Topic: Creative [cough] Anti-Gay Marriage stance

[Desert Fox]

Thoughts on this

Well, we can just bite the bullet and say that infertility is a valid ground for questioning the legitimacy of marriage. I'm not sure if I'd go in that direction, although it is clearly historically the case that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to facilitate reproduction. One could also point out that there is a clear difference between a couple that would normally be able to reproduce but is unable to due to some physical defect and a couple that is unable to reproduce because they are not the sorts of creatures that are fundamentally able to reproduce with each other.

I don't feel that line of argument is necessarily all that strong. It is obvious to me that the begetting and raising of children is one of the functions of marriage, but it's equally obvious to me that it is not the only one. There is mutual happiness and sexual pleasure, there is economic cooperation, and so on. From a Christian perspective I believe Rowan Williams suggested that both of these reasons are far more scripturally prominent than reproduction. (For Genesis 2 describes woman as a 'helper' for man; children only come into the picture after the Fall. And as far as sex and pleasure goes, we have an entire book about that. I think his argument is a little weak, for there's clearly also a scriptural emphasis on fertility, re: Sarah and Isaac. God breaks through sterility and turns the barren into the fruitful.) These are all things to do with marriage.

One might argue that a genuine marriage represents a confluence of factors: reproduction, economic help, sexual pleasure, loving affection, and so on. This view has some intuitive plausibility to me, and carries with it the suggestion that while one or more factors might be absent, the ideal marriage contains all of them. Just as there are loveless marriages, sexless marriages, separated marriages, etc., so too there might be childless marriages, but this does not mean that we do not think marriage, conceptually speaking, has something to do with love, sex, cooperation, children, and so on.

The thing is, marriage conceived in this way is already breaking down. A push for same-sex marriage would mean that we need to take reproduction off the list as a factor, for instance. But to step back: hasn't sex, for instance, already been removed? The idea that marriage is the proper venue of sex really doesn't seem credible in today's society. The overwhelming majority of people have sex before marriage, and not just sex with partners whom they love and consider serious candidates for future marriage. It's very easy to take potshots at the sexual revolution (and I daresay it deserves quite a few of them), but the decoupling of marriage from sexual pleasure is something that has gotten the marriage tradition in trouble. The folk song 'Yarmouth Town' sums it up with just one line: Oh, why should I marry you, she said, I'll have all I want without being wed.

In this way marriage no longer plays the role it once did of legitimising sexual relations. Thus there is less perceived need for marriage, and no doubt this is part of why the marriage rate is steadily falling. (Google tells me it is the same in the US.) The simple truth here is that marriage is not the pillar of society that it used to be, and it has lost part of its function.

When we talk about marriage and reproduction, then, and conclude from the fact of childless opposite-sex marriages that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction (and therefore same-sex marriage should be instituted), we're really looking at stripping away another part of marriage's function. If marriage does not involve children, if it does not provide a venue for legitimate sexual relations, then all we have left are cohabitation and love. Yet I believe non-married cohabitation is also on the rise. (Again, a quick Google turned up a reference.) It seems to me that if we follow this path to its logical conclusion, the institution we used to call 'marriage' will come to be nothing but a solemnisation of love; and that's great and all, but it's not an institution that can really endure.

In many ways I think the debate really comes down whether you think there is an institution of marriage worth preserving or not. Traditional marriage is based on a confluence of factors oriented around this ideal of a loving, cooperative, fruitful, sexual relationship, and the more factors we remove, the more this tradition loses meaning. It would be more intellectually honest, I suspect, for some of the critics and reformers of marriage to come out and say, "Marriage is an archaic Bronze Age institution that does not serve modern society. It is an anachronism. What we need are concrete criteria by which partners can be classified and nothing more. Let people solemnise their loving relationships in their own way."

This was my response:

Times change. . . .Your idea of Christianity is probably different than your grand parents (probably your parents as well but trying to make a point) and certainly very different than those far back in the past. Does that mean that one should tear up Christianity? I don't mean as my position but as a person within the religion itself. You likely consider being a Christian still of value.

People married, gay or straight, find value in marriage. If they do not and do not want to get married, I am cool with that as well. To a large extend, I think that we need to leave life up to those living that life and not concern myself with their life unless it interferes with my life or does harm to others I can demonstrate (I don't live in a vacuum)

In addition, neither people or society change instantly. Even if marriage is slowly going away, it is a gradual process. I was raised in a wish-washy Christian household that was fairly conservative. My mother only got religious just before she died. The thing is that it still took me ~25 to 30 years to go from that to an atheist who is pretty liberal. It is of course more complicated than that but the issue is that one generally does not wake up one day completely changed. Societies don't change overnight. Around 1968, the US population was perfectly fine with criminal punishments for gays. Now, except for a few nuts and their followers, this is not even acceptable with the religious conservatives.

