But I'm not. Let's get one thing straight: me. Straight as an arrow. So straight it's probably un-cool. I'm not even a twinge bi. There are some pretty men out there, but I won't be sleeping with any of them. So believe me when I say that I have no personal stake in this battle…other than a love for freedom, reason, justice, and maturity.
I'm not an avid blogger. Most issues have two strong sides to them, and I'm usually more interested in the dynamics of these sides than in who is right and wrong. Probably not the most exciting way to blog for the masses. But I heard something on the radio this morning that set me off. I have long felt that the issue of gay marriage is the SINGLE political issue out there to which the opposition has no valid, rational, or convincing argument whatsoever. Not one. I will conceded strong opposing arguments in almost every topic that I care about: foreign wars, abortion-rights, evolution, the electoral college, whether Mr. T could win in a fight against Underdog; but gay marriage? Nothing. Not one single reasoned or informed argument. Not even close. The whole thing is a sham.
Before I get into that, just what did I hear on the radio? What set me off? It wasn't that Prop 8 passed in California. Nope. In fact, I've always been a strong supporter of popular elections overturning supreme court decisions. I think it makes for respectable democracy. Yes, I think Prop 8 is stupid, and we need to fight against it starting right now, but you know, at least we can say that in some sense, the people have spoken. We should respect that; and prepare for the counter attack.
But apparently SOME people… Ooooh, my cackles are prickling. Christ, I can feel the hairs on my neck stand up just thinking about it! SOME people are arguing that not only should California stop marrying same-sex couples; they should ANNUL the previous same-sex marriages made over the last several months.
Fuck. Off.
I'm not often rash to make moral judgments, but anyone who supports annulling an existing marriage is a cold-hearted, loveless, shriveled up old son-of-a-bitch, and needs to be punched in the face repeatedly until they cry.
Have you never been in love, you heartless slugs? Do you have no idea of the challenges and emotional nightmares that are involved in getting to a place where two people decide to commit their lives to each other? And you want to tear that away once it's done?
It turns out that a large chunk of the funding to support Prop 8 came from the Mormon church. From out of state! They are taking mind-your-own-business to a new level. If I thought there was any money to waste on giving these people a taste of their own medicine I'd say we throw a major campaign together to ban door-to-door proselytizing. Or at least force these missions to be between a man and a woman. It really makes me uncomfortable when two well-groomed, well-dressed men come to my house side-by-side to preach the revelation of Joseph smith. Mormons! Like they have any latitude in speaking up about "traditional" marriage.
Okay. Deep breath. Let's take a quick look at the so-called "arguments" against same-sex marriage, and see just how vapid they are. I'm collating the major arguments into three basic groups: Social, Natural, and Religious. There's no way I can cover all the details of every argument, and many people have done so far better than I could. Instead, I'm going to take a very broad approach in my comments, but if anyone wants to tussle with the details, bring it on.
Social. The most often spouted nonsense from opponents of same-sex marriage is that it shatters some traditional concept of marriage that binds society together. One of the wisest tenants of Confucianism traces a link from the successful governing of the state down to a grounded individual comportment of the mind in traditional virtues. If the mind is good (educated, liberated, reasoned), everything builds on that up through family to community to the state. Solid families are the bedrock of a nation. This is not a bad basis to begin with. A state cannot rule from the top-down. It's just logistically impossible. So, conservatives, you have my support in wanting to prop up solid families. But let's take a look at society. Skyrocketing divorce rates, child abuse, incest, poverty, and homelessness abound, and you think same-sex marriage is our biggest threat to family? How about putting our energy into dealing with child abuse? How about spending our money on reforming our absurd education system. Yeah, families are being ripped apart, but not by homosexuals. One clever blogger put it this way: "Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry?"
Natural. So they say homosexuality "just ain't natural". As with most of these topics, the internet abounds with finely-crafted responses to this. I won't repeat. Instead, I want use this moment to make a point. To all you straight folk out there like me, think about it. Think about the revulsion you feel to the idea of banging someone of the same sex. Now you run around and spout off that homosexuality is not natural, that it's a choice, not an impulse akin to our own heterosexual drives. Um. That means that ALL of these people have the exact same gut revulsion to this as you and I do. And yet, they still choose to be gay. Right. We're one step shy from alien-mind-control conspiracy to gay-ify the planet here. Nuff said.
