Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
As Christians, we believe that the institution of marriage is a reflection the universal human vocation to love. It is a union of free and equal persons, a partnership ordered toward the perfection of the spouses. It is also a reflection of the divine romance, of God’s love for mankind and more particularly of Christ’s love for the Church. Within the Christian economy marriage has been elevated to the dignity of a sacrament.
All of these things are true, but none of them is the rationale for the institution of marriage as a civil reality recognized and regulated by the state. Certainly we have not yet touched on the essential reason why, as discussed in Part 4, marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman is a socio-cultural constant found throughout all of human history, culture and civilization. Indeed, marriage as it has existed in many times and places wouldn’t especially suggest the description in that last paragraph at all. The notion of a “union of free and equal persons” is quite contrary to the reality of many patriarchal cultures, and the idea of a “universal human vocation to love” would be unknown in many times and places. Yet marriage itself as the union of a man and a woman is not likewise variable.
This suggests a fundamental social impetus for marriage that is not touched on above—some practical, naturalistic, even Darwinian reason why societies need marriage and will suffer without it. The obvious factor not addressed above is this: (a) Men and women engage in sexual relations, and (b) men and women having sexual relations is where babies come from. To these we may add a third: (c) Human babies are born helpless and require a long period of intensive care and education before they are ready to be self-sufficient.
It is no answer to this to object, as same-sex “marriage” advocates invariably do, that some married couples are infertile or sterile, or that post-fertile couples marry. It remains the case that if human young did not require such an enormous investment—if like the young of many species they were self-sufficient after a few months—or if, say, women became pregnant spontaneously without sexual relations with men, marriage as we know it would not exist. We could still imagine a universal vocation to love in such a world, and people might have reasons rooted in religion or tradition for forming special bonds or partnerships between persons, but such practices would likely be highly variable and in many cultures entirely unknown.
In a word, marriage as a social reality has existed throughout human history in order to to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. For all of marriage’s glories and freedoms, marriage as a social reality is largely about society telling both married and unmarried men and women whom they may not have sex with. (Again, as discussed in Part 4, this is not to say that Christian ideals of chastity and monogamy are found in every culture; still, marriage is always the privileged place for socially sanctioned sexual relations, and outside of that context are significant if not always absolute proscriptions or taboos.)
From the dawn of human history, men have devoted enormous energy toward the goal having sex with women. In the absence of some sort of constraint, whether moral, social or prudential, few goals are more obviously attractive and rewarding for a typical healthy, unattached male than coupling with a suitable woman. Both consciously and subconsciously, he is highly motivated to pursue this goal, and to pursue it often.
In the absence of moral, social or prudential considerations, few men would be inclined to limit their pursuit of this goal to a single woman. Promiscuity, after all, can be a highly successful reproductive strategy for the individual male as well as a successful recreational one. A promiscuous male can potentially father many more children than a male who forms a stable partnership with one woman, because he can father multiple children simultaneously.
Such a man’s children may grow up comparatively disadvantaged, without the benefits of a present, involved father (see Part 3), but what his approach lacks in quality it makes up for in quantity. If, still prescinding from moral and social constraints, he can get children with a woman who happens already to have formed a stable partnership with a male who is likely to provide for the woman’s children, whether or not they are his (and especially if he doesn’t know), so much the better from the promiscuous father’s point of view.
The promiscuous man’s approach offers many advantages for him; it is notably less advantageous for the women who bear his children. Women have always had far more invested in a sexual encounter than men, and this inequality is heightened by promiscuity. That’s why on the whole women tend to be choosier about potential partners than men—and why parents tend to worry more about their daughters than their sons.
As that last point suggests, irresponsible male behavior isn’t only the woman’s problem. The support of those disadvantaged children tends to become society’s problem—the problem of the community upon whom the burden of the father’s abdicated responsibility falls, whether that community is an unattached woman’s parents or extended family, a cuckolded husband, or social welfare mechanisms and the society that supports them. Such children are a greater burden to raise and tend not to be as productive in adulthood, perhaps particularly in a developed society.
Society can partially mitigate such imbalances in various ways, for example with laws requiring paternal support. But there is no better equalizer, no more ideal scenario that serves children best and benefits society most, than a father and mother working together for the long haul to raise the children they bring into the world. This is not to say that a heroic single parent or a good adoptive family can’t also do a good job raising children, or that a troubled family can’t do a poor job. Nor is it to say that children cannot be successfully raised in other contexts, including step-families (a topic I will return to later). On the whole, though, father and mother working together to raise their biological children represents society’s best hope for the next generation.
There are many reasons for this. A father and mother who have brought children into the world are uniquely responsible for them—responsible for their very existence—and there is an innate tendency, rooted in biology, to embrace those children not only as their responsibility but also as their legacy, their posterity. A couple working together for their own biological offspring have a unique impetus to work and sacrifice for their children’s welfare and success. The sexual bond between the couple provides a foundation for a stable partnership, and if additional children come along this further reinforces and extends the partnership.
Unsurprisingly, since children being raised by their parents is the best and usual arrangement, children are well adapted to it. Children in a stable household founded on a stable marriage feel secure and thrive. The partnership of father and mother provides a foundation for their own future relationships. Fathers and mothers tend to parent differently, and children benefit from the diversity of the two. While children of both sexes benefit from both parents, a father is obviously an irreplaceable role model for a boy, and a mother is an irreplaceable role model for a girl.
More to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
“
As Christians, we believe that the institution of marriage is a reflection the universal human vocation to love. It is a union of free and equal persons, a partnership ordered toward the perfection of the spouses. It is also a reflection of the divine romance, of God’s love for mankind and more particularly of Christ’s love for the Church. Within the Christian economy marriage has been elevated to the dignity of a sacrament.”
Yes! And that is the very reason that so many Catholics want to extend marriage to samesex couples.
Joe: Because you read the first paragraph and then stop?
Also, Joe, elsewhere I’m pretty sure you’ve taken a rather dim or reductionistic view toward matrimony as a sacrament.
I think you refer to my idea that the Church is the Ur-sacrament and that the heterogeneous activities we call the sacraments are outflows of that. It is not really important whether we use the vocab of sacraments, since in each case the graced reality is so different; so we need not quarrel too insistently with our brethren who say only baptism and eucharist are sacraments. But the point is that the manifest graces and blessings of marriage should be extended as widely as possible.
Oh, I did look through the rest of your essay; but the first paragraph was the best, and the one that most promotes the extension of the blessings of marriage.
John Paul I is said to have urged acceptance of adoption by gay couples, noting that they were the ones most generous in adopting the least favored kids. This, I think, makes all the fuss about kids needing a mom and dad a bit academic; the alternative for many of these kids is no mom and no dad at all.
SDG, Thank you for writing this excellent series. I live in Canada where gay marriage has been officially recognized for years, even if most commonsense citizens roll their eyes at the idea.
You have raised excellent points, especially that the public debate was lost decades ago during the establishment of divorce by the State. Chesterton’s writing such as “the Superstition of Divorce” and such are all applicable to the contemporary debate about gay marriage. The sensible argument against gay “marriage” is essentially a rearguard action in a centuries-long retreat. We cannot win the debate on gay “marriage” without also winning the debate on divorce.
In Part 4, you ask “why ... does the state have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships…” That is an interesting part of the history of the rise of the nation-state. The state unilaterally claimed the authority to recognize marriage (and last names) centuries ago, but they should never have had this authority. The Church still claims this authority, and has never given it up.
Joe, I understand that you wish “the manifest graces and blessings of marriage [to] be extended as widely as possible”, but we cannot extend these graces by re-defining reality. I can define a different version of Baptism or the Eucharist, but that will not extend graces but merely confuse people in dire need of those graces.
