An "alternative" view of marriage
By zroxx Posted in Culture — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've been asked what I think "the primary purpose of the institution" of marriage is. In response I'll lay out a view of marriage that I've dubbed "alternative" because it's been indirectly implied that I must be the one with the radical oddball position. Naturally I think my view is the accurate one, but let's start with the assumption that I'm about to drop a definition that flies in the face of several millennia worth of tradition and go from there.
Thankfully, I've been able to borrow (with only slight reductions for brevity) a definition from a group of fellow radicals1 which I can hardly do better than, in terms of expressing my own position on what purpose marriage serves:
1. Marriage is a legal contract.
Marriage creates formal and legal obligations and rights between spouses. Public recognition of, and protection for, this marriage contract, whether in tax or divorce law, helps married couples succeed in creating a permanent bond.2. Marriage is a financial partnership.
In marriage, “my money” typically becomes “our money,” and this sharing of property creates its own kind of intimacy and mutuality that is difficult to achieve outside a legal marriage. Only lovers who make this legal vow typically acquire the confidence that allows them to share their bank accounts as well as their bed.3. Marriage is a sacred promise.
Even people who are not part of any organized religion usually see marriage as a sacred union, with profound spiritual implications. “Whether it is the deep metaphors of covenant as in Judaism, Islam and Reformed Protestantism; sacrament as in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy; the yin and yang of Confucianism; the quasi-sacramentalism of Hinduism; or the mysticism often associated with allegedly modern romantic love,” Don Browning writes, “humans tend to find values in marriage that call them beyond the mundane and everyday.”4. Marriage is a sexual union.
Marriage elevates sexual desire into a permanent sign of love, turning two lovers into “one flesh.” Marriage indicates not only a private but a public understanding that two people have withdrawn themselves from the sexual marketplace. This public vow of fidelity also makes men and women more likely to be faithful.5. Marriage is a personal bond.
Marriage is the ultimate avowal of caring, committed, and collaborative love. Marriage incorporates our desire to know and be known by another human being; it represents our dearest hopes that love is not a temporary condition, that we are not condemned to drift in and out of shifting relationships forever.6. Marriage is a family-making bond.
Marriage takes two biological strangers and turns them into each other’s next-of-kin. As a procreative bond, marriage also includes a commitment to care for any children produced by the married couple. It reinforces fathers’ (and fathers’ kin’s) obligations to acknowledge children as part of the family system.
I appreciate this alternative view of marriage for a number of reasons. First, on a gut level it feels accurate - it correctly portrays the multi-faceted nature of marriage. Instead of embracing an over-arching "primary purpose" espoused by my opposition in the traditional camp, this viewpoint recognizes six dimensions of purpose, and makes no assumptions as to which ones take precedence over the others.
In my opinion, this view comports well with the historical evidence that people's rationale for pursuing marriage has been in a state of near constant transition - see here and here for support, summed up by this excerpt from the former: "What emerges from Coontz’s account is the realization that marriage has no “essence.” There is no one function or purpose it serves in every time and place.". Despite these shifting reasons for marriage, the six dimensions above still seem very applicable over time, if one allows that different dimensions have given greater or lesser cause at different times and places. In other words, the six-dimension definition fits reality well.
Also on the gut feeling level, I find the alternative six-dimension view to be somehow, more "mature", than the view that marriage is all about procreation. It's hard to explain, but the latter viewpoint strikes me as mildly childish - one imagines a five year-old considering his parents and why they're together - and lacking the broader perspective of adulthood, selfishly concluding that it must be "just for meeeee!". A more mature consideration of why the parents chose to marry, undertaken by adults, would touch on all of the six dimensions.
These gut feelings have some common sense behind them - I certainly believe that examples of parents who first met, immediately evaluated each others child-bearing and rearing capabilities, found them to be adequate to the task, and then commenced with planning and executing the necessary steps for junior's swift arrival are few and far between.