Religious. We'll stick to Christianity here, because we're all good Americans. Let's start with the Old Testament, and this takes us back to our "tradition" argument. Traditional marriage in the OT consists of a host of crazy laws for marriage. Adulterers were to be killed. No inter-racial marriages allowed. Men could sell their daughters. If a man raped a woman she was bound to marry him. Widows were forced to marry their brothers-in-law. This sound like the "traditional" marriage conventions we should abide by? As for homosexuality, it was an abomination, and anyone caught practicing the act was to be killed. You people going to stand by that? Don't give me your religious arguments unless you're willing to go all the way. Nothing chaffs me more than a Christian claiming Biblical inerrancy and the UNCHANGABILITY of morals who won't stand by the laws that they profess to believe GOD instituted. (And by the way, Jesus himself opposed Lavitical law by stopping the men from stoning the adulterous woman. He was a revolutionary who understood the evolution of moral progress, and that the true spirituality transcends legal, cultural, and semantic boundaries.)
So what about Jesus? What does he say about marriage? Well he's pretty clear. Don't do it.
Whoa. What? Yeah, you heard me. Jesus said it was better for a man not to be married. Better… wait, what about marriage being the bedrock of society, the sacred institution of a religious community? Let's break out the quote in case you don't believe me. From Matthew 19:
"And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery--unless his wife has been unfaithful." Jesus' disciples then said to him, "Then it is better not to marry!" "Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement."
Obviously Jesus is not forbidding marriage, but he says only to do it if you just can't help it. The apostle Paul repeats this sentiment in 1 Corinthians: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that." Jesus also declares that there will be no marriage in heaven. "The men and women of this age marry, but the men and women who are worthy to rise from death and live in the age to come will neither marry or be given in marriage…" Does this sound like he's talking about a sacred institution? Is this some great eternal moral system of God? Seems to me Jesus and Paul both view marriage as a stumbling-block to spiritual life.
I've barely scratched the surface, but the fact is every argument is devastatingly weak. And if every argument is weak, then the question remains: why do all these people oppose same-sex marriage?
Here's the bottom line. The opposition simply despises homosexuality. They won't admit it. They cover up their feelings with absurd arguments. I'm pretty sick of these people retaining the moral high ground by saying, "We aren't against homosexuals. We think they are equals," while driving this hard campaign against their right to publically express the reality of their love on a level footing with the heterosexuals. They say, "Okay, we'll call it civil unions, but the word marriage is ours." Well I'm not buying that. You don't even get that word. Not until you can present me a clear argument demonstrating the stable, traditional, and meaningful definition of that word throughout civilization in a way that lines up with your beliefs on the matter. Your logic is flawed and your words are weak, and you are masking a psychological state with legal, moral, and religious milquetoast. The veil needs to be torn away. Let's call this what it really is: Hate. I'm not saying everyone opposed to same-sex marriage hates gay people, but I am saying they hate homosexuality. Period. There's no other explanation. If you think there is, I'd love to hear it.
The Free Dictionary defines hate as: "1. To feel hostility or animosity toward. To detest. 2. To feel dislike or distaste for."
So let's just admit it please. You hate the idea of homosexuality and you want to repress it in the best way you can without looking like a monstrous bigot. I have never seen this more prevalent than this morning, when I heard people are attempting to force courts to annul actual marriages. Get in touch with your true motivations, people. Own up. Admit that there is no "reason", only revulsion. Then maybe we can start moving forward.
For some wonderful articles hammering away at more specific "arguments", check out the following links:
http://www.jewcy.com/post/same_sex_marriage
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Arguments-Against-Gay-Marriage.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
ah... the mormon church...among whose principal tenets is POLYGAMY.
Yeah.
I think the Chruch of LDS should be stripped of its tax exemption. It has tax exemption because of the SEPARATION of church and state. However if the church elects to involve itself in that which is Caesar's then it needs to pony up.
Great stuff, Josh. I hope you don't mind, but I "Liked" this on Stumble and reposted it on Twitter. Hopefully you'll get a few extra hits.
I really wish more people would read this. I'm the same as you hey - Very disappointed at the reasons why people opposed the bill.
I found this through StumbleUpon, and I'm glad I did. Nod to St. Bastard up there for adding it into the mix.
Other gay people look at me like I have two heads when I tell them I think they should give up on marriage and take civil unions - legal status is one thing, and the state shouldn't be able to force the church to acknowledge anything. You raised a very good argument to that point of view, though.
In general, thanks for speaking up. It's always nice to see straight people who aren't rabidly terrified of catching that gay virus.
I think it was Don Henley who wrote "people change very slowly if they ever change at all"
This will happen as it should but there are still a lot of people left to die first. But hey george is gone so the proof is there.
Good article
I suppose it goes without saying that I agree with you 100%, Josh, but I'll say it anyway.