Joe: In other words, you like my first paragraph because it doesn’t explicitly spell out the reasons why marriage is the enduring union of a man and a woman, even though it also doesn’t provide a rationale for having a civil institution of marriage in the first place. That’s the question you don’t have a convincing answer to, which is why you avoid it.
Joe:
“John Paul I is said to have urged acceptance of adoption by gay couples”
Evidence?
Also, Joe, you approvingly quote this sentence from my first paragraph:
Yet Jewish and Christian tradition has historically seen the sexual complementarity of male and female as an integral dimension of the allegory of the divine romance. The bridegroom makes the bride fruitful and new life grows within her, not the other way around. The bridegroom lays down his life to save the bride, not the other way around.
How does this symbolism do what you say, “promote the extension of the blessings of marriage” to same-sex couples?
Even if you tried to make some argument that two men or two women might symbolize the same reality as a man and a woman, manifestly they are not the same symbol. (In the same way, a lamb can symbolize Christ, and bread and wine can symbolize Christ, but even if they symbolize the same reality, they are not the same symbol.)
The union of a man and a woman symbolizes the divine romance in a way that two men or two women can’t. Marriage is the symbol that it is because of the complementarity of men and women.
The bridal symbolism is very porous. Monks like St Bernard and Fathers like Origen use the Song of Songs as allegory of their relation to Christ—- o that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth…
The love of Christ for his Church is expressed in the framework of Greek friendship ethos throughout the last discoource in John… I call you friends… lay down his life for his friends…
So samesex friendship can indeed symbolize the divine romance, and it even uses the bridal symbolism in the case of Song of Songs allegory.
I do not therefore see a strong objection from symbolism to an extension of the blessings of marriage to gays.
Joe:
Yes. Putting themselves in the position of the bride. Because the Church, and by extension the soul (anima), is feminine in relation to Christ. It’s still not gender neutral.
Same-sex friendship can certainly symbolize the same divine-human relationship as marriage. It can symbolize the same reality, but it is not the same symbol. It is not marriage.
Joe said, “John Paul I is said to have urged acceptance of adoption by gay couples…”
I had always wondered why God permitted him only a short pontificate. Now perhaps I have my answer.
I do not like introduction “As Christians….”. I prefere “As honest and just people”. As honest and just people we stand that justice and honesty demands that we expose to possibility to become parent of a new human being, only if in advance we secure for our possible child true, permanent, unconditional, active, serious,respectful, irrevocable and mature motherly and fatherly love. That is possible only if we develope with other possible parent of our child the relationship which is adequate to true parental love by both of us to our possible common children. That relationship has to be based on freely and personally chosen and decided tender, unconditional, irrevocable, active, serious, respectful,permanent and mature mutual love and care. That kind of love is marital love. So, undissoluble marital relationship is demand of simple, clear, everyday justice and honesty. Justice and honesty understandable and acceptable by all people regardles of their religion, atheism, agnosticism or any other world view. That is reason why we find such family relationships in every time, every culture and every civilisation. Efforts by people of homosexual behaviour to call their relationship the Marriage, and their common life the Family, only shows how deeply idea of true family is present in any culture.
Rarely does one read such an irrelevant ‘argument’ for ‘traditional’ marriage. Is the author suggesting sterile people can’t marry? That elderly people beyond child bearing age can’t? Why not? Gays make up about 2.5% of the population. No one is going to stop having children because gays marry. This is truly pathetic. If this is all bigotry has to offer, people of rationial minds should simply laugh at such blatant hostilty to gays and go on their way. And is he suggesting a fitness test for parents? Many people are unfit to be parents. To suggest that the best gay parents are worse than child abusers, killers, etc., is staggering in its ignorance.
The moderator will probably censor me shortly so it’s uncertain about how many replies I’ll be permitted to make.
Thank You Bob. Yes I spoke about heterosexual healthy people and their sexual activity. Infertile people of any age ore infertile.
I have nothing against people who behave homosexualy or promiscuously. It is their decision. In my opinion wrong decision. Homosexual behaviour is in my opinion negative because such behaviour means refraining from greatest crealive capability a human person has - to be parent. Promiscuous heterosexual behaviour is worse, it is misuse of parental capabilities. They in many cases become parents, some children they eliminate through abortion, some simply abandon, and only by complete change of heart accept and love some. I speak about behaviour, I judge behaviour, not people, people deserve respect of their dignity regardless how they behave. We who have several children, we love You and care for You so You can have Your retirement pay when old und unable to earn. My wife and myself have six adult children. They all work. In Croatia three who work support at least two who get retirement pay.My children secure retirement pay for two of us and for at least two peresons of our age who have not children, some by their own decision as people who have chosen homosexual behaviour. Stay well.
bob says, “Is the author suggesting sterile people can’t marry? That elderly people beyond child bearing age can’t? Why not? Gays make up about 2.5% of the population…people of rationial minds should simply laugh at such blatant hostilty to gays and go on their way.”
Actually, rational people have the ability to recognize the exception to the rule, while irrational people tend to have trouble understanding the concept of a rule at all, let alone its exceptions. Same-sex couples, however, aren’t merely an exception to the rule that married couples bear children. They have an entirely separate rule - for them the rule is that they do not bear children, and the exception is those that do. This makes same-sex unions a fundamentally different social construction than a married man and woman.
@ Marijo Zivkovic
That would not be accurate, though, since in my first paragraph (and only in my first paragraph) I am speaking specifically as a Christian about Christian and even Catholic ideas (notably matrimony as a sacrament) that some “honest and just” people do not accept. I would not want to imply that anyone who disagreed with my first paragraph was not “honest and just.” In my later paragraphs I do speak about ideas that I think should be accessible to honest and just people even if they are not Christians. I didn’t want to leap right into this “natural” discussion without first mentioning the Christian perspective on marriage, if only to bracket it.
Is it a wrong decision that affects them only? Or does it affect other people as well? If it affects other people too, for example the children of promiscuous relationships as well as the society that has to help support those children and to deal with their problems, shouldn’t that be something we can hold against them?
@ bob:
You don’t read very well, do you, friend?
About 2,5 % of US population homosexual behaviour ? It would be about 7.5 million people, probably older then 11 years of age. Where are they. In our newspaper it was quoted a US demographer Gates who is saying that in Us there are from 20 to 30 millions gay people. He includes in that number anyone who has or had homosexual inclinations and was involved in any homosexual act. By that criterium in US there are 250 millions liers and thiefs, because so many people experiences inclinations to lie or steal and some times lied or taked something that did not belonged to them. To be mothogically correct in homosexual people could be listed people who’s life long attitude is to behave homosexualy. How many of such people really exist in US. Where are these 7 million people.
It seems that some people by increasing number of them would like bto argument that their behaviour is good. Behaviour is good or wrong. Number does not make difference.
Kevin seems inclined to invent rules out of wholecloth. Who invented this magical, mystical rule about children and marriage? Who invoked biological determinism that destroys the nature of the human person and turns us into reproduction machines? This mechanistic, utilitarian approach to the human person is profoundly destructive. You’re welcome to your rules. Have at it. Unless you can prove why this rule applies to all people, it’s, as I stated previously, irrelevant.
There are about as many gay Americans as there are Jews. Are we suggesting that numbers determine rights? And here’s a place to start regarding the number of gays:
gallup.com/poll/6961/What-Percentage-Population-Gay.aspx
@ Bob:
You don’t read very well, do you, friend?
P.S. Bonus question for Bob (from Part 4): What IS marriage as a civil institution? Why is it recognized by the state at all? Why does the state have a bureaucratic apparatus for certifying (and decertifying) sexual partnerships involving two and only two non-related adult partners? Why should the state have such a bureaucracy? Why is it any of the state’s business?
In other words, before asking other people about the “magical, mystical rule about marriage and children,” let’s have your perspective on the “magical, mystical rule” of marriage itself.