Second, this alternative view of marriage provides a remarkably consistent foundation upon which to look at specific cases. No longer must we twist and turn to justify why we allow a sterile couple to marry as we must with the procreation based view. There are five dimensions that fully apply to them, and given a means to adopt, even the sixth is largely applicable. To put this another way, the six-dimension viewpoint accurately values individual marriages in a way that the procreation based view cannot. The marriages of sterile couples, senior citizens, and even couples who choose not to conceive take on a value under this view that is equivalent to the value that citizens actually attribute to them in daily practice.
I know I felt a sense of value in the last marriage I witnessed in which the couple was past child-bearing age - they loved each other, they were making a commitment to support each other, they were attracted to each other, they were close friends prior to the marriage, they were being married by an official of their religion. Their marriage would be very valuable if only in that they could now each count on the other for support in a world of risk and uncertainty. If I were a devotee of the procreation based view of marriage, what possible value would I have found in the union? Even worse, I may have had to question whether the union would help to "completely decouple marriage from pro-creation and ultimately ... alter it into no more than a financial arrangement", thereby causing actual "damage to the institution of marriage".
Third, this alternative view comports well with what American citizens are actually saying marriage means to them, today. I've referenced the recent Pew Research study before. 68% of American adults believe that mutual happiness is the "main purpose" of marriage, while 21% felt that raising children is. The numbers stay separated even for those who attend church at least weekly (58/25) [see image].
The other interesting data from Pew regards components of marital success, which in my mind is somewhat of a different way to ask what the purpose of marriage is. The responses can be mapped to all six dimensions: faithfulness, sex, shared household responsibilities, shared religious beliefs, shared interests, finances, children [see image]. In my opinion this data reflects my position that the six dimensions are an accurate portrayal of the purpose of marriage - the Pew data may tell us which dimensions are, currently, more important to the average American. But as an average, the data also demonstrate for us that different Americans have a fairly wide range of opinions for themselves on the relative importance of the six dimensions. Some (a minority, currently) clearly do believe procreation is the most important purpose! Others don't, but the six-dimension view validates all of these citizens' varying reasons and denies none on a single basis, like capability to procreate.
So what does all this boil down to? There's a big difference between asking what form marriage has traditionally come in, and what the purpose of marriage is. I have no problem concurring that marriage has very often come in the form of a heterosexual pairing. This is certainly not the case everywhere or always and people can debate to what extent it has been the case. But the question is akin to asking what form land transportation has traditionally come in. Not that long ago we might have answered horse and buggy, and we would have been happy with that but for the people who concerned themselves with what the purpose of land transportation was, concluded that at least one dimension of the purpose was getting from point a to point b as fast as possible, and then sought to alter the form to better fit the function.
My suspicion is that this is what has been happening with marriage over time. A previous and not altogether far back form of marriage included the stipulation that the woman could not own property. Once people came to the conclusion that a purpose of marriage was as a financial partnership, or at least that no purpose of marriage included perpetuating the financial dependence of married women, the form changed to fit the function. Not without great consternation and a fortelling of doom, of course: "In 1844 a New York legislative committee said that permitting married women to control their own property would lead to "infidelity in the marriage bed, a high rate of divorce, and increased female criminality" and would turn marriage "from its high and holy purpose" into something arranged for "convenience and sensuality." A British parliamentarian denounced the proposal as "contrary not only to the law of England but to the law of God."" [cite]
That is my view of marriage - its multi-dimensional purpose, and the reasons and ways in which it has changed over time. It would remain my view of marriage regardless of the existence of any particular movement to change in any particular way the government imposed restrictions on who can or cannot marry. I would use this view to evaluate such particular changes. You may well disagree with my avantgarde view on the purposes of marriage, and now you have a target to compare your own traditional views against. Fire away! (I promise to address critiques, but may be away from access for the next 48 hours; please bear with me)
While I believe this suffices to answer what I think "the primary purpose of the institution" of marriage is, I'll go ahead and give a bonus take on what this means regarding the related issue of homosexuals and marriage. In that respect, I have a hard time stepping into the shoes of someone who actively opposes homosexual marriage. This alternative view of marriage seems equally applicable to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples - the legal contract, financial partnership, sexual union, and personal bond are all obviously applicable. Given that many homosexuals do practice a religion, including Christianity, it's clear that the sacred promise is also applicable in many cases. Parts of the family-making bond apply as well - marriage even without children ties two larger families together, and creates a supportive web of in-laws. With adoption, it becomes even more applicable.