I'm proud to have you as a friend and creative partner. :)
Social: The family unit is how cultural knowledge is transmitted from one generation to the next. You do not counter this statement, but list a host of other priorities that you believe need to be addressed. All of the items listed share a common root cause, and that is a lack of respect for human sexuality and marriage. The prohibition on sex before marriage is not about oppression, but because sex causes children, and children need a stable environment. Traditionally marriage is the beginning of that stable environment.
Lately we have redefined sexuality from something that cause children and binds a man and woman together, to something that is just for fun, and the result of that is your list of social ills that also need addressing.
Natural: In this case, Natural isn't about what is found in nature, but what is the 'natural' function. The natural function of sex is two-fold, to bind the man and woman together, and to create children. When you separate these two items you create an unnatural situation. The natural function of marriage is to create a stable unit for the raising of children. That is why marriage exists in all cultures in the first place, and why the state recognizes marriage.
Note that there have been dalliances, and infidelity since the dawn of time, some cultures even have customs where such dalliances are not bad, but they are not Marriage.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Glad to see so many people fired up about this.
Jeremy, I want to address your comments specifically. I asked for opposition and you delivered. I appreciate it.
>>Social: The family unit is how cultural knowledge is transmitted from one generation to the next. You do not counter this statement, but list a host of other priorities that you believe need to be addressed. All of the items listed share a common root cause, and that is a lack of respect for human sexuality and marriage.
I respectfully disagree. Yes, all of the items I listed share a common root cause, but that cause is not a lack of respect for marriage; it is a lack of respect for the dignity and liberty of fellow humans. It is a gross selfishness that allows us to disregard and even hurt our neighbor, or spouse, our children. Marriage has nothing to do with the roots of our ill-will. Incidentally, this same lack of respect for the dignity of our neighbor also leads to things like Prop 8.
>>The prohibition on sex before marriage is not about oppression, but because sex causes children, and children need a stable environment. Traditionally marriage is the beginning of that stable environment.
Check your history. Your reasoning keeps coming so close. Yes, the prohibition on sex before marriage is because sex causes children, but it was less for the child’s sake than for the sake of fathers who needed validation for their bloodline. This is why most cultures (Hebrew not excluded) placed high penalties on female infidelity, but hardly any on male. It is always obvious who the mother is, not so much the father. And traditionally the clan or tribe is the beginning of that stable environment. The community (since we’re going back to a time when women were actually legally and socially prohibited from premarital sex) involvement with child rearing was paramount, particularly since mothers and fathers did not always have a great life-expectancy.
>>Lately we have redefined sexuality from something that cause children and binds a man and woman together, to something that is just for fun, and the result of that is your list of social ills that also need addressing.
LATELY? Seriously. History. It’s good for people. If you think rampant, non-procreative sex is a new phenomenon, well heck, I don’t know what to say. I still can’t see you drawing a connection between the definition of marriage and my list of social ills. I can see you asserting a connection, but not demonstrating one. No chain of causality = nominal argument only. Give me a link between the “breakdown” of marriage and child abuse, because I’ll tell you what, in an abusive home usually the best thing for a woman to do (for herself and the child) is to break that marriage up.
>>Natural: In this case, Natural isn't about what is found in nature, but what is the 'natural' function.
How is the “natural” function NOT what is found in nature? I can’t tell if the above is a tautology or a contradiction… which is actually kind of impressive.
>>The natural function of sex is two-fold, to bind the man and woman together, and to create children.
You’re going to have to convince me of the first part. That sounds like a social function. Creating children, though, yes, natural function.
>>When you separate these two items you create an unnatural situation. The natural function of marriage is to create a stable unit for the raising of children. That is why marriage exists in all cultures in the first place, and why the state recognizes marriage.
There is no natural function of marriage because marriage is a social construct. Granted, it is a construct based on natural foundations: sex, affection, procreation. This is a good argument though. Here’s something I think we could actually go a few rounds with. I would argue Nature did not produce marriage. Society produced marriage when mankind finally produced society on the tip-top of the iceberg long after nature produced mankind.
>>Note that there have been dalliances, and infidelity since the dawn of time, some cultures even have customs where such dalliances are not bad, but they are not Marriage.
So, I wanted to save this for the end. The greatest hole in your argument is this: by your reasoning marriage exists for the children. Would you then deny the right of sterile hetero-couples to marry? Would you annul a hetero marriage after a period of years when it becomes clear that the couple does not intend on procreating? If you say yes, I’d say you’re crazy, but I would have respect for your reasoning. If you say no, you’re carrying a heavy double standard. And what if a gay couple agrees to adopt a child? Would it then be acceptable for them to be married? Should children of single mothers be taken away from them?
