What is Marriage for?
This seems like a simple question, but too often individuals from the left, the right and “intellectuals” want to turn it into a debate on religious beliefs or discrimination issues rather than answering the societal reason for marriage.
Last week at New Albany Confidential http://www.cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com/ this discussion occurred because of some discontent on where Sodrel and Hill stood on the issue. Once again, most comments were directed towards trying to make it into a discrimination issue or a Christian conservative issue. I had many readers ask me to repost my comments on this site which allows for anonymity. Some readers stated they feel intimidated on the other blog.
My friend “iamhoosier” posted a comment stating clearly that marriage is not necessarily religious but rather legal. His comment read:
As for governments, marriage is legal contract. I don't mean to be glib, but in a marriage ceremony you can read the entire bible, in the biggest church, with the biggest organ, the biggest choir, and presided over by the Pope and still not be married in the eyes of the government. You need a civil license. Conversely, you can be married with nary a mention of a supernatural being or any kind of beliefs.
I do agree with his assessment and that is why I would like to discuss this topic without making it into a religious argument or throwing personal attacks in either direction. Let’s see if we can just stick to the question.
Everyone wanting to argue the point needs to first answer the question:
What is marriage for? This is not the same as what is a marriage.
Here are my views.
Despite attempts by anthropologists to trace its origin, in one form or another, marriage is found in virtually every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom. Every society has laws that govern different aspects of the society. These may be written or implied and are understood by the people of that society. But laws do not create things that already exist, but rather define the boundaries of those things. Male-female relationships have been described in every culture whether they be civilized or non-civilized. Laws regarding marriage help describe and maintain the meanings and boundaries of marriage in that particular society. The laws are not just a way to grant legal benefits as some have suggested.
Individuals in every society may freely choose to enter into a marriage relationship as described by the laws and customs of their society. Society then sanctions the marriage, formalizes its description, and establishes standards to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the success of the relationship. Society has a stake in the success of the marriage.
Without the society setting standards and sharing in the burden of maintaining these relationships, for the purpose of producing offspring that will contribute to the advancement and continuation of the society, marriage will continually erode into what critics already say it is: a simple contract between two individuals with no specific implications or content and one of a smorgasbord of sexual lifestyles and preferences that serve no fundamental purpose other than the gratification of the individuals involved.
The idea of Marriage or the male-female relationship in every society is that it needs babies to perpetuate the society and it is well established that babies need both mothers and fathers. The adults have the obligation to the society to shape their conduct and behaviors to sustain their families and provide for the children further enhancing the continuation of a successful and thriving society.
Communities in all societies governed by laws or standards of conduct, in which marriage is established as an institution, need both legal and social support. These same societies have laws and established norms that maintains an economic system that is both a reality and functional to the society. These societies also have rules that govern citizenship, private property, intellectual property and business entities all for the benefit of the society and not necessarily for the individual directly. Government did not create these properties and entities nor did it create marriage. It did however establish the norms that people use to respect, acknowledge, and maintain them. Laws describe or define each of these things in order to reach a shared understanding of their meaning and purpose. Every society requires a system of laws in order to function and provide for the future needs of its citizens and to maximize their opportunities. Societies cannot allow individuals to define for themselves what these institutions should be; otherwise anarchy will develop.
When there is shared understanding in the meaning of these or any other government institution, they generally function with minimal input or thought. It is only when it is challenged, as with marriage, that we should stand firmly and state clearly what is evident and not be sidetracked by the rhetoric of radicals and special interest groups.
Marriage or its equivalent is nearly universal in every known society present and past. It has been described in societies developed and undeveloped, simple or complex and all having some sort of established relationship between men and women for the purpose of sex and the production of children and the resulting establishment of roles for fathers and mothers. This institution may look different in varying regions, religions and cultures, but they all have an established norm with the male-female relationship.
The reason behind this commonality in every part of the world and in every culture is plainly simple. Sexual relations between men and women have always and will always ultimately produce babies. Even with birth control and sterilization techniques, the act of sex has a way of naturally producing offspring. It is in our nature. Societies have recognized this since the beginning of time and have established the norms of these relationships to try and harmonize the social, psychological, sexual, financial and natural urges of our nature thereby maximizing the benefits to the society.