And it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to believe we are in the midst of another form modification in light of a current change in the relative importance of the six dimensions (or functions, if you will). If American citizens are beginning to more clearly see marriage as an institution that can meet all six purposes outlined above, rather than as an institution defined only by procreative capacity or traditional gender restrictions, then I suspect some years from now we may end up putting the restriction on gay marriage in the same set with the other "that's the way it always was, until..." traditions.
So I understand why someone opposed to homosexual marriage on a traditionalist or majority rules standpoint would try to cast a great deal of doubt on my "alternative" view. It is important for them to reject the more complete, mature, and accurate view of the multi-dimensional purpose of marriage and promote the view that the only purpose of marriage - or at least the only purpose that matters when it comes to regulations - is procreation. It is important for them to focus on the form that marriage has most often come in and demand that it not be changed, and to dissuade people from considering whether or not the function of marriage is the more important factor to consider when we evaluate whether current regulations should or should not be changed.
1 I have borrowed the well written expression of the "alternative" view of marriage from my fellow oddball marriage radicals of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values. They tell me that their Statement of Principles "stems in part from a consultation of marriage leaders held in New York City on January 24-25, 2000, and is sponsored by the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, the Institute for American Values, and the Religion, Culture, and Family Project of the University of Chicago Divinity School" - a veritable network of radicals, it seems.
But how does this apply to an instance where a guy wants to marry his daughter ...? Or his sister? Or his brother? Or son?
Such a couple would, in many cases, easily satisfy all six of your "mature" all equally important "multi-faceted dimensions" of marriage just like a gay couple i.e. they can adopt, and if heterosexual, stand a good chance of producing perfectly normal children.
I cannot speak for Zroxx; as one who supports gay marriage, however, I think that your parade of horribles misses the point.
Zroxx's six elements are not a checklist. I do not suppose a "right to marry" if you meet all six elments -- or five out of six, or four out of six (etc.). Rather, the six elements help to explain what has been traditionally held to be valuable about marriage. It provides the starting point to evaluate whether new forms of partnerships should be recognized and encouraged as marriages under law.
Marriage is a secular as well as religious act: it puts the impramatur of the state of the state on certain relationships, and privileges those relationships over others. The state -- through its people and legislatures* -- have the right to determine what acts should be privileged as marriages based on factors different from the six listed.
Your proposed brother-sister marriage, for instance, may meet all six criteria -- or may not. But that does not mean that it should be encouraged even if it meets all six more often than not, because there are clear public health risks involved in marriage between such close relations. Perhaps you're right that those risks are worth it for a first brother-sister coupling, but what of the second? Or the third? How many brother-sister marriage are truly meet all six criteria, as compared to being a product of coercion? And how much "risk" of genetic disability is acceptable? Where should the difficult line be drawn between acts we privilege and those we do not (or, in the case of brother-sister marriage, even criminalize?).
We ask legislatures to make this call -- and, though they would be prudent to start with the six elements in doing so, they would be terribly imprudent to end with them.
As for gay marriage, I think that it clearly fits within the spirit of marriage for the same-sex couples willing to assume not just the benefits -- but also the not-insubstantial burdens -- that a marriage entails. I also think that, unlike brother-sister marriages, the public health and safety aspects of gay marrage (less promiscuity, more solid families and communities, etc.) favor the state's recognition. The risks of coercion are no greater than in heterosexual marriage, nor are the risks of abuse.