Steven, there are a host of legal issues in marriage. Religion is not one of them. The state has no religious requirements at all regarding marriage. It’s the state’s business because of the legalities, such as property rights and the rights of children. Childless couples have to resolve legal issues. If marriage was ONLY about children as you say it is, divorce would be simple for childless couples. It’s not.
“Who invented this magical, mystical rule about children and marriage?”
Didn’t the Beatles write that?
Bob and “reproduction maachines” - wrong attribution. I start from everybody preference to be respected, to be cared and loved by unconditional,irrevocable, tender, active, serious and mature love and care from conception on. Without violence, insulting, humiliation, ridiculing or ironizing. I start also from equal, great, value and importance of each human person regardless of his or her intelligence, appearence, financial situation, education etc just as human person.
I think also Bob recognize himself in that description. From these two starting point we come to fact that greatest creative capability of human person is not social status, richness, fame or anything similar, but possibility to be parent - biological and more so loving and caring properly. Not everybody can be biological parent (some are infertile), but everybody can develope true parental love. Catholic persons who decided for celibacy or other way of consecrated life,are also called to develope true parental and spousal love, and offer such love to people who need such love. Priests and nuns are correctly called “Father” or “Mother”, because if they live their vocation sincerely, they really love people with true fatherly or motherly love.
@bob: Can’t the state enforce property rights and rights of children without marriage? If marriage is only about enforcing rights,marriage doesn’t seem to be necessary to society.
@ Bob:
Why are you bringing up religion? I’ve already said as clearly as I know how that my argument doesn’t depend on religious principles. I mentioned religion in my first paragraph above only to bracket it and to go on on the basis of purely secular and even Darwinian reasoning.
WHY do childless “couples” have legal issues to resolve? Who says that there is an entity called “the childless couple” that has any legal standing, or which the state has any particular interest in? Just because two people happen to be sleeping together, why does this suddenly create mysterious, magical legal problems? What if three or four people are sleeping together? What about THEIR legal problems? You will have to be clearer about this marriage superstition of yours.
I brought up religion, Steve, because your assertion about the imagined threat that gay marriage is to society is wrong. Therefore, it’s a masquerade for the real agenda, which is defending religion. Childless couples have property rights, etc. I suggest you consult a divorce lawyer and ask her if childless married couples have legal issues. The answer is yes. Thus the state does NOT view marriage as an institution SOLELY for procreation. And yes, there are married, childless couples. I’m willing to bet you know a few. I suggest you try and tell them they’re not really married!
Tim, your question illustrates PRECISELY the reason gay marriage SHOULD be legal. Childless married couples see themselves as married. They (we, since I’m married and have no kids) do not need your permission to be married, nor do we care if you consider us unmarried. I suggest you run this by a few childless couples. See if they consider themselves married vs your view that they’re not!
Marijo…your utilitarian view of people as achieving greatness only when they are parents is your view. If celibates can be nuturing and loving, then so can gays who love each other within the institution of marriage.
@bob: I’m single. Can I consider myself married if I see myself as married? Can I require the state to recognize my married/single lifestyle? Or do I need permission from those authoritative “couples” (whether “married” or not).
To answer my own question, I would say that I, as a single person, am not married because marriage means something, and being single is excluded from that meaning.
@bob: While your working on your definition of marriage which Steven asked for above, could you also define what you mean by “utilitarian”? It might help clear things up.
@ Bob:
Shorter Bob: “I disagree with your reasoning, so I choose to ignore it and believe that your real reasons are something else.” Thanks for clarifying that.
You’re missing the point. The question isn’t WHETHER childless couples have property rights issues. The question is WHY—and why the state should have a special bureaucracy dealing with this particular situation that is any different from property rights issues for any other domestic arrangements. If two (or more) roommates are renting an apartment or a house together, or if two (or more) individuals go in on a business venture together or buy some other sort of property, THEY don’t a special bureaucratic procedure legally joining them to one another until and unless they decide to dissolve their partnership. But if those same two roommates start sleeping together and want to be “married,” whatever that means, suddenly there is an unspecified legal issue that you can’t seem to put your finger on. Why these legal issues, whatever they are, always involve two and only two people is another magical, mysterious requirement that you haven’t explained.
You don’t read very well, do you, friend? Probably because you decided in advance that my “real” reasons were different from the ones I was giving. Your misunderstandings are incorrigible, then.
Tim, what married rights are you denined in your single state? Marriage ‘means’ something? Being single is, by definition, not being married. Are you denied to right to visit yourself in the hospital? To get a social security check from yourself? To make decisions about end of life care treatment for yourself?
bob said, “Kevin seems inclined to invent rules out of wholecloth. Who invented this magical, mystical rule about children and marriage?”
I did not invent the rule - I merely recognized its existence. If you are looking for its inventor, however, you’ve come to the right place, for we are all seeking Him and His wisdom.
The reason the state enters into this relationship is contractural. Individuals have rights. Some of these are economic rights regarding implicit promises made during a relationship. It USED to be the case a woman was not entitled to half her husband’s earnings because she had been a homemaker. That has changed. That’s a law. Implicit in a marriage is a contract. There is nothing sex related about this at all. It’s an agreement between 2 people. Your question is relevant in another sense: legal corporations and partnerships which the very questions you ask are defined. In fact, some people go into partnerships without spelling out the arrangements and find problems when the partnership is dissolved. So marriage is ANOTHER form of partnership. THAT is why it has legal implications. And the essence of your secular argument hinges on procreation. Since being gay does not threaten the existence of procreation, it’s largely irrelevant. No straight couple will stop having children because gays can marry.
@ Bob: Why is this particular “marriage” contract available to two and only two people?
@bob: The tax code discriminates against my lifestyle. By the state giving a special status to marriage (as a commitment between two people), I feel like it is disapproving of my lifestyle.
Marriage is by definition a union between one man and one woman. If gender is irrelevant to this definition (as same-sex marriage advocates claim), why is the number relevant. Why not a union between 3 or more?
Why not just one?
Ah, Steven, here you’ve invoked the ‘slippery slope’ argument, asking why polygamy shouldn’t be legal if gay marriage is. The answer is, so to speak, straightforward. First, polygamy IS common around the world. And it RADICALLY changes society. We see that in the middle east, especially in Islam, with its retrogressive views of women. Second, polygamy is a right I deny MYSELF. I have the potential to be a polygamist. I do NOT have the potential to be gay. So denying GAYS the right to marry is denying someone ELSE a right I already have. Denying the right to polygamy is denying ME and others a right.
Tim, actually WE are discriminated against. I am married and have no kids so I have EXACTLY the same discrimination! Marriage is NOT, by definition, the union of 1 man and 1 woman. If it WERE we would not be having this discussion, would we? And see my note to Steve below regarding polygamy
bob said, “I brought up religion, Steve, because your assertion about the imagined threat that gay marriage is to society is wrong. Therefore, it’s a masquerade for the real agenda, which is defending religion.”
Defending that which is already in place does not fit the definition of “agenda.” Attacking such, however, does.
“Childless married couples see themselves as married.”
And why not? A great number of couples find themselves in this position for some time after they join together in matrimony, as my wife and myself did for several years. In fact, it is what society considers ideal as compared to the alternative of waiting to get married until they’re no longer childless. And even most couples who intend to remain childless cannot guarantee they will always stay so.
@bob: Everyone has the capacity to engage in homosexual relations just as everyone has the capacity to engage in heterosexual relations. By not marrying someone of the same sex, you are denying yourself that right.
I don’t see how your comparison to polygamy works. In both cases (same-sex marriage and polygamy) you would be denying yourself and others a certain right.
Also, are claiming that permitting polygamy is a slippery slope toward abuse of women?