Societies realize, even if a few splinter groups deny, that these relationships will produce children and therefore the societies try to protect and meet the needs of the children. We do not want a society where only a select group has stable marriages and the poor or others can continue to produce offspring with no social, personal or financial responsibility to the children. We do not want a society in which children do not have the opportunity for both a mother and father to contribute to their emotional, physical, psychological and financial success. But when we try to change the established norm for the benefit of sexual preference, we initiate a downward spiral in the society as a whole that will ultimately self destruct.
Democratic societies such as ours have to embrace and secure the principle ideal that children are our hope for the future. They are the natural product of human male-female relationships, and societies must be committed to providing whatever is necessary to uphold their dignity and worth. Marriage is the institution in all cultures, no matter how they look, where having children is encouraged because it provides them with a mother and father and is proven to be the best and most consistent way to advance a society. Those who deny this are either motivated by a particular agenda or just ignorant of the facts.
Since we are dealing with imperfect human beings, societies also acknowledge that individuals will fail in the roles of parenting and in marriage. Societies therefore must affirm the importance of the institution knowing that monogamy is not innate to human males. If societies did not establish standards that encouraged, protected and enhanced this innately foreign process, there would be no reason for men and women to remain as marriage partners. The term partner means “one that shares”. This relates to the sharing of the responsibility that the marriage relationship is meant to produce; children. If it is not shared and not valued socially, it will never survive as the generally accepted standard for raising children. If marriage is diminished to just being about the relationship between two individuals as a way of celebrating their love for each other, there would be no need to encourage couples to stick it out for the benefit of the children.
Society has developed the institution of marriage for the production, benefit, and propagation of children to further strengthen and enhance society.
Endorsing gay relationships is more than just acknowledging different lifestyles and family forms. It would require society to completely redefine what the institution of marriage truly is all about. It would undermine the social structure and the central presumptions about the importance of marriage and family. It would trivialize the history of mankind and the hope for the future to accommodate a few sexual preferences and desires of some adults.
Debating same sex marriage is and should be more than just a discussion on the rights of Gay individuals. As it stands now, every individual, no matter what their sexual preference, has the same right to marry. Gay individuals can marry just as heterosexual individuals. They are both required by law and societal norms to marry just one individual of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination toward either the homosexual or heterosexual individual. Heterosexual individuals cannot marry their sibling even if love is a motivating factor. We know from science and history that this leads to genetic problems and is not a benefit to the society. If we cannot explain these concepts in simple rational terms and understand the long term implications then we have already lost the debate.
If societies choose to recognize same-sex marriages, they will in effect sanction individuals and give approval to promoting motherless and fatherless families. Societies will establish by law that this lifestyle is condoned and has benefit for society that outweighs the thousands of years of history to the contrary.
We all agree that every marriage may not produce children, whether it is of choice or because of health reasons. But every marriage based on current laws and societal norms does have the capability of giving a child both a mother and a father. In addition, every marriage prevents creating fatherless children if the vows of marriage are kept and the marriage is maintained intact. This has proven to be the best for all children and societies statistically.
Leaving marriage defined as it is now ultimately places judgment on alternate lifestyles because it sustains the idea that children need mothers and fathers and that the male-female relationship is best. This causes extreme discontent with the gay and lesbian communities, but discontent is not a reason to jeopardize the established institution that has proven to be best for society.
The ultimate purpose of marriage is now and has always been positive. Marriage upholds an institution that has always been in every culture a way to propagate the well being of children and sustaining the society, all while trying to control the natural desires of men and women in their sexual interests.
For our society to take the marriage institution that is already challenged in society and replace it with something completely different and in no way equal is not only wrong, it is socially irresponsible.
So the question remains;
What is marriage for?
posted by Anonymous at 5:50 AM
69 Comments:
Thank you HB,
I was one who emailed you. I have known some of the guys at NAC for several years and consider them friends, but I get intimidated when I disagree on different topics. I am not as articulate or as confident when speaking. I think they are extremely judgemental with people who disagree with them and they are not open to different opinions even though that claim otherwise. Sorry, this is not a personal attack, but just my own personal feeling from my experience. This is why I usually keep my friendship with them at a superficial level, otherwise I feel they would harbor ill-will towards me.