In any case, man, I really appreciate you throwing the gauntlet down. Your calm tone and good writing makes it fun to respond to you, but I see nothing new in what you’ve said. Only the same old baseless arguments. I would concede one thing: a good, stable home with a pair of mature, virtuous (and I use this word in the Confucian sense) ACTUAL parents is possibly the ideal situation for a child’s development. But to leap from this to “same-sex marriage is bad” flirts with the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. You can’t say anything less than the ideal is an evil. There’d be a mountain of evidence against you.
Wow, that is a lot to respond to, so let's just tackle the 'meatiest'.
I would argue Nature did not produce marriage. Society produced marriage when mankind finally produced society on the tip-top of the iceberg long after nature produced mankind.
Let's leave ultimate origins out of this debate and stick with what can be known in recorded history.
Marriage has always existed, and through all of history has had procreation as a major component. Even pagan cultures that valued homosexual unions had marriage for the purposes of procreation. Laws about marriage have traditionally defined what was already there, rather than created constructs that did not exist. This is why we say that marriage between a man and woman is 'natural'.
Most of the 'rights' that married couples have, have those rights because they were going to be participating in the joint venture of raising children. From experience, I can tell you that is a time consuming job. That is why spouses get benefits for Social Security and Health Insurance, and sundry other 'benefits'.
Now if you want to reject what marriage is and say 'Society can define Marriage', the real question then is to define it how? How are you (or anybody else)to define what marriage is? Is it now just a 'legitimization' of a sexual relationship, or perhaps a way to get some free bene's for your roomate? What if you want to add an animal to the union, or a third person - is that ok? Would that be marriage, should society bless that as well with free employer sponsered health plans?
I'll try to hit some of your other points tomorrow.
The natural function of sex is two-fold, to bind the man and woman together, and to create children.
You’re going to have to convince me of the first part. That sounds like a social function. Creating children, though, yes, natural function.
I imagine that personal experience should speak to this. Having sex with somebody changes that relationship for ever. You literally bond with that person. Some have described sex as a 'marital lubricant' in that you are much more tolerant of your partner and their shortcomings. These seem to be actual changes, and not just cultural influences. In fact, american cultural influences try to portray sex as the equivalent of sharing a good meal with somebody. I see it all the time in the movies, and have yet to meet someone in real life who believes that after a few moments of honest thought.
LATELY? Seriously. History. It’s good for people. If you think rampant, non-procreative sex is a new phenomenon, well heck, I don’t know what to say.
Actually, accepted non-procreative sex is a new phenomenon. Previously such behavior happened anyway, but was seriously discouraged because the side effects were that a child was produced. It caused much shame, scandal, a whole lotta gossip, and another mouth to feed. Happened yes, rampant, no. And it caused a lot of problems. How does that tie into the list of social ills?
I'm glad you asked that. More and more our society encourages relationships where each person is in it for themselves. Our relationships are fleeting, and loosely tied. When our partner ceases to make us happy, we split, with societal blessing.
When people in troubled marriages decide to stick it out, the odds are with them that they will be happier in 5 years than their divorced counterparts. Respect for the family and the institution of marriage means stable units within society. Divorce means instability, which leads to poverty and abuse. Divorce is rampant these days because people are led to believe that marriage is something you do for love. The reality is that love is only a small part of what makes a marriage work.
To be clear, I am not claiming that homosexual marriage causes these problems, I am saying that belief that a homosexual union can be marriage stems from the same belief that causes rampant divorce and instability within our society. That belief is that marriage is for the fulfillment of the individual and merely a social/legal construct that recognizes a 'love' relationship. In my previous comments, I tried to lay the groundwork that marriage is neither a created social construct, nor about the individual.
by your reasoning marriage exists for the children
That is one of the primary reasons for Marriage, and the primary reason why society does give special benefits (such as employer sponsored health insurance) to married couples. However, the roots go a lot deeper. Modern science allows us to control our fertility in ways that previous generations did not have. In fact, it would have been well neigh impossible to predict if a marital union would not produce children until this century, with the one noted (and rare) exception of the elderly marriage. Even with modern methods, kids happen, as I so well and personally know.
So yes, we still allow a sterile man and woman to get married, and reap the benefits. Should a couple who will not be taking time to raise children have the same societal benefits that other married couples have? Some religions do not recognise such unions as valid, however, I'm inclined to say yes because traditionally, and in the current law, that is the way it currently is. If we should extend that odd quirk to a union that is by it's very nature always and forever sterile is another question entirely. Refer back to previous comment that if we start changing the fundamental definition marriage, then what should we change it to?
interesting post. glad i stopped by.