Kevin, does the state REQUIRE married couples to procreate? If not, then procreation is NOT a requirement to be married.
@ Bob:
You keep misunderstanding because you think you know in advance what and how I think and what I’m saying, and you don’t. Please consider that I am not a carbon copy of everyone you may have interacted with on this subject on the opposite side from you (and quite possibly you’ve misunderstood some of them too), and my approach may be different from what you’re expecting. Perhaps we can have a conversation instead of talking past each other.
First, FWIW, my question was not a “slippery slope argument,” at least in the sense commonly invoked today, i.e., a cautionary, pragmatic argument that “This will lead to that!” It’s a question about rationale and consistency, verging in the direction of a reductio ad absurdum. At least I wish it were a reductio ad absurdum, but unfortunately it’s very difficult to get any consensus on what constitute absurdity these days.
Second and more importantly, I never mentioned polygamy. Polygamy means multiple marriages, but each marriage remains between two people. Even in polygamous societies marriage remains the union of one man and one woman. (To give a biblical example, Jacob was married to Leah and Jacob was married to Rachel; they were not all the three of them married to one another. FWIW, if I were talking about polygamy, that would not be a reductio ad absurdum, since polygamy is significantly less absurd (and higher up the putative “slippery slope”) than same-sex “marriage.”)
My question was specifically about partnerships of more than two. If we assume the partnership is sexual (and I don’t know why we’re assuming that, or what sexual intercourse has to do with legal rights), then such partnerships would be properly called polyamory, not polygamy. There is no direct analogy to polygamy as it is practiced in the Middle East or elsewhere, and no way to tell consenting polyamorous partners that their relationship is somehow harmful to women.
You say that polygamy (and presumably by extension polyamory) is a right you deny yourself. But it’s also a right that you (and the rest of society) denies to everyone, including consenting adults who choose polyamory. My question is: Why should it be that two people in San Francisco renting an apartment and sleeping together have special legal needs for which civil society has a ready-made bureaucratic solution pre-printed with forms with two lines for signatures, whereas three people in Detroit who are sleeping together and want to buy a house have no recourse to a similar civil solution? (Disclaimer: The city names were chosen at random.)
Suppose two men enjoy the sexual favors of the same woman. Suppose Heather has two mommies and a daddy or two. Why should any of them be limited in their hospital visitation rights, say?
Conversely, why should sex have anything to do with it at all? Suppose a parent and adult offspring, or two grown siblings, are raising a child together, and one of them is the stay-at-home caregiver while the other works. Why shouldn’t the at-home partner benefit from the working partner’s work-provided insurance, the same way a spouse or “domestic partner” would? Isn’t the rationale the same? Heck, aren’t they “domestic partners” in the obvious sense that society would have an interest in? Isn’t it potentially the child who suffers by denying the caregivers the rights that they could have if only they weren’t already related and not sleeping together? (E.g., the stay-at-home caregiver may be forced to seek employment and maintain benefits, shunting the child to daycare.)
No it isn’t. As a man in New Jersey, I have a right to be married to a woman. I do not have a right to be married to a man. The same is true of every other man in New Jersey. Nobody asked me when I went to the marriage license department whether I was straight or gay.
bob said, “does the state REQUIRE married couples to procreate? If not, then procreation is NOT a requirement to be married.”
The state confers certain privileges and rights on married couples. They are structured as an incentive to form the family units that are best suited to the bearing and raising of children (as opposed to being structured as a reward for having actually succeeded in bearing children). The state obviously doesn’t require individual couples to procreate, but it does expect that as a group married couples will procreate. If even with these incentives the majority of children end up being born out of wedlock or if they don’t result in enough children being born to maintain a stable population, then you could say that these incentives have failed. In fact, in many European countries you could probably make that argument quite successfully. In this country, however, I think the incentives have proven that they are still worth their cost, even if they aren’t as successful today as they once were.
If you want to argue that the benefits and privileges of marriage should be granted based on the performance of individual couples rather than based on the the rule that married couples bear children, that is an entirely separate issue from that of recognizing same-sex “marriage,” and one that you’re more than welcome to press your elected representatives about.
Steve, actually, the situation you describe about ‘Detroit’ is not prohibited in law. Any number of people can enter into partnerships with equal rights. Marriage is different in the sense that it is, today (though this has not always been the case), based on love with the presumption of dedication to each other. How that is limited to a man and a woman escapes me since homosexuality clearly exists. If you, for the sake of completeness, want to call 2 men being ‘married’ with ALL the rights married heterosexuals have,something different then I have no problem with that. At this point we’re arguing for a distinction without a difference. You say that, in NJ, you have a right to be married. That’s not possible for gays so you ARE excluding them from a right you have: to be married. There is no reason you’ve offered, if you think marriage should exist and be recognized by the state, to exclude 2 men from marrying each other. In a sense you have solved your own problem: have the Church call ‘marriage’ something different. But the Church wishes to go further and exclude gays from having the rights married heterosexual couples have. And so far I haven’t seen any reason to do so.
Tim, it’s not a question of performance, it’s a question of humanity. Our sexuality is a component of our identity. Gays are gay. Straights are not. There’s no reason to deny the rights of a person based on a component of human identity which does no harm, does not affect society, and which is opposed on the basis of seemingly irrational arguments. I am not denying MYSELF the right to same sex marriage since I have absolutely no capacity to engage in such a relationship any more than I can be Chinese.
@bob: “In a sense you have solved your own problem: have the Church call ‘marriage’ something different.”
That’s quite a disturbing statement.
Based on the comments to the article, particularly those of Bob, I get the impression that the elephant in the room here is moral relativism: whatever feels good or is between consenting adults is OK and should be sanctioned by the state. Whether you support traditional marriage by relying on religious beliefs or by resorting to cultural/secular arguments, the fact remains that heterosexual unions have been upheld as the preferred and best way to ensure the inculturation of the next generation in all societies since time immemorial. The burden is on those who would “radically change society”, as Bob says and his arguments fail woefully to meet that burden. The gay marriage advocates rely on “feelings of love” and “fairness” to support their arguments while ignoring the facts that heterosexual love is normal and homosexual love is not; I defy anyone to convincingly argue that two men engaged in anal sex is normal—it’s not! That’s not a religious conclusion; it’s common sense and saying it’s normal does not make it so. Lack of any sense of absolute right and wrong has led us to where we are in this society regarding marriage and the culture of death.
Gaston, the real question isn’t ‘moral relativism’ at all, since such a concept is vague and ill defined. Believe me, I can find examples in history when ‘morals’ caused morally reprehensible actions on the part of the Church. The real issue is, under what conditions can the State deny equal rights? When you have PROOF that gay marriage is a threat, I’ll believe your assertion. Until then, this restriction goes in the bin with blacks and whites, Jews and Christians, etc. not being permitted to marry. You say homosexual love isn’t ‘normal’? Gee. I’m glad you’re a member of the ‘normal’ police and have an idea of what that is! Anal sex? More appeal to the ‘yech’ factor…ironic since many STRAIGHTS engage in this!
bob says, “Our sexuality is a component of our identity. Gays are gay. Straights are not.”
I don’t believe that experiencing same-sex attractions comprises an identity, especially if those attractions are undesired. And if opposite-sex vs. same-sex attractions are a “distinction without a difference,” then surely the same can be said for someone who experiences attractions to both sexes, to children or to animals or objects.
That’s very interesting, but my question wasn’t about anything being prohibited, so you still haven’t answered my question. For some reason you are talking about something else that I didn’t ask. Can you read what I wrote and respond to that, or not?
I don’t find anything in this sentence that explains either the state’s interest in the whole affair or why the state should only be interested in such affairs when they involve two people and not more. Nor do I find anything that explains why two people such as a parent and child or siblings who love and are dedicated to one another (such as in my childcare scenario) should not enjoy benefits accorded to otherwise unrelated people who happen to be sleeping with one another.