Indeed, save for the prudent notion that even good changes should be undertaken slowly to avoid unexpected consequences -- a rule applicable to more than gay marriage -- the strongest argument against gay marriage is not based on any empirical study or debatable fact. It is a religious one. I respect those who believe, as a matter of their religion, that a gay marriage wrongly praises and elevates what is believed to be a sinful act (if not, for some, a sinful state of being). But I do not share that belief, and thus, respectfully, cannot agree with the argument.
Incidentally, as you probably gathered from the above, I do not believe that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. It should be legislated.
von
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"Perhaps you're right that those risks are worth it for a first brother-sister coupling, but what of the second? Or the third?"
I'm referencing "downstream" couples, i.e., graddad did it, dad did it, I did it .... thereby exponentially increasing the risks.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
I do not believe that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. It should be legislated.
That position I accord respect.
But most gay marriage supporters, like BrooksRob in my thread, believes that gay marriage is a matter of "rights", which essentially demands that unless one can show a compelling reason why marriage (and the benefits and burdens society accords it) is restricted to opposite sex couples, marriage should be open to same sex couples.
Putting religion aside, the general ability of heterosexual couples to pro-create is perhaps the only pertinent difference in this case between a homosexual and a heterosexual couple. But then, children, we are told, are not a keystone in the very foundation of the institution (as distinct from individual marriages), and once we accept that, there is really no reason to block homosexual couples from getting married.
Likewise, there is therefore no reason to prevent consensual adult blood members of the same nuclear family from getting married to each other. Furthermore, two brothers or two sisters pose no threat to public health because they cannot reproduce like opposite sex siblings - so why not allow them to get married? And if a same-sex sibling pair can get married, would it not be a violation of civil rights (since children are immaterial) to withhold that same privilege from opposite-sex siblings?
I admit that there is no indication as to whether zroxx is of the "Rights" camp or of the Legislation camp.
Zroxx's six elements are not a checklist. I do not suppose a "right to marry" if you meet all six elments -- or five out of six, or four out of six (etc.). Rather, the six elements help to explain what has been traditionally held to be valuable about marriage. It provides the starting point to evaluate whether new forms of partnerships should be recognized and encouraged as marriages under law.
I still don't see how those same principles or elements, even as starting points, can logically lead to a situation where one can grant a marriage between two men recognition while denying the same privilege to a marriage between two brothers. And following from that a marriage between a brother and sister.
Here's the issue; gay marriage supporters who demand that opponents bear the burden of proof are by definition of the "Rights" camp of gay marriage i.e. this guy. Using these elements as a starting point (as opposed to endpoints) does nothing for them in justifying gay marriage while barring incestuous (and multilateral) marriages, unless they are conceding (as some have started to do) that they do not mind opening the door of the institution to incestuous couples in so long as they have opened it to gay couples.
On the other hand, people of your school may have a point ... I'll give it some more thought.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Your answer is one reason why I think that the "rights" camp is wrong at a fundamental level. From my perspective, it may very well be that it's a violation of basic human rights to forbid a loving gay couple to marry. The presence of a wrong, however, does not mean that you can use every kinds of means to right it -- or that evey kind of means is even suitable for the task. Procedure matters, because, at the end of the day, that is all a society is.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Pardon the delay...
Von is correct in his take on my posting, it was an attempt to address the "the primary purpose of marriage", although as I indicated I do not believe there is a single over-arching purpose. Currently, the six-dimension description of the purpose of marriage is the one I find to be the most accurate, consistent, and timeless.
In my opinion, the deleterious effects on the offspring of incest would fall under a different topic: purposes to restrict marriage. So it's not at all inconceivable to me that on one hand we might alter the form of marriage to better fit the purpose thereof - which under the six-dimension view might allow for homosexual marriage; and on the other hand that society still limits the form based on the second set of purposes to restrict - which might deny incestuous marriage.
Three points...
One, I appreciate that you are now seeing the value in examining exceptional cases and suggesting that we ought to address them in a consistent manner.
Two, I don't have a very compelling reason as to why we should deny incestuous marriage under my alternative view - the more critical issue at hand seems to be denial of incestuous procreation. Somewhat ironically, the marrige of two brothers or two sisters - same-gender pairings incapable of procreation - would appear to fall outside of a valid purpose to restrict on the grounds of deleterious genetic pairings.
