Ethics and Morality

Ethics & Morality CURT RESPONSE TO STANLEY KURTZ In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum's comments drawing a parallel between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing incest, Contributing Editor Stanley Kurtz offered his analysis of the issue of gay marriage in the April 30, 2003 issue of National Review Online.

According to Kurtz's convoluted logic, "The real danger of gay marriage is that it will undermine the taboo on adultery, thereby destroying the final bastion protecting marriage: the ethos of monogamy." Kurz, who is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, also maintains that gay marriage threatens monogamy in society because "...homosexual couples -- particularly male homosexual couples -- tend to see monogamy as nonessential, even to the most loyal and committed relationship." Finally, Kurtz suggests that legalizing gay marriage will lead society down the proverbial "slippery slope" toward legalized polygamy and polyamory, which he characterizes as undermining monogamy within heterosexual unions.

The underlying fallacy of Kurtz's first argument is that it relies on a false underlying presumption: namely, that all traditional marriages live up to the ideal of lifelong monogamy. There would seem to be anecdotal evidence all around us that monogamy is an ongoing challenge for many heterosexual couples, and instances of heterosexual infidelity hardly require any "inspiration" from gay couples.

The fact of the matter is that strictly monogamous heterosexual couples (meaning where neither partner ever violates that principle even once during the entire relationship) is probably much more of an exception than the rule. The underlying fallacy of Kurtz's second argument is the belief that it is homosexuals who prefer not to confine themselves to the constraints of monogamy, when the truth of the matter is that men are ambivalent about lifelong monogamy (at least for themselves, anyway), and not homosexual men, in particular.

The overwhelming majority of heterosexual men are profoundly ambivalent toward monogamy throughout their dating lives, and most heterosexual men who remain faithful to their wives do so against their natural urges. Psychologists who have studied homosexual couples report that sometimes one partner takes on the female role, while the other takes on the role of the typical married male. When both homosexual partners happen to opt for a more sexually open relationship, it is a function of their urges as men, rather than any urges unique to homosexual men.

Furthermore, the majority of heterosexual marriage proposals take place under some form of ultimatum, usually issued by the woman in order to reign in her mate. In all likelihood, homosexual couples -- particularly women -- have a better track record for mutually voluntary fidelity than do their heterosexual counterparts. As far as Kurtz's third point, the mere awareness of the existence of alternate lifestyles is hardly a sufficient "temptation" to anyone genuinely secure and happy in his own values, marriage and lifestyle. The fact that Mr.

Kutrz expresses such deep concern suggests,.