No. That is not what I said. Try again.
You’ve offered no basis for prima facie confidence that if I have offered such a reason, you would know it for what it is.
Excuse me? The Church has been using the word “marriage” to mean the enduring union between a man and a woman for nearly 2000 years, and every society and government on earth had the same understanding of the word until 2001. Why should the rest of us change our word? Why not use a different term like “domestic partnership” to describe other arrangements?
Same sex marriage advocates sin against the First Commandment.
@bob: From what I understand, human sexuality is not as simple as you describe it, and you do not explain how exactly sexuality is a component of our identity and what that entails. The terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are more political classifications than biological realities.
You are arguing from bald assertions, in addition to misreading others arguments.
And you do have the capacity to enter a same-sex marriage in some states, such as New York. It’s not really clear what you mean by marriage, but it is clear that, in your view, procreation is not necessary for it. It’s not even clear whether you consider sexual relations necessary for marriage. So it would be possible for you to marry another person of the same gender (as you two do not need to procreate). Only your own desire not to enter such a relationship prevents you.
You would be denying yourself a right.
Tim, I don’t have to define this at all. I merely have to show the state has no compelling interest in restricting rights based on sexual identity. Unless you’re willing to give the state arbitrary powers to interfere in private lives, my case is made. And, no, I do not have the capacity to enter into a gay marriage any more than I can be Chinese. I am neither gay nor Chinese. In fact I have more of an ‘interest’ in being polygamous…since I am heterosexual, than I do in being gay. As to bald assertions, saying that the govt should, on arbitrary assumptions, restrict marriage is, itself, a bald assertion!
But the government does restrict marriage, for example, to only two persons. You have yet to explain why this restriction is acceptable.
Steve, your question is rooted in the nature of contracts. Marriage is a contract. Unless, and until, you can show this contract REQUIRES heterosexuality, there’s no reason to restrict it on this basis. Your argument centers around children, but there’s no requirement in any marriage to procreate. The state has an interest in contracts. If you can find a state that REQUIRES married couples to procreate THEN we have a point of discussion about societal benefits and restrictions. I know what you wrote about NJ. I simply redacted the irrelevant assertion you made; that it’s restricted to a man and a woman. That’s circular reasoning. And no, your assertion about marriage being age old in its current sense is wrong. Simply look at Muslim countries where polygamy is practiced. There, marriage is not defined as ‘1 man, 1 woman’. In fact, temporal marriages exist in some sects of Islam where you can be married for a time then the marriage dissolves. Marriage has a broader history than ‘1 man and 1 woman’.
Prescinding from the problematic term “gay,” of course you could enter into a same-sex “marriage,” just as individuals with same-sex attraction have entered into heterosexual (i.e., opposite-sex) marriage for millennia.
Help me out. Exactly what question do you think I was asking that this is meant to answer?
No, it doesn’t, as I’ve already explained. Let me repeat in case you missed it: “Polygamy means multiple marriages, but each marriage remains between two people. Even in polygamous societies marriage remains the union of one man and one woman. (To give a biblical example, Jacob was married to Leah and Jacob was married to Rachel; they were not all the three of them married to one another.)”
Kevin, are you denying sexual orientation is a component of being human? Do you know ANY people who have NO concepts of sex? There are asexual people, and people who are anatomically neither male nor female, but EVERYONE has SOME concept of what their sexual interests are.
The question you were asking was regarding why the state has an obligation to define legal responsibilities in relationships, whether corporate partnerships or marriage. And your assertion about marriage is a property of anatomy, not law. A person can’t have sex with more than 1 person at 1 time. Jacob was married to 2 different women. He was not married to 1 woman. So if you’re willing to let the biblical view of polygamy in the door, which WOULD revolutionize society, then gay marriage is the least of our worries!
Steven, the reason the govt restricts marriage to 2 people is that polyamorous (generally polygamous) societies DO exist and they ARE radically different that ours. Generally they operate to the detriment of women. AND, again, saying that I can’t be polygamous is restricting MY rights. Saying gays can’t be married is denying someone ELSE a right I have, based merely on a property of their nature which has no effect on me whatsoever.
Steven, yes gays have entered into heterosexual marriages for a number of reasons. But I also eat Chinese food. That doesn’t make me Chinese.
@bob: “I merely have to show the state has no compelling interest in restricting rights based on sexual identity.”
Actually, the Constitutional test for discrimination based on homosexuality is that the state must show a “rational basis”. That is, the government needs to show only a “legitimate purpose” for the discrimination. A “compelling interest” is reserved for other forms of discrimination, such as those based on race. The “ration basis” standard is easier (so to speak) to meet as it is the lowest level of scrutiny.
Based on what Steven and others have wrote regarding marriage, it seems pretty clear to me that the state has a legitimate purpose (at least) in keeping marriage between one man and one woman.
Fine, Tim, I’ll go with your definition. Tell me what rational basis there is. I’m still waiting. Unless you can prove that having children is a REQUIREMENT of marriage, there is no ‘rational’ basis to deny gays the right to marry. And the state must have a COMPELLING interest regarding RELIGION. There is NO compelling interest in this case for the state to compel people to follow an arbitrary religious definition of marriage
bob said, “The state has an interest in contracts. If you can find a state that REQUIRES married couples to procreate THEN we have a point of discussion about societal benefits and restrictions.”
Whatever interest the state has in contracts in general, it would have no interest in granting extra privileges and rights to those involved in certain contracts if it had no expectation that such “contracts” would result in benefits to the rest of society. As I’ve said, the expectation that married couples as a group will procreate is certainly there, and if that didn’t happen it would certainly be grounds for rescinding those privileges and rights (which would be a much more sound argument than the suggestion that those same privileges and rights ought to be extended arbitrarily to a group that could never provide the benefits that those privileges and rights were expected to engender in the first place).
bob says, <em>“polyamorous (generally polygamous) societies DO exist and they ARE radically different that ours. Generally they operate to the detriment of women.”
It appears that perhaps they think they’ve solved that problem:
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/166770/48/Polyamory-Redefining-loves-boundaries?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|t
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322084279548434.html
@bob: It’s odd that you your are calling arguments for traditional marriage “irrational”. Some of the assertions you make are puzzling, as are you conclusions. There are radically different societies that practice monogamy, but that doesn’t mean we should get rid of it here. China (which apparently you cannot move to) practices monogamy, but women aren’t treated very well there.
@bob: I would give a legitimate purpose, but Steven has already done that above in his post. But apparently you refuse to read it, because he has been giving reasons not based on religious principles why marriage is between one man and one woman.
Nevertheless you insist, without any explanation, that such a definition is religious. The “compelling interest” does not apply because no religious arguments are being made for religion (I realize that you will continue to insist [and only insist] that they are religious).
When did I ask that? I thought I asked why a relationship between two people is different from a relationship between three people in the eyes of the state, and why the legal concerns of the two people in San Franciso are different from the legal concerns of the three people in Detroit. I guess you’re not going to answer that question.
It’s probably not worth either of our time to try to elicit some explanation of what this is supposed to mean.
Well, at the risk of indelicacy, while it’s true that coitus is physically restricted to two people at a time, it’s not really true that three people can’t have all sexual relations with one another at the same time. Not that this seems relevant to anything. Suppose Joe has sex with Ellen in the 1970s and Alice in the 1980s. The law provides for his property-related concerns: He can divorce Ellen and marry Alice. But if Joe has sex with Ellen on Tuesdays and Saturdays and with Alice on Sundays and Thursdays, poor Joe and Ellen and Alice’s property-related concerns are of no interest to you or your version of the state, for what reason I can’t think. Something to do with the Middle East or something irrelevant like that.