Jeremy,
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Gonna have to give me a couple days to get back to you as my weekend is pretty full. But I'm very excited about this discussion. Talk to you soon!
Hello,
I'd like to chirp in with a clarification question for Jeremy if I may.
"Actually, accepted non-procreative sex is a new phenomenon. Previously such behavior happened anyway, but was seriously discouraged because the side effects were that a child was produced."
This statement goes against my general feeling for history, however as I am no specialist I'd like to know if this claim is coming from some piece of evidence, and if so what. I'm fascinated by history, I would love to learn.
Here is why I think either this is not true, or you are using the word "new" in a way I do not understand: prostitution. It is not only the oldest profession, it is a profession that has had practitioners throughout recorded history. While the moral status of said practitioners varies throughout history and across differing cultures. To say it is "seriously discouraged" is misleading (thought I might accept it is often discouraged).
Secondly, my impression of history (and I'll fully discloses that this is my impression and I'd have to work to find supporting evidence) that the acceptability of non-procreative sex (or contra-wise the acceptability) was not universal and depended a great deal on ones gender, and economic status.
I almost imagine there is an ordering here. Wealthy men were not discouraged from doing as they pleased, and could have sex without care as to whether offspring were produced. However poor women were *highly* discouraged from non-sanctioned sex, as it had such dire consequences for her and her family.
Enjoying the conversation and hope to get some reading recommendations from you Jeremy!
Cheers!
or you are using the word "new" in a way I do not understand
LOL, how polite.
I'm not a student of history (I'm a lousy student) but this is why I think I am correct, and for the most part you are as well.
From reading your question, you mostly answered it. It was not accepted. Some might have been able to get 'away with it', but they were 'getting away with it'. Their ability to 'get away with it' was *probably* linked to their ability to pony up to the responsibility (depending on era, culture, etc). It wasn't above board and accepted by their society.
In regards to things we can actually pin down, officially, contraception wasn't accepted by protestant churches for married couples until the Lambeth conference of 1930. (google lambeth 1930 birth control). And illegal in some states until the Supreme Court discovered the right to privacy in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, but that was for married couples only. Wikipedia should flesh out the details.
In the 1970's, many states still had co-habitation laws, some might still (google cohabitation laws US, NC's law was challenged in 2005!)
So yes, for these reason's I think 'new' is appropriate.
Jeremy, thank you so much for participating in this discussion. There was a lot to respond to, so I’ve tried to collate your main points, and hope I didn’t miss anything:
1) Clearing up this “nature” argument:
Marriage has always existed, and through all of history has had procreation as a major component. Even pagan cultures that valued homosexual unions had marriage for the purposes of procreation. Laws about marriage have traditionally defined what was already there, rather than created constructs that did not exist. This is why we say that marriage between a man and woman is 'natural'.
That’s a well-defined assertion, and I’m ready to agree for the most part. Ancient Greece springs to mind as a prime example. I don’t want to waste a lot of time arguing semantics, but I would still say this is a social phenomenon, not a “natural” one. Perhaps we just don’t agree on our terms. When I talk of “nature” I’m referring more to the physical/chemical/biological realm. You seem to be referring to whatever flows out of pre-conditions without extraneous constraints. My point, though, in reference to the main topic, is that homosexuality itself is found in nature (biological nature), and for the homosexuals is the same deep stirring of biology that heterosexuals experience. Difference being, one produces children, one does not. In “nature” as I define it, that is, the kingdom of living organisms, you see something like marriage every once in a great while. Usually the newborn is taken care of by the mother and/or the herd. The father provides his genetics and then moves on. In “higher” life forms you get something like affection every now and then, but even in these cases, mating is a promiscuous affair. Some species mate for life, but this is not the norm.
So why do humans do it? I contend that the loooooong period of child development has a lot to do with it. Most animals reach full maturity after the first year. Humans take a wee bit longer than that. From a “natural” perspective, both marriage and clan community serve a function in making sure that kid reaches adulthood. The tribal culture continues to provide security even beyond that point.
Interestingly enough, the long period of human child development could be a strong argument in defining marriage as a “natural” thing. It may well have preceded (or even started) society for just this reason. On the other hand, we can’t say for sure if this is the case. By the time we start getting records, marriage is clearly a property function, and therefore had at least become “societal”. Perhaps females allowed themselves to become property as a trade-off to getting help from the fathers in raising the children.
