Dr. Ben Carson has said that no group, be they gays, pedophiles, or bestiality supporters, gets to re-define the definition the word “marriage.”
Here is his argument:
“Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition. So he, it’s not something that is against gays, it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”
I find Dr. Carson’s argument very interesting, but honestly I don’t understand it completely. So I drew up a few questions about his argument, which I hope he will answer, so that maybe I and others like me will better understand his views:
1. Is his argument about the inability of gays et al to re-define marriage intended to be a secular argument for the definition of marriage? And by that I mean, does it stand on its own without any theological foundation, or does it ultimately require a particular theology to be valid? Is it compatible with atheism? How about agnosticism, or Buddhism?
2. Why do words have the definitions they do? How did the words we all use today come to acquire their current meanings? The word “marriage” can be used as one example, but there are millions of important words in the English language, and anyway I’m really asking for a more general answer.
3. You say that no one, whether they be gays, pedophiles, or bestiality supporters, can change the definition of the word “marriage.” What about the rest of society? If most Americans supported a re-definition of the word “marriage,” would they be somehow mis-using that word, or would the minority of Americans who continue to use the less popular definition be using it incorrectly? Can they both be right, or must words only have a single definition?
4. The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman seems to be taken seriously by two types of people: 1) a political minority (i.e. social conservatives), and 2) the federal government (i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act). Isn’t the definition of “marriage,” then, similar to the definition of “assault rifle” — it’s an arbitrary term imposed by a minority of Americans plus the federal government onto the rest of society?
5. Numerous psychological experiments tell us something about status quo bias, which is a cognitive bias — if you’re human, you have this bias. Does Dr. Carson think he is not affected by status quo bias? What about other cognitive biases? If so, what effect if any does that have on the point estimate he would assign to the probability that you might be wrong about gay marriage? (for example I try to discount beliefs that are self-serving, so as to combat confirmation bias, if possible, because I know I suffer from that bias, like everyone else. Does Dr. Carson make any sort of adjustment for status quo bias etc. etc.?)
6. In his famous essay Why I am not a Conservative, Friedrich Hayek wrote that “Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly” (emphasis added). His point was that the cause of liberty inevitably requires modifying or abandoning well-established (and sometimes much-beloved) ideas and institutions when those ideas or institutions are shown to be incompatible with freedom. Do you think he was wrong, and if not, how do you weigh the loss of freedom imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act against “traditional” marriage?
7. If the definition of a certain word, such as marriage, were shown to be harmful to children, should society try to re-define that word? What about adults? (see also here)
8. Suppose the Supreme Court ruled that gays do not have any right to marriage, but they do have a right to federally recognized civil union, and that such civil unions are required by the 14th amendment to receive the exact same federal benefits as marriage (for example they must be treated by the same tax treatment). Would you approve or disapprove of such a ruling, and why?
9. If you do approve of the ruling I’ve described in #8, would you consider it consistent with a certain “separate but equal” principle”? And if so, does that in any way conflict with the idea that “separate” can’t be “equal”?
10. You say that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is a “fundamental pillar of our society,” which is a fuzzy term. I don’t know what it means exactly. What is a “fundamental pillar of society,” and should they ever be allowed to change?
11. You say that if a group did re-define marriage, then that would have “significant ramifications.” Or at least that’s what I think you mean. What ramifications, specifically, are you referring to, and why do you think they are likely?
12. Can you think of any words from history, which were formerly used one way that was considered “fundamental,” but were eventually “re-defined,” and thereby the world was made a better place?
13. When I try to think of such a word, “marriage” comes to mind. There are many “traditional” forms of marriage other than the kind Dr. Carson advocates. We have mostly abandoned these kinds of marriages, at least in the United States. I’m thinking for example of widow inheritance, war brides, polygamy (Solomon’s 700 wives…), endogamy, exogamy, and child marriage. Do you agree that defining marriage as monogamous, consensual, heterosexual, and above a certain age, would constitute a “re-definition” of marriage, not the traditional definition, wherever and whenever these sorts of marriages are the norm, and if so, isn’t that re-definition an improvement?
14. Suppose you were right that no group, not even a majority of Americans, can re-define the word “marriage.” And further suppose that the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and Proposition 8, and that Americans increasingly come to accept and support gay marriage. Suppose it starts to become more normal as the years go by. If that happens, will most Americans simply be using the word incorrectly, will you correct people when they say “Bob and Tim are a happily married couple,” will you refrain from calling legally married gay couples “married”? What will you call the same-sex couples if and when the federal government and most of American society recognizes as a “married” couple?
Thanks to Dr. Carson in advance for his answers (if I get any), and my apologies in advance for any misrepresentations I’ve made of his views.