Correct. He had two marriages. That’s still different from polyamory in the useful sense of that term, i.e., the sense advocated by e.g. the San Francisco Pride movement.
I don’t know what you mean by “the biblical view of polygamy,” and I suspect you hadn’t thought that phrase out anyway. To cut to the chase, no, I am not interested in permiting polygamy in our society, but I take the existence of polygamy into account when I say that marriage is and always has been the enduring union of one man and one woman.
I assume by “generally polygamous” you mean “exclusively polygamous,” since there are no polyamorous societies in the useful sense of that term. (The useful sense of polyamory is like the useful sense of rectangle, meaning “a rectangle that is not a square,” since we have a special word for square.) Even so, this sheds no light on why a relationship between two people is different from a relationship between three people in the eyes of the state, or why the legal concerns of the two people in San Franciso are different from the legal concerns of the three people in Detroit.
I’ve already answered this more than once; I see no point in doing it again.
Thanks for that. If anyone asks, I’ll be sure to let them know. (Also, HT to @ Tim for his riposte above!)
I prefer to say that marriage as a social institution exists to help societies regulate sexual relations between men and women. A major point of my blog series is that to the extent that marriage in our society no longer does this, it has already become a somewhat unintelligible institution, which is why we have become confused about what it has to do with men and women. Since no one in the gay community that I’m aware of is proposing regulating sexual relations among gays, “same-sex marriage” is a doubly meaningless concept.
“The “compelling interest” does not apply because no religious arguments are being made for religion.”
I made a typo. I meant no religious arguments are being made for marriage.
@ Bob: Here is the issue in a nutshell:
You claim that “the state has an obligation to define legal responsibilities in relationships, whether corporate partnerships or marriage.” Now whatever your Eurocentric analysis of the Middle East may suggest about what types of relationships are desirable, the fact is that polyamorous relationships exist in the United States, just like monogamous ones. And you say that “the state has an obligation to define legal responsibilities in relationships.” Yet you approve of a bureaucracy to define legal responsibilities in the case of one type of relationship that exists in the United States, but not in the case of other types of relationships that exist in the United States.
You wrote above “I suggest you consult a divorce lawyer and ask her if childless married couples have legal issues.” Couldn’t a lawyer also testify that polyamorous partners also have legal issues? Should the state fulfill its obligation to “define legal responsibilities” in the case of this type of partnership or not?
In a word, it seems to me that you don’t really believe that “the state has an obligation to define legal responsibilities in relationships.” Only some relationships that you approve of. Isn’t that right?
Also, what about the other relationships I described, such as a parent and grown child or two grown siblings raising a child together? Surely your Middle Eastern studies suggest nothing harmful or problematic about situations like this? Why would you deny the benefits of marriage to relationships like these?
Steve, yes, polyamorous relationships exist. But they imply no property rights, no power of attorney rights, etc. You are the one asserting heterosexual relationships are desirable. I am arguing for minimal govt. intrusion into personal affairs. And, yes, I am arguing that OTHER relationships be excluded from LEGAL rights BECAUSE they would radically change our society UNLESS those partners choose to define those relationsips. I am not an anarchist! There is NO proof gay relationships would change our society. None. Not a shred. Polyamorous relationships WOULD change the structure of our society. But we have evidence that gay relationships do NOT. There is a difference between a polyamorous relationship and a gay relationship. Societies where gay marriage is permitted are like ours. Identical, in fact. Polyamorous ones are not. And we have a history of law for marriage that involves couples. Regarding rights of children, etc., they ALREADY have many of the rights married people do. For example, a child has the right of survivorship in the absence of a surviving spouse. This is ANOTHER argument for gay marriage since there is nothing in a gay marriage that is not already embedded in some form in other familial relationship. Why exclude gays and ONLY gays from this type of protection? Can you tell me that? What is protected? What is harmed by permitting gay marriage other than your own feelings?
Reading deeper into the Wikipedia article on polyamory, I come across the useful term “group marriage.” This is a type of relationship that has achieved legal recognition in no society in the world, and would be violently rejected in those Middle Eastern countries where polygamy is practiced, so there is no basis for objecting to its practice based on dubious Middle Eastern analogies. Apparently living arrangements along these lines are actually illegal in some places in the U.S., so Bob may be incorrect when he says that it is not prohibited.
The difference between 2 people, Steve, and 3 or more is that we have a body of law dealing with relationships and responsibilities involving 2 people. This is ANOTHER reason why gay marriages should be permitted since they are VERY MUCH like heterosexual relationships. Is there a reason you think they’re not? What’s the difference? What IS your assertion about differences in legalities between a heterosexual and a gay couple? Regarding Jacob, gays would have only ONE marriage, so again they’re very much like straight marriages. You keep highlighting the SIMILARITIES between gay and straight marriages! But you keep asserting there’s a difference. Where is it? And same sex marriage is unintelligible only if marriage itself is so. And it’s not. That’s why gays want to be part of it! But you keep asserting there’s a difference. I’m waiting for you to tell me what it is.
Kevin, if the expectation was there, it would be spelled out in law. That’s why there ARE requirements about marriage; that it be between people of sound mind; that no one is compelled. There is simply no requirement at all, nor is it the state’s business, that married couples have children. If SOME percentage of straights do NOT have children then this pretty much demolishes your views about gays. And gays can adopt.
Tim, the ONLY ‘secular’ reason Steve has made is regarding children. But no marital law…NONE…requires married couples have children. None. When a couple is divorced there is law regarding property, dissolution of the rights of survivorship, etc. Their is not a single requirement saying that, because a childless couple had no children, NO law applies to their relationship. The state recognizes as legitimate a marriage in which there were no children.
How does that work? Why can’t three people go in on a house together? What if a child is being raised by three people? Why do the legal issues you’re so concerned about exist at the magical number of two partners but mysteriously dissolve if a third partner joins? Aren’t the legal questions even more involved? Isn’t it more necessary that the government help define responsibilities in such situations? It wouldn’t be hard. Just put some more lines on the marriage license.
What proof do you have that allowing group marriage would change the structure of society, and who are you to tell those practicing group marriage that such unproven changes would be for the worse?
Marriage itself is harmed. Our society’s conception of marriage is further eroded. The problems I’ve been talking about in this whole series of posts are exacerbated.
Additionally, FWIW, individuals with same-sex attraction are harmed by another token of social approval for their misuse of their sexual faculties.
This seems to involve an appeal to past custom rather than reason: “That’s just the way we’ve done it.” That’s not an explanation for why we should continue to do it that way.
How many times do I have to answer this question before you notice?
Both of these sentences are true, but what do they have to do with one another, or with my actual answer to the question?
bob said, “I am arguing for minimal govt. intrusion into personal affairs.”
The absolute minimum of government intrusion would be no official recognition of marriage at all, like we had for better than the first half of our country’s existence. I suggest that same-sex “marriage” as a force in the mind of the public would die a quick death were we to return to that state of affairs, since it’s inherently such a weak thing that it can barely survive without state support. And therein lies one major problem with it - the weaker a thing to be protected, the stronger that protection must be. That is why same-sex “marriage” tends to be downright tyrannical where it is the law (e.g. it conflicts with freedom of speech and religion), and that is just one reason we fight it.
@bob: “That’s why there ARE requirements about marriage; that it be between people of sound mind; that no one is compelled. There is simply no requirement at all, nor is it the state’s business, that married couples have children.”
And now we are back to asking why this doesn’t apply to polygamy and other relationships. Again, just because societies we don’t like practice it doesn’t compel us not allow it here. Societies we don’t like practice monogamy, but that doesn’t effect our view of marriage.
According to you, marriage nothing more than what the law requires. The law requires: 1) people of sound mind, and 2) no coercion. Procreation is merely incidental to marriage.