2) Marriage and society
Now if you want to reject what marriage is and say 'Society can define Marriage', the real question then is to define it how? How are you (or anybody else)to define what marriage is? Is it now just a 'legitimization' of a sexual relationship, or perhaps a way to get some free bene's for your roomate? What if you want to add an animal to the union, or a third person - is that ok? Would that be marriage, should society bless that as well with free employer sponsered health plans?
To be clear, I am less interested in what benefits people receive as I am in social recognition. Mine is an ideological argument, and as I mentioned way back when, I believe all these other “arguments” are heaping on top of a fundamental disregard for the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. They are meant to disguise (to the world, and in some cases to the individual making the arguments—no one wants to believe themselves a bigot) the underlying motivation.
The legal means of dealing with benefits are always subject to change. The bottom line for me is society saying: “Yes, when the two of you men fall in love and decide to commit your lives to one another, that is the same as when I and a woman fall in love and want to do the same.”
The argument of slippery slope that you raise has very little weight. Common sense dictates this. The same arguments were used in prohibiting interracial marriage. Who knows, perhaps in a hundred years triple-marriages might be so prevalent that they, too should be accepted. The nature of human interaction changes with time. As for animals, unlikely that day will ever come, but sky’s the limit, right?
Like everything else, marriage should be defined in its proper context. The context of marriage over the past several centuries has shifted away from procreative and toward concepts of romance, partnership, and emotional commitment. People get married because they realize that they want to be bound to the person they love and create a partnership. No one has ever rejected a couple’s right to marry because they don’t or can’t have children. Regardless of what role family, lineage, and the continuation of the blood-line had in marriage (And let me reiterate that this began primarily as a property-holding relationship; the man’s wife and children were his property—and this is something I think everyone would agree is a good thing we moved away from), marriage has become a social/spiritual/love institution. It is in this new context that it is currently being redefined by everyone, not just the homosexual community.
In this new context the message is not: “same-sex couples cannot get married because the property arrangement breaks down”. As rational as that may be, it is just not the case; rather the message is: “unions of love and sex between people of the same sex is less valid than that between a man and a woman”. This is a value judgment that puts the emotions and drives of homosexuals on a lower level than heterosexuals. If that’s your value judgment, so be it, but my whole point is: admit it.
I can’t buy the argument that same-sex marriage should be banned because it doesn’t fit the “traditional mold”. The purely traditional mold has long been oppressive toward women. Should we sustain those conditions out of respect for tradition? I can’t buy the procreation argument because not all heterosexual marriages can or do produce children (though you make a good point that non-productive marriages have been rare until recently). But homosexuals can make excellent parents, and often heterosexual couples make shitty parents.
3) The History of Sex
Actually, accepted non-procreative sex is a new phenomenon. Previously such behavior happened anyway, but was seriously discouraged because the side effects were that a child was produced. It caused much shame, scandal, a whole lotta gossip, and another mouth to feed. Happened yes, rampant, no. And it caused a lot of problems. How does that tie into the list of social ills?
(and from your later post)
From reading your question, you mostly answered it. It was not accepted. Some might have been able to get 'away with it', but they were 'getting away with it'. Their ability to 'get away with it' was *probably* linked to their ability to pony up to the responsibility (depending on era, culture, etc). It wasn't above board and accepted by their society.
To blatantly contradict you: State-sanction prostitution was paramount in ancient history. It was a tradition that served a religious (and likely social-appeasement) function.
Furthermore, throughout history men of standing in many cultures were known to have not only a wife, but a mistress (or multiple mistresses) as well. I doubt they merely met their mistresses for tea. Point being, yes, sex outside of marriage has always been there and it has usually been at the very least tolerated and overlooked. More so for men than women, but the statements bloggy berg makes are absolutely correct in a general sense.
Your “marriage was strictly segregated out and defined for the family function” argument is a valid and supported, but again, is this really what people want today? I don’t think so. For good or ill, heterosexual couples are redefining marriage in terms of love and commitment. I see no reason Homosexuals cannot be a part of that.
4) The nasty state of marriages today
I'm glad you asked that. More and more our society encourages relationships where each person is in it for themselves. Our relationships are fleeting, and loosely tied. When our partner ceases to make us happy, we split, with societal blessing. When people in troubled marriages decide to stick it out, the odds are with them that they will be happier in 5 years than their divorced counterparts. Respect for the family and the institution of marriage means stable units within society. Divorce means instability, which leads to poverty and abuse. Divorce is rampant these days because people are led to believe that marriage is something you do for love. The reality is that love is only a small part of what makes a marriage work.