I have nothing against homosexuals or what they do in the privacy of their homes, but agree with you that we should not change what marriage has always been. Your points are exactly correct.
HB wrote: "This causes extreme discontent with the gay and lesbian communities, but discontent is not a reason to jeopardize the established institution that has proven to be best for society."
Far be it from me to grease the skids on HB's perpetually slippery slope, but permit me again to point out that a slaveholder in Alabama might have used the same logic to ustify the peculiar institution, circa 1856.
HB also wrote: "But when we try to change the established norm for the benefit of sexual preference, we initiate a downward spiral in the society as a whole that will ultimately self destruct."
As during last week's discussion, this has yet to be proven by HB or anyone else.
Strip all of HB's verbiage down to the essence, and it comes up this way: Marriage is about societal constructs pertaining to procreation, procreation is biologically impossible with gays, so therefore, marriage should be denied gays.
Every other argument deployed by HB to describe and defend the institution of marriage might also apply to a legal marriage between gays.
Notice also the implicit assertion that gays should not be parents ("it is well established that babies need both mothers and fathers").
As you pointed out, all marriages don't produce children and the production of children doesn't require a marriage--the high rate of unwed mothers (and fathers) in even the best of families proves that. So, at this point, like it or not, the LEGAL aspect of marriage really is more about LEGAL rights than it is about anything else. So why deny legal rights to homosexuals? OK, don't call it marriage. Call it a "legal co-habitation agreement" if that makes you feel better. Whatever you call it, it is ridiculous in 2006 to deny basic societal rights/benefits to a large group of people who are homosexual for reasons we don't really understand (unless you believe they are intentionally sinful, which is really at the bottom of your windy rambling).
Doc,
Well written. Marriage is for having children.
So, would I be correct in assuming that you would favor civil unions for people who cannot or will not have children? So they can have the same legal rights?
According to your definition, people who cannot or will not have children have no reason to get "married". Why do suppose that they still do get married?
The challenge of slaves or as used to be the case where blacks couldn't marry whites has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. The clerk tells him "We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke."
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being of the same sex. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
iamhoosier,
Arguing that marriage is just a social construction is wrong and here’s why.
Cultures do not define marriage, but rather describe what has already been established. The difference in terms (define rather than describe) is significant and one that is continually used by those favoring same sex marriage.
If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration.
What really occurs is that marriage and family construct the culture. Marriage and families are the building blocks of civilization. Families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. An analogy is that bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks.
You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are composed of large groups of families and since families are a constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. Cultures merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists.
Civilization has always characterized marriage as a union of men and women because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage and this alone answers our question, “What is marriage?” even if you disagree.
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of societies. Families—and therefore marriages—are logically prior to culture or society.
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. There are very few individuals who enter into marriage knowing that they absolutely will not have children. The husband and wife are still a family and entitled to support of the society. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, with the ability to have kids.
Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship and for good reason. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.
Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father and therefore, we should uphold the current understanding and definition for the benefit of society as a whole. Since same sex unions do exist in society, we need to describe them differently from marriage as they are not equal.
HB writes: "Sex is fundamental to marriage."
Ignoring the potential of this quote as a straight line, I'll merely suggest that as with last week's discussion, the more HB writes, the closer we come to understanding his fundamental(ist) underpinnings. In other words, he's saying that there can't be sex outside of marriage.
Watch out for that slippery slope, HB.
anoymous,
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals such as non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, nonmarried brothers and sisters who choose to live together forever , college roommates, fraternity brothers or any others share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered).
These circumstances are inherent to families and simply are not intrinsic to other relationships as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
"Gay citizens" already have the same right to marry as anyone else and with the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
Good points HB. Are you sure you are a Doc and not a lawyer:)
Doc,
You just wrote several paragraphs restating the 3 pages of your original post. All excellently written, but you did not address my point.
Why do two 75 year old heterosexuals get married? Why do two sterile heterosexuals get married? Why do two people who cannot or will not have children get married?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Really good questions IAM...but don't hold your breath for an answer. Anyone who lumps the following together: "the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals" is a nothing but a religious zealot and, most likely, a homophobe.