How would others have responded?

[Neon Genesis]

What we need are concrete criteria by which partners can be classified and nothing more. Let people solemnise their loving relationships in their own way.

I'd hate to break it to them but this is the way marriage has always been.  A criteria for which partners can be classified and receive government benefits and how people view the sacredness of marriage has evolved throughout history.  This notion there's a one true definition of marriage that has slowly become corrupted and meaningless over time is a modern notion that American evangelicals made up to justify their own bigoted views and cultural biases. 

[Desert Fox]

This actually comes from a European Christian who does not take the bible literally

[AxeGrrl]

One could also point out that there is a clear difference between a couple that would normally be able to reproduce but is unable to due to some physical defect and a couple that is unable to reproduce because they are not the sorts of creatures that are fundamentally able to reproduce with each other.

One could, but saying it wouldn't make a good argument.

When the subject is civil marriage, there simply isn't any "clear difference" between a hetero couple that can't reproduce (because tubes have been tied and/or uterus yanked or due to some unchosen reason) and a gay couple.

This is one the weakest arguments out there, imo.

[AxeGrrl]

A push for same-sex marriage would mean that we need to take reproduction off the list as a factor, for instance

The fact that there are tons of deliberately childless hetero couples out there 'took reproduction off the list' ages ago.

[AxeGrrl]

This notion there's a one true definition of marriage that has slowly become corrupted and meaningless over time is a modern notion that American evangelicals made up to justify their own bigoted views and cultural biases.

Bingo.   Any argument that includes 'marriage should be _____' is horse pucky.  A marriage is whatever the people involved decide it's going to be.  There's such arrogance in the practice of judging other peoples' marriages by comparing them to some kind of 'traditional ideal'......

The really funny thing is that there are married couples out there who 'appear' to have a stereotypically 'traditional' marriage but privately, are actually living a marriage that would shock and horrify marriage 'purists'.  Right now.

[Caffiene]

This view has some intuitive plausibility to me, and carries with it the suggestion that while one or more factors might be absent, the ideal marriage contains all of them.

This might be true. But the argument that they continue from this point is based on the assumption that the ideal marriage is obtainable. Ok, a homosexual marriage may not be the absolute ideal marriage because it cant produce biological offspring (yet)... to show that this makes it worse than other marriages, theyll need to present an example of a marriage (that has actually existed in real life) that is/was flawlessly perfect in every way.

Saying "this marriage has one flaw" does nothing to condemn it unless you can demonstrate a marriage that doesnt have even one flaw.


From there, it goes on to the discussion about the parts that are being "removed" from marriage. But it doesnt attempt to justify the jump from "this is no longer only the domain of marriage" to "this is no longer the domain of marriage". Just because people have sex outside of marriage doesnt mean that sex after you are married cant have a meaningful significance.

To use their language, marriage does not provide the only venue for legitimate sexual relations but that doesnt mean marriage doesnt provide a venue for legitimate sexual relations. The same applies for cohabitation. And, for that matter, for reproduction: Theyve missed the obvious - their logic regarding sex also already applies to reproduction. Many people already have children outside of marriage, in exactly the same way that they already have sex outside of marriage. If sex is "no longer the domain" of marriage because it commonly happens outside of marriage, then neither is reproduction, even without considering homosexual relationships.


All theyve really managed to do is write an essay that points out to people some of the many ways that marriage has problems and doesnt always work. None of which are related to gay marriage.

[benschwab]

It is my estimation that there is a non-trivial number of marriages in which abuse occurs.  It seams to me that an abusive marriage should be condemned far more vehemently then a non-abusive one even if the abusive one is heterosexual and the non-abusive one is homosexual.  If someone would directly ask me to help support them in condemning homosexual marriage I would hopefully ask that person to instead work with me and put his or her efforts into doing something about abusive marriages such as raising money or volunteering for battered women shelters or for another support organization.

It also seams to me that a loving family led by a homosexual couple would be a far better place to raise a child then in one which is led by a heterosexual couple in which there is regular abuse.




An idea I just had in this vain.  Would it be possible formally or informally to start a fund at this forums to raise money for women's shelters or something related.  A possibility would be the National Coalition against Domestic Violence or to encourage people to donate to local shelters or other support groups.  We could even ask those who we argue with about homosexual marriage to join in the fund or to support these organizations themselves.

[Shibboleth]

One could also point out that there is a clear difference between a couple that would normally be able to reproduce but is unable to due to some physical defect and a couple that is unable to reproduce because they are not the sorts of creatures that are fundamentally able to reproduce with each other.

One could, but saying it wouldn't make a good argument.