Here’s a place you and I can agree to a point. People are strongly driven by feelings, and it does seem that this emphasis has led to a high divorce rate. But I would contest that regaining respect for the institutions would be less of a remedy than deepening respect for the partner. I think more and more you will see people re-embracing the value of monogamy for two primary reasons: 1) emotional stability (as opposed or paramount to family stability), and 2) having one person who takes priority in your life can be the cornerstone for spiritual development. If we are to learn love for humanity, how better to do so than to have one person with who you share the experience and school of love. If I ever get married it will be because I have found someone of commonality, who I trust completely, to be a partner in all aspects of life. This will be a person I can practice love with. Not to the ends of having a stable family, nor because I hope to maintain perpetual floaty feelings (though I would hope with work these will always reoccur)… but to learn how to love my wife so that I can learn to better love mankind. I’m getting waaaaaaay off topic here, aren’t I? But you asked me several times how I would re-define marriage, and I believe this probably sums it up pretty well. It is, or should be, a spiritual union. And if a child is produced (or adopted), it better-well be, for the child will inherit much from the relationship.
As an afterthought, you’ve gone a long way to “reclaiming” the word marriage. In my original post I suggested that anti-same-sex marriage people don’t even deserve the word until they provide solid arguments that they even know what the word means, and you’ve presented valiant and often sound arguments in that direction. (In fact, you’ve really done a great job in making me consider various new angles, and to further clarify my thoughts and beliefs. Thank you and well done!)
However, considering what marriage has actually been in history (oppressive, often violent, economic, and more recently riddled with failure, abuse, and divorce)… I suggest that proponents banning same-sex marriages have only two choices: to either go backward or go forward. I don’t think anyone wants to go backward, and going forward at this point in time must mean accepting homosexuals to join in on the journey.
Exhibit B:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/9/9356/17632
Allegedly this means that, "As a result, 400 children are required to be moved out of homes they were already placed in and into group homes or orphanages, immediately. Arkansas already has three times as many children needing foster care & adoption as it has homes."
No time to research this today, but that's the word on the street.
The bill seems to prohibit adoption or fostering by couples not MARRIED. Hmmm... is this a valid piece of legislation geared to ensure stability for the child (as if divorce were not an option), or is it a reeeeeeally sneaky way of making sure same-sex couples cannot adopt?
In any case, if the bill is truly retroactive and they are pulling kids out of homes, AK has just trumped CA's people-trying-to-retroactively-annul-gay-marriages, and have officially pissed me off the most. Can CA catch up before my wrath is unleashed? Only time will tell...
thanks for the interesting and informative blog.my opinion(super non debate style) is that people who prevent others from doing what they want to do because they disaprove of it,and that thing is not hurting anyone else,are just jerks. yes l said jerks! generally people who exhibit this type of controlling behaviour are unhappy with their lives, they thus try to impose order on others,on the community and the goverment.
This whole thing is fascinating. Josh, I hope you will put up another post, or update this one, with some of the back-and-forth from the comments here.
I have only a couple of things to add:
1) The Biblical proscription of homosexuality is another case of folks taking a poor translation way too literally. Yeah, there are plenty of Bible literalists out there. They're dumb. You cannot get a full understanding of Scripture without a comprehension of the time and culture in which it was written. The homosexual acts prohibited in the Bible, most modern scholars agree, referred specifically to the Roman practice of pederasty.
Moreover, Jesus said nothing against homosexuality. What He did say, time and again, was "Love one another as I have loved you." And, quite simply, there is not a Godlike love being shown by anti-homosexual Christians. In my opinion, they tread dangerously close to blasphemy. God made homosexuals, and He doesn't make mistakes.
2) Please don't lump all of us conservatives in the same camp here. I myself support gay marriage, and honestly most of the conservatives do as well. If we have as one of our philosophical tenets that marriage strengthens the family, we must carry that to the logical conclusion that gay marriage will strengthen the gay family. Duh. (Nevermind the fact that if we believe premarital sex is immoral, it makes no sense to deny an entire class of people marriage & thereby ensure that's the only sex they can have.)
I welcome your defense of gay marriage. I must be honest, this is such an obvious thing to me that my brain tends to short out and produce only cliches. Because, really, they can't do any worse a job of it than we have.
Jesus said nothing against homosexuality.
I wasn't going to hit the religion angle, because we don't have a shared context for the discussion, and that usually leads to a lot of misunderstanding.