As a further complication, not all opposite-gender pairings are free of substantial risk for producing offspring with genetic condititions. We have the widespread capability to screen prospective parents for such risks. If such risks are seen as valid criteria under which to deny marriage for one couple, shouldn't they be valid criteria under which to deny marriage for all similarly at-risk couples? I'd be willing to explore this further, of course.
Third, the issue of incestuous offspring is not one that impacts homosexual marriage, is it? So while we might spend some time examining how to best avoid seeing offspring created with genetic conditions (under any circumstance), I again find myself unable to articulate a valid reason related to procreation to deny marriage to homosexuals.
When we talk about legislative change, we're really talking about majority rules, and that's fine with me. But I don't typically see persons who oppose homosexual marriage do so only because the majority opposes it - that implies one's view on homosexual marriage will immediately flip as soon as 51% favors allowing it. What's actually happening is that proponents and opponents are publicly debating and attempting to persuade citizens for a variety of other reasons in order to keep or gain a majority. It is important to me to understand what those reasons are and whether they are sound.
My general observation is that it would make good sense for both sides to have a clearer understanding of what American citizens actually believe the purposes of marriage are. The Pew study is one good source for that info. The six-dimension view of marriage strikes me as both consistent with Pew and accurate from a common sense, mature standpoint. In light of those, it seems to me that arguments centered on procreation are not going to be very effective with the citizenry. This is aside from the problems I personally have re: consistency of such arguments.
Martin, I'd like to pay you a retainer NOT to represent my arguments, because as I've pointed out to you REPEATEDLY on your thread that you consistently MISREPRESENT my arguments, and in this case I made my position extremely clear on that thread over and over. I said I was making a PHILISOPHICAL argument regarding equal rights, NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL argument, and that I did NOT want to get into the debate over whether the majority/legislatures/political process should decide the issue or if it's a right in a constitutional sense (i.e., that legislatures could not violate). While I mentioned just in passing, in making the point that I was NOT making a constitutional argument in that thread, that I happen to think there are good constitutional arguments for it, I never said or implied that constitutionality had any place in my argumentation in the debate on that thread. I was asking people to consider and scrutinize their own view of principles/philosophy regarding equal rights and apply it to this issue. Maybe you don't understand the distinction.
Anyway, given your AWFUL track record in representing my arguments, I kindly ask you to at least think twice before doing so and take a great deal more care to be correct, or preferably just to refrain from doing so.
the proponents of traditional marriage don't generally agree that procreation is the major factor here. Oh, the point gets argued for what it's worth, but we're really not interested in keeping sterile people from getting married. Procreation gets mentioned mostly because that's more polite than saying homosexuality is a perversion.
The core argument is that traditional marriage is a good thing, and it shouldn't have its value and practice corrupted by cheap imitations.
The core argument is that traditional marriage is a good thing, and it shouldn't have its value and practice corrupted by cheap imitations.
One way to advance your position would be to explain why, under this "alternative" view of the purpose of marriage, a homosexual pairing has so much less purpose than a heterosexual pairing so as to make it a cheap imitation and therefore restrict it?
Then to defend that position, explain why the reasons you give above cannot also be applied to a subset of heterosexual marriages and therefore be used to denote them as cheap imitations and restrict them too.
I have always had gay friends as close friends; was romates with a gay man in college for a time; helped him when he got AIDS; have represented gays in court on discrimination claims (using individual rights defenses and refuying claims of objectionable conduct) and was a legal advisor to an openly gay legislator in the South, helping draft legislation that is "orientation" neutral but which satisfies the desire for rights thru individual rights, not group rights.
whew
What I must say though is that most activist gays since the mid 90s, unlike the 70s, 80s and early 90s mantra to be left alone, now want their conduct approved on par with hetero- marrigae,
hence
this nightmare illustration
8 yr old son and his mom and dad walk thru the mall. Son suddenly shouts
"Hey Mom, there is my school teacher Dave with Bob. They are married just like you and Dad."