The fact is that marriages of couples beyond childbearing age are done mostly for two reasons: 1. For the couple to show their commitment to each other, and 2. To gain legal recognition of their relationship. To deny homosexuals who are wired diffently (could be a function of Intelligent Design that we just don't understand yet)is just old fashioned homophobia.
Anon 11:30,
Now, now. HB is keeping religion out of this. Your other part can stand.
Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents
None of those benefits are dependent on marriage and certainly not on the sex or sexuality of those involved.
Children are legally entitled to an inheritance regardless of a parent's marital status.
Unmarried parents still receive tax breaks for children and those same children are still covered as dependents by insurance outside of a marriage.
Gay marriage would do nothing to endanger those benefits or the production of children. In fact, when a gay or lesbian becomes the legal guardian of a child either via unfortunate circumstance, heterosexual irresponsibility or the wayward "I'm trying to be straight" relationships encouraged by bigotry, the law recognizes that child as a gay parent's heir and dependent no differently than it does a heterosexual parent, again, irrespective of marriage.
The only difference is that the child is legally bound to one parent rather than two, meaning that the well being of the child vis a vis those benefits is put at greater risk by a system that does not allow the legal recognition of gay realtionships.
Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that "marriage" and "family" are essentially connected with "offspring." Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design and in your example, by age.
But this proves nothing. Using books as an example, they are written by authors to be read. Some very large ones may be used as doorstops or discarded; some may be used to help ignite campfires. The fact that many books lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.
Using similar reasoning, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized by choice or circumstances.
The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
Some older couples marry in order to pass wealth, property etc. to their offspring that already are here.
The bottom line in these cases is exactly as anonymous wrote:
1. For the couple to show their commitment to each other, and 2. To gain legal recognition of their relationship.
These are a very small amount of cases and the institution shouldn't be changed for exceptions to the real underlying purpose.
Doc,
I really don't think you want to get into #'s. Who sets the limit before something is relevant? Be that as it may, there are thousands of marriages every year that will not produce children.
You keep saying that marriage is about sex, children and the raising of children. What exactly do you want to call the relationship of these people who cannot or will not have children? Should their relationship have legal standing? It can't be a marriage--there are and will be no children, so what is it?
I say, based on your definition, something along the lines of civil unions would fit the bill. Wouldn't you?
While I agree that our country should not extend the legal right of marriage to gay couples, the reasoning you use to support your argument is laughable.
First, it is poorly written. A high school english student could write better. But more importantly, you cannot competently discuss marriage without a discussion of religion. In short, God has defined marriage and the purpose of marriage is to glorify Him. Thus, your attempt to defend traditional notions of marriage apart from religion creates a false premise on which the rest of your argument is based. As a result, it is not surprising that your logic is ridiculous.
In your original post, you discuss how society has defined marriage throughout history. Yet in a follow-up post, you say marriage actually constructs the culture. In the same follow-up post, you write about civilization characterizing marriage. Such "grasping for straws" as you strive to avoid religion inevitably leads to inconsistencies.
I have no doubt you have deeply rooted convictions on this topic. But convictions often make for illogical arguments. It is because of arguments like yours that the conservative movement in this country is slowly losing ground in the public debate on gay marriage.
iamhoosier,
There are actually 4 purposes for marriage but it is only procreation that sets it apart from the others. Procreation is also why there are two different sexes. It is the most important of the four.
Procreation:
The primary and most vital purpose of marriage is the protection and support for procreation; the conceiving and bearing of offspring. Marriage in all civilized societies has always been to bring children into the world to maintain and continue the society in a low risk manner.. Marriage from a social aspect supports the parents to instill in their children morals, ethics and values that contribute to the well-being of all society.
Partnership
Humans desire relationships. It seems to be inherent in our nature. Medical Science validates that lonely people do not live as long and have more illnesses. Partnerships fortify both participants in ways that mere words cannot aptly express or define.
Pleasure
One of the ways this partnership fortifies, invigorates, relaxes and pleasures the participants is through sexual relations. Humans are wired with a sex drive and throughout history in most civilized countries, this was intended to be practiced with the covenant of marriage. Our bodies fit perfectly together, (male to female). They respond to touch, taste, sight, sound and aroma and have the ability to become sexually aroused. Once aroused, our bodies automatically emit chemicals, aromas and sensitivities that heighten the sexual experience.