However, this is the second time that this has been brought up, and needs a quick rebuttal. The implication we are supposed to derive from this statement is that since Jesus did not specifically prohibit homosexuality in the Gospel is that homosexuality is officially sanctioned as A-Ok.
This is in conflict with Sacred Tradition, the laws in the Old Testament, and the preaching of Paul. God does make all people in the image and likeness of God. We are as we were made, shaped by human hands and by our free will. We all have temptations and weaknesses, and all have sinned. Just because God made us, and God doesn't make mistakes does not mean that we don't make mistakes or that we can't sin. God loves all of us anyway.
The homosexual acts prohibited in the Bible, most modern scholars agree, referred specifically to the Roman practice of pederasty.
I would disagree that most (as in around 50% or more) of modern biblical scholars agree with this. I also doubt that modern scholars have a better sense of what was meant in the Gospels than our Church Fathers, ancient history isn't a subject that get's more precise with time.
Please note that that I am really uncomfortable bringing religion into the discussion of this thread in anything other than a passing reference. That might be fun for a new thread, but would most likely hijack this one. We don't have a shared point of reference on this subject, and religion is a very broad subject.
1) Clearing up this "nature" argument:
You seem to be referring to whatever flows out of pre-conditions without extraneous constraints.
Pretty much. I mean what is a 'natural function'. For an imperfect analogy, the natural function of a hammer is to drive nails, but you can use it for a lot of different things. If we did not need to drive nails, the hammer (in it's current form) would not exist.
By the time we start getting records, marriage is clearly a property function, and therefore had at least become 'societal'. Perhaps females allowed themselves to become property as a trade-off to getting help from the fathers in raising the children.
I'm not sure how accurate this is. I don't agree with the 'clearly a property function' because I think that downplays the familial aspects of marriage. In the pagan days, I don't think the woman had much choice in any trade-off. From what I understand, it wasn't until Christianity took hold that women in Western Europe were given any voice in regards to if and who they would marry.
2) Marriage and society
The argument of slippery slope that you raise has very little weight. Common sense dictates this. The same arguments were used in prohibiting interracial marriage. I'm going to contradict you here. Let's explore the slippery slope argument for prohibiting interracial marriage. I imagine that any argument along that line was orientated not towards marriage, but towards racial equality. Here the target is not racial equality, but 'sexual orientation' equality. The problem as I see it is that 'sexual orientation' is not a closed category that ends with gay and straight, but can encompass a rather large range of behaviors. Some men (and women) seem to be unable to be sexually faithful to one partner, do they need equality as well?
Like everything else, marriage should be defined in its proper context. The context of marriage over the past several centuries has shifted away from procreative and toward concepts of romance, partnership, and emotional commitment.
Romance and partnership is good, but I think the statement that we have shifted marriage from procreation for centuries is a little long, my guess is that it started with the sexual revolution in the 1960's.
3) The history of Sex
To blatantly contradict you: State-sanction prostitution was paramount in ancient history. It was a tradition that served a religious (and likely social-appeasement) function..
I did some reading, and yes, state sanctioned prostitution was common in the pre-christian era. I was wrong. I shall have to narrow my statement to post christian Western Europe. However, in my reading, it seems some Roman Emperors actually encouraged men to have sex with their wives because of declining population. That does strengthen the belief that Marriage is the proper context for raising children, even if fidelity wasn't a big concern.
throughout history men of standing in many cultures were known to have not only a wife, but a mistress
From what I understand, it isn't accepted in the sense that you can talk about it openly in polite company. If you have a mistress, you are supposed to exercise discretion. You couldn't invite your mistress over for dinner, or to any polite function. And there is a duty to children that are produced from such liaisons.
Heterosexual couples are redefining marriage in terms of love and commitment
Or lack there of. Divorce rates and single parent households being what they are, I don't think this is a good trend.
yes l said jerks! generally people who exhibit this type of controlling behaviour are unhappy with their lives, they thus try to impose order on others,on the community and the goverment.
On Individual Liberty, it would be fun to go a few rounds on this one, but that should be in a different thread, for this debate:
Man does not live in a vacuum. With only a few rare exceptions, each of us belongs to a community, and each of us is connected. What we do will have an effect on those around us. As the aftermath in Massachusets shows(http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html, http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/articles/problem_gay_marriage.html), same-sex marriage is not a private affair. Ironicly, it is the side you are rooting for that is trying to impose thier views on society and the government.
Nicely written, I actually just wrote my own post on this issue as well. People need to get a life and get over it. Love is something that should have no restrictions.
I think this is the best post done on this topic. I am totally against the ban.
Fantastic. Thank-you.
Post a Comment