1 - Gay marriage focuses on conduct to define them rather than the product of the relaytionship
2 - Civilizing the next generation is critical
3 - Women are necessary to civilize men thru monogamy
4 - marriage provides a way for children not to be burden on the general society and provides the greatest love bond
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
BTW you needn't burnish your homosexual-friendly credentials for my sake, though I don't mind either - I wont assume anyone who opposes homosexual marriage necessarily hates homosexuals or wishes them ill fortune.
1 - Gay marriage focuses on conduct to define them rather than the product of the relaytionship
To some extent this is a restatement of the argument we were having previously. Do we restrict marriage by an ability or intent to generate some "end product" like a child (the procreation argument) - and if so do we consistently restrict on that basis or not? Under the six-dimension view of marriage, we recognize a multi-faceted rationale for the arrangement rather than a single outcome. And it seems to me that homosexuals have just as much purpose under that view as heterosexuals.
What do you mean by conduct? Are fidelity, love, emotional and physical intimacy, shared responsibilities, shared beliefs, support for one another through difficulties, and so on examples of conduct that you find irrelevant as to whether a marriage is "real"? Or are those products that you are arguing homosexual marriages are incapable of "creating"?
2 - Civilizing the next generation is critical ... 3 - Women are necessary to civilize men thru monogamy
I put these two together because 2 by itself doesn't seem relevant without 3. The snappy rejoinder would be to ask if women exert a magical civilizing influence then lesbian marriage must be twice as good as heterosexual marriage, right? Or from another angle, at least lesbian marriages pose no threat since there's no man involved who will remain uncivilized.
On the other hand I appreciate the direction here because to me this is on the right argumentative track - if you can convince people that men are by nature uncivilized and that only a female spouse is capable of civilizing them, then you will have a reason on which to consistently find that heterosexual marriages are more "valuable" than homosexual marriages - perhaps so much more so that one can justify a restriction against homosexual marriage, or at least a promotion of heterosexual marriage. The civilizing power of a female on her male spouse would still be applicable even for senior citizens, sterile couples, and couples who simply choose not to procreate.
You might further explain this position and address whether it is actually the mutual and pre-meditated decision by two people to marry and commit to one another for the varying purposes laid out in the six-dimension view that exerts a pressure to remain monogamous and civilized on both persons regardless of their gender; or whether it is solely a matter of feminine mystique and that the pressure to remain monogamous and civilized only works in one direction (female to male).
Finally how is this not appealing to the sort of conduct-based rationale that you seem to reject in your first point? Are monogamy and civilized behaviour conducts or products?
4 - marriage provides a way for children not to be burden on the general society and provides the greatest love bond
How does this point apply to heterosexuals and not homosexuals, especially given the option of adoption? Why would it not apply to sterile or aged heterosexuals but still apply to homosexuals?
Thanks
For civilization to survive, humans must reproduce and they must civilize the repoduction.
This is fundamental and human history has found that marriage of the elements necessary for the former is best at the latter.
Society benefits from exaling that institution above all others.
Men, are, by nature, seed planters who need discipline. Women who are discriminating in the availability of the planting field are the sine qua non in taming the planters to stick around and participate in an orderly society.
Men are "oriented" to have sex with anything female that moves, which indulgence, if not harnessed, makes civil society impossible.
That some get oriented to have sex with their own, is simply a subset of uncivilizing behavior and certainly has no intrinsic value.
Male-female relatiuonships have intrinsic value in society's survival.
To elevate a divergent sex preference to the level of marriage is ridiculous.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Women who are discriminating in the availability of the planting field are the sine qua non in taming the planters to stick around and participate in an orderly society.
So what is it exactly that you assert women do that results in their mate being more civilized and monogamous?
I believe I understand your basic position though, and in the sense that it focuses on the sex ("To elevate a divergent sex preference to the level of marriage is ridiculous.") it doesn't seem too far from what Achance says here ("Homosexual relationships are simply about sex.").