It sounds like there or more people should be able to enter into a marriage. Yet you would deny them this right.
Bob’s last response seems to me to give the game away. His only real reason why we don’t have laws for group marriage is ... we don’t have laws for group marriage. That’s the kind of reason that works only as long as everyone agrees on not having group marriage. If a vocal enough minority of Americans pushed for group marriage, and started taking their case to the courts, eventually we would start to get judicial decisions mandating group marriage just like we have for same-sex marriage. And eventually we would have group marriage.
Steve, ‘we’ actually DO have laws for group marriage. Any society in the middle east will show that. And we know it IS disruptive of society. You have failed to show this would be the case for gay marriage. And, yes, if a vocal group moved for polygamy, we’d probably get it. That can happen in a democracy. But your utter failure to show why gay marriage is different than straight marriage is, itself, a surrender. So the spin you put on group marriage really doesn’t work because it already exists. It IS a failure. Gay marriage is not. And proof of THAT is you have to compare it to a failure…group marriage.
bob said, “Kevin, if the expectation was there, it would be spelled out in law. That’s why there ARE requirements about marriage; that it be between people of sound mind; that no one is compelled. There is simply no requirement at all, nor is it the state’s business, that married couples have children.”
The intended effect of a law is rarely spelled out in the law itself. Laws regarding illicit drugs for instance target their manufacture, transportation and possession - they don’t spell out the intended effect of such laws, which is to eliminate people using illicit drugs. That is something we are left to infer from what the law does say.
“If SOME percentage of straights do NOT have children then this pretty much demolishes your views about gays.”
I’m not sure what “your views about gays” is even referring to, but if you’re suggesting that the privileges and rights granted to married couples were crafted with no expectations about how they would impact subsequent generations, I say you are wrong.
“And gays can adopt.”
Not only do joint adoptions by same-sex couples incorporate a negative element not found in other adoption scenarios, but despite the presumptions by many like yourself such adoptions don’t enjoy the same level of support as same-sex “marriage” itself. Unlike an opposite-sex adoptive couple or even a single person adopting a child (regardless of whether that person experiences same-sex attractions), a same-sex couple adopting a child introduces a paradox into the family - a conflict between a child’s biological and functional/legal parents - that doesn’t exist in the other situations. Most European countries that recognize same-sex “marriage” or unions did not initially permit joint adoption by same-sex couples, and some still don’t.
Finally, in an ideal world there would be no children in need of adoption. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be comfortable basing the legitimacy of a relationship on something that wouldn’t exist were we to actually achieve the ideal.
Tim, the reason we don’t have polygamy is completely different than the manufactured capricious view of marriage and children. Polygamy already exists. It DOES disrupt society. It IS a failure. It DOES lead to denigration of women. Gay marriage does NONE of this. In fact you and Steve have to rely on comparing gay marriage to polygamy because your argument about marriage and children has failed. But the fact is, gay marriage is more like straight marriage than it is like polygamy.
Kevin, you haven’t shown that gay marriage is tyrannical at all. In addition, if only weak institutions need legal protection, why IS there marital law at all? The fact is, marriage is a contract. And contracts have legal obligations. It has nothing to do with ‘weak’ or tyranny at all. It is because legal obligations are created in contracts, and marriage is a contract
@ Bob: So your answer is basically to redefine all types of relationships involving more than two parties as “polygamy,” refusing to acknowledge real and relevant differences, and then wave burkas and sharia law in our faces. Weak.
@ Bob:
How would you know? I see no evidence that you’ve figured out what my argument is.
Steve, you ask why 3 people couldn’t buy a house, etc. They can! But marital law is settled. What disruption was there to society when the “Loving” decision was handed down and miscegenation laws were struck down? NONE! Where is the proof that allowing gays to marry harms society any more than allowing interracial marriages does so?
And there is NOTHING in marital law that is sex dependent. We COULD adopt laws from societies where polygamy exists. But, again, those societies are pathological. You have NEVER…even ONCE…presented any evidence whatsoever that societies recognizing gay marriage are pathological. “Marriage itself is harmed”? THAT is a message out of the blue! Who says? You? Your religion? So what? Proof? None! Again, THIS is why your argument is religion, even when couched in the legerdemain of ‘children’ and procreation. Harmed by ‘misuse of sexual faculties’? Another appeal to the ‘yech’ factor? In addition, as I’ve pointed out, these practices are fairly common among straights. You’ve offered no SECULAR reason why continued discrimination against gays is legitimate.
Bob, I think you would agree that unless there are a foundational set of values, societies of any kind cannot function in an ordered fashion. Heterosexual unions sanctioned by civil authorities is one such value and has been for millenia. You accuse me of being a member of the “normal” police which just proves my point about moral relativism. Of course there is no such thing as normal or abnormal, right or wrong, good or evil. It’s up to each one of us to make that decision for him or herself. And, it’s critical that society society condone whatever choice I make. Is that the kind of society you think will work? Is that the kind of organization you work for? Is that the kind of family structure that is best for the raising of children?
“Another appeal to the ‘yech’ factor? In addition, as I’ve pointed out, these practices are fairly common among straights.”
I don’t think that’s what he meant. At least, not exclusively what he meant.
bob said, “Kevin, you haven’t shown that gay marriage is tyrannical at all. In addition, if only weak institutions need legal protection, why IS there marital law at all?”
A simple example from north of the border is all it takes. Under their supposed “human rights” law, a priest in Canada was investigated a couple years back for merely preaching Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality. I’m sure, however, that it would not be difficult to find journalists, comedians and/or politicians in the same country who would attest that you can continue to ridicule and point your finger at the failures of traditional marriage without fear of falling on the wrong side of the law. In the U.S. it has resulted in Catholic adoption and foster parenting agencies closing their doors.
As for marital law in this country, there is nothing to suggest that marriage needs to be recognized by the government. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, for the majority of our country’s history it wasn’t. Nor have I ever heard it suggested that marriage laws were needed to strengthen a weakened institution, much less that marriage is stronger now than it once was due to government’s involvement in it.
@Bob - What do you think of arguments such as the one appearing in the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy titled “The Positive Effects of Legalizing Polygamy: ‘Love is a Many Splendored Thing’” by Emily Duncan—it’s available free online. Personally, I’m an atheist and support gay marriage (I say that only so you don’t misunderstand my intent here as some sort of “religious ploy”). I’m just curious about why you are so certain that polygamy is necessarily exclusive to “pathological” societies. As far as I can find, polygamy is not listed in the DSM-IV, many of the abuses that occur within such marriages occur within monogamous marriages as well, and its current illegality is based exclusively on our society’s Theist heritage. So Bob, where’s your “secular” proof of it’s wrongness?
Polygamy is getting a knocking here, yet in Scripture and in Africa today it is an honorable institution, and Thomas Aquinas found it to be in accord with natural law.
Yikes Joe (or is it Poe, perhaps?), slow down. Maybe you recall that the Bible also refers to Lot as a “righteous man”?
/
Just for the record, I wasn’t advocating for polygamy with my comment @5:34 EDT. I was trying to elicit a better response from Bob than he had been giving Steven.
Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? There is no talking and instructing about marriage to a gay activist. We all know what they do and where - lubricated with human feces. I do NOT feel sorry for gay activist, they will pay greatly, I feel sorry for those they mislead, and pretend to be a support group for them.
Reading Larry’s post…well I certainly hope his lack of civility is not reflective of the others here. While I disagree with most here, you’ve all maintained a civil tone, with a few exceptions. Larry is one of them
Moogle, one need only look at Saudi Arabia to see the effects of polygamy on society. There is no corresponding pathology for societies which have legalized gay marriage. The evidence is pretty obvious, unless you have counter evidence
The DSM is not an historical analysis, nor a sociological treatise.
