marriage volume.Children who need to provide a stable family environment are born into heterosexual relations.

More generally, this discussion shows the possibility of some specifics of the concept of marriage given to the relationships of man and woman.It can be seen in the context of the need for institutional accommodation of primarily heterosexual relationships and it is not immediately clear that its settings can reflect several types of relationship arrangement at the same time.Some authors therefore speak of traditional marriage as an effective institution.

Carefully with empirical research

Black also lists the empirically found benefits of marriage for both spouses and society.But it does not mention specific sources, which may be problematic.In the literature, these are often studies that examined the marriage of men and women.Technically, it is not clear that their finding could be automatically applied to the same -sex volumes.

David Černý also talks about marriage as an ideal environment for raising children.Again, it does not mention specific examples of studies, but even here this knowledge is based mainly on the research of the benefits of children in the marriage of heterosexual, not homosexual parents.The portability of findings across family types can also be problematic here.

Black also mentions the match between experts that the environment of the same -sex parents is not worse for the education of children.This "consensus", however.Homoparental studies often suffer from small or unrepresentative samples.These may distort the resulting findings and observations of "non -existent differences in prospering" often cannot be taken too seriously.In addition, asymmetrically less attention is paid to analyzes that have found differences in benefit, eg.Even in the sensitive area of sexual orientation.

History of Marriage Institution and European Civilization

Black text continues with discussion over history not always uniform content of the term marriage.But at least in Western European civilization, this institution has been seen for centuries as a monogamous bond of man and woman.

As he writes in his monograph on the history of marriage Professor John Witte JR.From Emory University, Europe has inherited this tradition from ancient Greece and Rome.The marriage institution survived all historical twists and as a bunch of man and woman was understood by many thinkers across European history.It was not until 2001 that the Netherlands became the first country to perform the legalization of the same -sex marriages.

It seems that the traditional model of marriage may have served well.A recent study by an evolutionary anthropologist Joseph Henrich of Harvard suggests that emerging by Christianity formed by the medieval concept of marriage and family can affect the psychology of Europeans to this day - has contributed to the flourishing of Western civilization by supporting analytical thinking, creativity or greater openness to alien to foreign civilizationto people.

The importance of institutions for the prosperity of society of course in the academic world is not a new topic.But maybe it may not be serious to think about the fact that it may apply to the institution of marriage and therefore may not be beneficial to change in an unprecedented manner.It may take hundreds of years to be able to recognize the consequences of changes in the institution that has accompanied the European civilization almost since its inception.Deeper consideration of a similar type but in black text is missing.

Social reproduction - isn't it enough?

Black also critically speaks of opinions that emphasize the benefits of traditional marriage in the field of reproduction and raising children.Perhaps it encounters the argument of my earlier essay - in the regime of political liberalism, where it is necessary to accept different value views of marriage, it may be useful to examine the importance of individual family types for the reproduction of society as such.Heterosexual relationships deserve to be privileged as it brings children to the world while providing optimal educational environment.

Black text does not deal with this argument sufficiently sufficiently.Moreover, it may be more beneficial for the state to think straight on marriage: rather than eliminating all possible types of discrimination, it can think about which type of relationships to privileg to ensure long -term renewal.

Marriage and the look of natural law

Black is also dealing with philosophy.His text thus exceeds the normal level of Czech debate.As his target he chose one of the schools of natural law and correctly describes some of its characteristics.Natural law names facts not on the basis of currently valid laws, but rather by reason of the recognizable natural state of things.This is followed by Aristotle, which distinguished between the laws of the righteous by law and by nature.

Natural law then allows clearly to indicate good or injustice, regardless of the constantly changing legal facts.This is one of the reasons why they experienced flourish after World War II - people became more interested in the horrors of Hitler's laws that were legally valid, yet allowed incredible trample of human dignity.

Black is specifically devoted to the so -called.New Natural Law Theory ("NTPP").It is associated with legal theorist John Finnis, who taught for many years on Oxford or Robert P.George of Princeton.As David Černý outlined, NTPP theorists have long defended marriage as a bunch of man and woman.Only heterosexual couples can in their concept fill the content of the good marriage.

It is primarily the principle - what is marriage?

Black criticizes this interesting concept in the style of Reductio ad absurdum - if the couple do not live their marriage according to the ideas of NTPP supporters, will they cease to be spouses?But black criticism may pass the target.I believe that it imperfectly distinguishes between philosophical and political implications of NTPP conclusions.Its supporters would probably not expect "value perfectionism" from the state, they would not insist in all cases to harmonize the family policy of the state and their value concepts to the last detail.

Rather, they would focus on which types of relationships can at least in principle fulfill the good marriage.They would probably agree with the black that he should not "some official check what is happening in our bedrooms".The essence of marriage is able to fill only heterosexual couples, so only they can enter it.In this sense, a natural law view may be useful for the state in distinguishing between the types of relationships.

The rest of the black objections, using adjectives such as "absurd" or "bizarre", reminds us of a value court rather than constructive argumentation.Perhaps more beneficial for debate could be to try to show eg.misconduct premises or any argumentation errors of supporters of NTPP.

David Černý's text attempts to defend the granting of marriage by homosexual couples.However, a number of related important issues move without much reflection or at all mention.It does not fully set out with the findings of empirical research and, due to the severity of the defined changes, does not pay sufficient attention to the European institutional heritage.The quality exceeds the common debate by dealing with a natural law, but probably does not intepient its conclusions correctly.Overall, David Černý's arguments do not look quite convincing in their current form and should not be automatically considered compelling in the homosexual marriage debate.

Came out on the info.cz