These are assertions without (currently) any support. And what we see to the contrary are a subset of homosexuals claiming that they have relationships based on fidelity, personal bonds, sacred promises, mutual financial partnership, etc - in other words, that they want a lifelong commitment to their partner for the same set of purposes (see above) that heterosexuals have for getting married.
If you want to persuade people that such homosexuals are lying, then you need to provide some support for that position.
The other observation is that we're getting farther and farther away from the strong aspect of homosexual marriage opponents' arguments - that homosexual marriage would in fact cause damage to heterosexual marriage - to the weak aspect which is that heterosexual marriage is simply marginally better for society than homosexual marriage. And I think that's a difficult position to argue from if the outcome you want is continued denial of "marriage" to homosexuals, rather than simply allowing some kind of "marriage-lite" for homosexuals which was actually, I believe, MartinAKnight's proposed approach in his posting.
devoted to his family, and not just a wild animal spreading his seed. This is the story of how mankind separated fom the animals and became civilized.
They say no until the man is elevated above mere physical desire.
Men are driven to procreate, and left untamed will plant the seed everywhere he can. Women tame the savage beast.
This is basic.
Internalize it.
Marriage is what it is. That homosexuals want to live monogamously is irelevant. Re-defining marriage to satisfy homosexuals desire that their bedroom behavior be affirmed is ridiculous.
Homosexuals had it right when they desired to be left alone. But to insist that we all celebrate sodomy is crazy.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Women tame the savage beast.
Again - how?
They say no until the man is elevated above mere physical desire.
Again - what is it that elevates man above mere physical desire?
As an aside, the high number of children born out-of-wedlock seem to refute the idea that women are capable of ensuring a father for their children.
But to insist that we all celebrate sodomy is crazy.
Again, drawing the all focus to the sex.
I understand your position. But I think unless you address the changing appreciation that citizens apparently have for the varied purposes of marriage and their applicability to homosexuals, your sodomy-centric arguments will increasingly fail in the greater population.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Prior to the 60's, then, what is it that women were doing to "tame the savage beast" and get men "elevated above mere physical desire"?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Planet special on Gazelles. While showing images of a herd of Gazelles, the narrator was saying:
"The goal of the male is to mate with as many females as possible. The goal of the female is to mate with only the best male."
I thought to myself, "that sounds about right, but what does this have to do with Gazelles?"
I think in Rush's Yorba Lindo shopping mall this already is what the 8 year old boy says to his approving parents. Columbia, SC, don't see it happening. I agree with your ideas of why can't gays be content with being left alone. Why must they try to force approval and equivocation of marriage and gay sex? I just think in some parts of the US it is too late to prevent your nightmare scenario.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I do agree and regret that they are out of the closet and aren't going back. But as to changing marriage, that battle is not over.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I also don't believe the battle as to changing marriage is over.
I just meant that in some parts of US, ie MA and coastal CA, the nightmare scenario you posted happens for real.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
in Mass. The 8 yr old in my nightmare identifies his teacher's spouse.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Here is my deal.
1. If the gays want me to call them a married couple I say NO.
2. If the gays want the government to call them a married couple I say NO.
3. If the gays want to call themselves a married couple I say Whatever, I don't care.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
to the partners is not really relevant to whether or not it should have societal sanction. Half your "rules" are focused in whole or part on what marriage does and means for the partners.
What has social utility is marriage as the fundament of the domicile and the means by which the domicile and the offspring are protected by society through laws.
I can have sex in any sort of relationship with either gender and it may be of the most transient or deep and long lasting nature. I could probably find some belief system that would give a "deep" spiritual imprimatur to almost any sort of relationship.
I could have personal committment and deep affection, the personal bond from your list, in most any sort of relationship, with or without there being a sexual union.
I can only establish a stable domicile in which I can bring forth and nurture children in the confines of a union of one man and one woman. This is how society continues itself and is the justification for affording an explicit societal sanction for the practice.