When the subject is civil marriage, there simply isn't any "clear difference" between a hetero couple that can't reproduce (because tubes have been tied and/or uterus yanked or due to some unchosen reason) and a gay couple.

This is one the weakest arguments out there, imo.

First off... just to be clear I am all for gay marriage.

Maybe this is an urban legend but at one point didn't certain states require people getting married to have blood tests to check for the possibility of birth defects? I always found that and the illicit nature of cousin marriage interesting because it was the one place that government did step in on marriage and children.

[Desert Fox]

A bit different than that. . . .Appears that only two states still do and it is not for birth defects but only for syphilis. Historically, syphilis was horrid disease

(click to show/hide)

[Neon Genesis]

It is my estimation that there is a non-trivial number of marriages in which abuse occurs.  It seams to me that an abusive marriage should be condemned far more vehemently then a non-abusive one even if the abusive one is heterosexual and the non-abusive one is homosexual.  If someone would directly ask me to help support them in condemning homosexual marriage I would hopefully ask that person to instead work with me and put his or her efforts into doing something about abusive marriages such as raising money or volunteering for battered women shelters or for another support organization.

It also seams to me that a loving family led by a homosexual couple would be a far better place to raise a child then in one which is led by a heterosexual couple in which there is regular abuse.

The problem is that in the alternate universe of Jesusland, all gay marriages are considered abusive because they claim that all gay marriages are based on lust rather than love, but a heterosexual Christian man that abuses his wife can still be forgiven for his sins if they say they're sorry to magic Jesus.  To fundies, it doesn't matter how loving a gay couple is.  If they never repent of their lust, they're going to hell when they die but if an abusive heterosexual Christian says sorry to magic Jesus right before they die, they're suddenly going to heaven.

[Desert Fox]

The problem is that the person who I am arguing with does not have that excuse

[EhJayArr]

I thought the writings of the anti-gay marriage person were pretty well-reasoned... but his argument falls apart because of exactly this:

This notion there's a one true definition of marriage that has slowly become corrupted and meaningless over time is a modern notion that American evangelicals made up to justify their own bigoted views and cultural biases.

Bingo.   Any argument that includes 'marriage should be _____' is horse pucky.  A marriage is whatever the people involved decide it's going to be.  There's such arrogance in the practice of judging other peoples' marriages by comparing them to some kind of 'traditional ideal'......

Somehow, he expects that his definition of marriage is the definition of marriage.

[benschwab]

The problem is that in the alternate universe of Jesusland, all gay marriages are considered abusive because they claim that all gay marriages are based on lust rather than love, but a heterosexual Christian man that abuses his wife can still be forgiven for his sins if they say they're sorry to magic Jesus.  To fundies, it doesn't matter how loving a gay couple is.  If they never repent of their lust, they're going to hell when they die but if an abusive heterosexual Christian says sorry to magic Jesus right before they die, they're suddenly going to heaven.

I agree that if someone has this thinking I will likely not reach that person.  I have encountered people who "are for gays" but "are against gay marriage."  These people tend to think that gays can have loving relationships but still oppose homosexual marriage.  I may not be able to reach these people, at-least quickly, but maybe I can get them to concentrate on the mountain instead of the molehill (in their minds).  At the very least I am opening an opportunity for them to turn their (misplaced) righteous indignity into something real and universally considered positive.

The issue I have is that the emotional concept of marriage has been conflated with the legal concept of marriage.  As policy I think that the legal statutes of marriage should be the same for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples.  As a matter of my philosophy, I think it's foolish for someone to conflate their own emotional concept of marriage with legal definitions.  This way people can have the freedom make or not make whatever commitment is emotionally important to themselves and to recognize or not recognize marriages as they wish.

[AxeGrrl]

One could also point out that there is a clear difference between a couple that would normally be able to reproduce but is unable to due to some physical defect and a couple that is unable to reproduce because they are not the sorts of creatures that are fundamentally able to reproduce with each other.

One could, but saying it wouldn't make a good argument.

When the subject is civil marriage, there simply isn't any "clear difference" between a hetero couple that can't reproduce (because tubes have been tied and/or uterus yanked or due to some unchosen reason) and a gay couple.

This is one the weakest arguments out there, imo.

First off... just to be clear I am all for gay marriage.

Maybe this is an urban legend but at one point didn't certain states require people getting married to have blood tests to check for the possibility of birth defects? I always found that and the illicit nature of cousin marriage interesting because it was the one place that government did step in on marriage and children.

Even when there were blood tests, were 'barren' couples not allowed to be married?

If they were allowed, then procreation wasn't a 'requisite' aspect of civil marriage even then.

Also, are people aware of how many states allow cousins to marry, now?

"Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal."

So, even first cousin marriages are more 'respected' (legally, at least) in the U.S. than same sex marriage.