Gaston, appealing to the ‘way it’s always been done’ has been used to justify a panoply of horrors in history. A gay marriage ban is just another. Polygamy is thousands of years old. In fact, traditional views of marriage do not support a ban on gay marriage since ‘marriage’ has had a number of definitions in history.
Oh Bob- So me pointing out what you call sex mixed with human feces is un civil? So what is sex without the human feces? Civil? Your killing me bob.
@ Bob - Both a regular Google search and a Google Scholar search provided me with zero info on the effects of polygamy on Saudi Arabia (or anywhere else, for that matter). Maybe you could help me out and point me toward this info. Thanks.
/
Second, you imply you think I’m arguing against same sex marriage legalization. I’m not. I’m talking exclusively about this claim that polygamy is intrinsically related to social pathology.
/
Third, I know exactly what the DSM is. I think it’s obvious why I referenced it, and I’m totally unwilling to limit myself to the two fields of knowledge you cite from which to derive evidence.
/
Really though, you could shut me up quick by providing that reputable reference regarding Saudi Arabia’s polygamy caused problems.
/
And yeah, “lubricated with human feces” is pretty much the way Larry communicates on these threads. I ignore him.
@Moogle—-Thats not quite correct, It’s what you call sex, lubricated with human feces that you ignore. By the way, what species can we expect from this?
@Larry - Your first sentence’s construction makes multiple interpretations of your meaning possible, so you’ll have to be more clear. I’m not sure what your second question is asking, but I think you’re trying to point out that those types of sex acts are not capable of giving life. To which I say, “yes, what’s your point?”.
@Moogle—You confuse playing with poop with sex.
bob,
You attack SDG for his moral opposition to SSM, and ask for proof that its legality will ‘harm marriage,’ yet *you* seem morally opposed to polygamy, citing ‘settled law’ and the definition of marriage between two persons, and also warn that it will harm society. I could easily call you a bigot for wanting to prevent three or more consenting adults from expressing their love, all for law and tradition and moral good.
The difference is that while SDG has offered copious and varied arguments for his side, you are still stuck on the Middle East, social contracts, and a specious appeal to boogeymen and all caps.
@ Larry - I have to admit that I chuckled at your childlike straightforwardness there. When I asked you to be clear, that’s not exactly what I meant. I should be clear too: I’m not gay, and I personally find the types of activities you are referring to repulsive (I remember quite vividly being mortified when I found out that there are women who like that type of thing also).
@Moogle:—Earlier you said:—
Personally, I’m an atheist and support gay marriage.
What is it you find repulsive?
@Larry - You know exactly what I find repulsive about it. What’s your point?
@Moogle—I do not know what you find repulsive about anything.
Hmm… I was entirely sure you were asking a rhetorical question, sorry. I’m speaking, of course, of poop. I don’t like poop (except in as far as it provides a necessary cleansing service for my body), and I certainly don’t want to go anywhere near anyones poop with or without a condom or whatever type of things people do to make it more clean.
@Moogle—thanks for clearing that up.
@ Joe:
Thanks for this, Joe (odd to have converging views here, but there it is).
AFAIK, the only person “knocking” polygamy was @ Bob, who even suggested that I was “opening the door” to polygamy. I have indeed defended marriage in polygamous contexts as real marriage, not an exception to the rule that marriage is always between one man and one woman, and to that extent not contrary to natural law, as St. Thomas notes.
Polygamy is not the same as group marriage—a fact that Bob refuses to deal with, because he feels justified in ragging on polygamy (scary Middle East!) and has no grounds for opposing group marriage except that our laws don’t currently permit it, which is of course no argument for not changing the laws.
While marriage in polygamous contexts is real marriage (as long as no one is baptized), that does not mean, of course, that I would be in favor of permitting polygamy in the United States. Although polygamous marriage is possible, it is contrary to the ideal and perfection of marriage, as can be seen even by natural reasoning—which is why monogamy remains the rule even in polygamous societies. (Thus I would argue that while polygamy is not contrary to the natural law, even the natural law points toward monogamy as the best form of marriage.) Also, of course, polygamy is incompatible with Christian marriage and Christian teaching on marriage.
While America is not a Christian nation, it is a nation profoundly influenced by Christianity going back to its founding and beyond, and from that perspective a cultural consensus that rejects polygamy is well worth preserving. Of course that doesn’t insulate us from activist judges who legislate from the bench, which is a big part of the reason why we are where we are with same-sex marriage. But it begins with a crumbling cultural consensus, which is the point I’ve been making throughout this series.
@ Larry: Are we really having the poop talk again, friend? I’d really like to get past that. Cheers.
Oh, and @ Bob:
FWIW, I’m on record that these practices are contrary to the proper use of sexual faculties regardless whether the parties are of the same or opposite sexes, and whether they are married or otherwise.
SDG: thank you again for a fine article. The enumerated list in the third paragraph is, of course, the corporeal basis for marriage. On one hand I am pleased to see the list. On the other I despair at the state of the American mind in that such a list is necessary as a counterpoint to willful ignorance of how a human body works.
SDG = OK.
“Polygamy means multiple marriages, but each marriage remains between two people. Even in polygamous societies marriage remains the union of one man and one woman.”
Y’know, I’ve heard some lame interpretations of fact but to use “what about legalizing polygamy” in one place then turn it into something like ‘well it was ok when you look at it this way…’ really just discredits your own logic along with one of your church’s biggest points.
Perhaps you’d be ok with to guys marrying through a woman, each male can marry the same woman forming a family. That way they can all be married but just not all to each other.
You guys are really reaching.
“FWIW, I’m on record that these practices are contrary to the proper use of sexual faculties regardless whether the parties are of the same or opposite sexes, and whether they are married or otherwise.”
And why is it you’re not lobbying to outlaw those practices among heterosexuals?
The hypocrisy is getting really thick here.
@ Joseph R Yungk:
Perhaps you misunderstood what you thought was one of our biggest points all along. Or, to be fair to you, perhaps it’s been badly expressed by some on our side. (In fact, I can pretty much certify that.)
I’m sorry you feel you need to resort to personal charges of hypocrisy (I don’t mind criticism of my arguments). Help me out, when did I say I was lobbying to outlaw sodomy between two men? If you can show me that, then you’ve got me on the hypocrisy charge.
Joseph R Yungk: The word “hypocrisy” has an interesting etymology. One of its uses was to describe stage actors in religious theater. In that case a human would don a mask and pretend to be a god for the length of the ritual (play). Tell us, is a male who pretends another male is a female and attempts to breed with that male, is that a case of hypocrisy (play-acting)?
Joseph R Yungk,
“Perhaps you’d be ok with to guys marrying through a woman, each male can marry the same woman forming a family. That way they can all be married but just not all to each other.”
I was merely illustrating Joe’s absurdity in pushing for SSM while at the same time wanting to preclude polygamy. Joe believes any *two* persons, regardless of gender, should be allowed to ‘marry’, but also that neither of these persons should be allowed to enter into a second ‘marriage’ contract. His reasons for this are muddled and inconsistent, while those of the Church in opposing any ‘marriages’ outside of heterosexual and monogamous, are not. I’m apologize if it could have been clearer. Peace.
@SDG= It’s a bit lat but I’s say that JRY is calling you a lame ignorant hypocrate. But who would notice everyone is being so nice.
can same-sex couple propagate like hetero couples?
@ larry: What do I care? I’m trying to return good for evil. Everyone is free to read my exchange with Mr. Yungk and draw their own conclusions.
<a >Part 6</a> is now up.
Part 7 is now up.
Part 8 is now up.
This whole series of articles is one of the best explanations of marriage that I have ever read. THANK YOU for this!
You’re welcome Maria! Part 9 is up.
Part 10 is now up.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.