In Vino Veritas
I can only establish a stable domicile in which I can bring forth and nurture children in the confines of a union of one man and one woman.
This boils it back down the the argument from procreation, although I take it you are also asserting (without supporting evidence) that a homosexual couple cannot possibly nurture children that they adopt.
But I appreciate your response and I believe I understand your position - that loving relationships in which two persons are faithful to one another, are partnered financially, help each other through life's hardships, become linked to each other's family through a supportive in-law web, and so on, have no value to society - unless they produce a child.
What marriage means to the partners is not really relevant to whether or not it should have societal sanction.
Actually, if a majority feels that the purpose of marriage is a more important consideration in determining regulations associated with marriage than traditional forms, it will be very relevant to social sanction, right?
This is one of my points - polls suggest that American citizens are (slowly) changing their opinion on who should be allowed to marry. Data like the Pew study might help explain why this is the case - the purposes (like mutual happiness) that citizens have for marriage are by and large not necessarily restricted to heterosexuals. This observation holds true for the "alternative" view that I've shared here.
When faced with questions as to whether to allow homosexual marriage or not, such citizens may be more and more inclined to find that homosexuals have as much reason to be married as heterosexuals - certainly as much as heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to have children. If the best arguments to persuade such citizens to reject those inclinations boil down to an appeal to tradition, then I don't hold out a lot of hope for opponents of homosexual marriage or "marriage-lite". I'm not convinced that asserting only child-producing relationships have value to society will be any more effective, but time will tell.
Zroxx, EXCELLENT post!!!
I don't have time now to read through all the comments, but I look forward to reading the responses and your replies. Amazing (and sad) that there are no recommenders yet, but I'm more than glad to be the first. Nicely done!
. . . then in many jurisdictions gay people can have those things without any need to change the law.
I do realise that some of the elements - frankly often minor ones - such as specifying a next of kin for medical purposes are not always available. The merging of financial assets can be complicated by the tax regime. But most of those things people can - and do - have without the involvement of the government in any way.
By the way, to me marriage is something else as well. It is a public bond. My own wedding ceremony had no religious or legal significance at all. (We had taken care of the legal aspects separately, well in advance). It marked not merely our vows to each other, but our public vows in which we invited our friends and families to support the promises we were making to each other.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
But most of those things people can - and do - have without the involvement of the government in any way.
True of heterosexuals as well. I've been debating this vigorously lately but my default position would still be that marriage is removed from government authority and left to the citizens to work out how they want to associate and contract with one another, and what ways they'll recognize such associations - religious ceremony and so forth. I'm ignorant of the details of history on this but some cursory reading leads me to believe that if we're concerning ourselves with tradition, there has certainly been a much longer period of time during human history when "marriage" was outside the realm of governmental licensing requirements!
By the way, to me marriage is something else as well. It is a public bond.
The public nature of marriage is cited in #1 and #4 above, and I'd argue it's logicaly connected with #6 as well, since typically even couples who elope share the news with each of their immediate families. But I appreciate this, I'd be interested in hearing anyone cite additional significant purposes of marriage that ought to be included in the list above. I struggled and couldn't really come up with any - so I remain rather impressed by the six-dimension view.
You register a birth with governmental authorities. You may or may not also have a naming ceremony with religious (or non-religious) content.
The government does not seek to make the rules for baptism or funeral services (only the disposal of corpses is regulated).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Exactly. Why not split this into civil union, licensed by the government to anyone, and marriage done by churches at their own discretion. But such a sensible arrangement is probably impossible now, thanks to gays turning this into such an emotional issue. And they seem to be unwilling to settle for just "civil union".
But how does this apply to an instance where a guy wants to marry his daughter ...? Or his sister? Or his brother? Or son?
Such a couple would, in many cases, easily satisfy all six of your "mature" all equally important "multi-faceted dimensions" of marriage just like a gay couple i.e. they can adopt, and if heterosexual, stand a good chance of producing perfectly normal children.
Therefore, on what basis can we legally deny such a couple a marriage license?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.