We are wired to experience intense and immeasurable pleasure from foreplay and sexual intercourse when it is in mutually respectful and chosen safe relationships. To top things off, we have the capacity to climax and enjoy orgasms. These are all irrefutable truths and facts.
Purity
Marriage is intended to protect us from the consequences and devastation of a society void of marriage boundaries and engrossed in chaos and sexual promoscuity that too often leads to STD’s, abuse, unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, fatherless children, paternity fraud, HIV/AIDS, emotional torment, heartbreaking disappointment and the list goes on. A marriage union between an honorable man and a virtuous woman is the ideal and protects a man and woman from the impurities of casual and illicit sex.
"Humans are wired with a sex drive and throughout history in most civilized countries, this was intended to be practiced with the covenant of marriage."
Who intended it, HB?
From whence comes this "intent"?
"A marriage union between an honorable man and a virtuous woman is the ideal and protects a man and woman from the impurities of casual and illicit sex."
Ah, the argument from purity.
Intent aside, for just as long as there have been societal marriage contracts, there has been "illicit" sex.
How to explain this?
The purposes of marriage are procreation, partnership, pleasure, and purity therefore as a society we issue marriage licenses to rapists, murderers and pedophiles on a daily basis with no questions asked.
If a highly educated, financially independent, well respected member of the community asks for one, though, we have to make sure she's marrying the right person, otherwise she may tarnish the institution.
I am skeptical that establishing civil unions that convey such rights as taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance etc. for homosexuals will cause heterosexuals to stop wanting to get married and have families.
If government's role is to perpetuate marriage for the sake of civilizations survival, why does it then legalize and legitimize divorce, which in your line of reasoning, would be the most destructive event for civilization.
Would you say divorced heterosexuals raising children would always be a better environment than a homosexual couple remaining together raising children?
Marriage is defined according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan like this: "Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose.
In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary. If you look in Black's Law Dictionary it says this: "Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."
Webster says this: "Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. It is also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
The point is that as a category, by definition, culturally and linguistically and legally in the United States, marriage involves not a man and a pet, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman and not a woman and a machine, but a man and a woman. Restricting it as such is not inappropriate discrimination. As a matter of fact, the word discrimination shouldn’t even apply because there is no such thing legally, culturally, socially or linguistically as a marriage that is not between a man and a woman.
Changing the institution and the legal definitions could theoretically be done but keep in mind that if you're goal is to reconstruct an institution, reconstruct a legal definition, redefine the meaning of a word, then the burden of proof is on the reconstructionist and it's not really fair to point the finger at the person who simply holds the legal, social and linguistic meaning of a word that the word has always had. The burden of proof is on the reconstructionist. That's why it's an unfair objection to say that it is discriminatory if the state won't allow a man to marry his pet or brother. It's unfair to say that it's discriminatory if the state won't allow a woman to marry her canary or her sister. And it's also unfair to claim that it's discriminatory if the state won't allow a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman. That's not what marriage is pure and simple.
As far as divorce is concerned, it validates everything that has been stated. The increased ease and frequency of divorce has done nothing to enhance families or society. It is inherantly destructive and contradictory to what marriage provides and should be further restricted.
As far as NAC question about illicit sex, there is a very simple explanation as there is with many other bad things in the world; sin and evil. But we can discuss these on a different day.
But with everything that's been said, why would divorce be not legal?
Sorry, should say why wouldn't divorce be not legal.
As far as NAC question about illicit sex, there is a very simple explanation as there is with many other bad things in the world; sin and evil.
So the justification for marriage as HB sees it is religious in nature, but when those critical of his reasoning introduce religion into the conversation, they're being biased.
Thus, the circle is complete.
So the Supremes have said that marriage is between a man and a woman. So what? The Court has held lots of currently out-of-date positions in the past that were changed as our understanding and culture developed. Slavery, and male only voting were once codified in the law and upheld by the Supreme Court. Interracial marriage prohibitions were only struck down within the past 30 years or so.
Despite all the words (and you sure do write a lot of words, HB), the bottom line is your fringe, may we even say "cultish" fundamentalism which hates homosexuality and will do anything to marginalize otherwise upstanding and productive citizens just because of sexual orientation. You and Frank Simon must get together and wring your hands on a regular basis.
Yep, that was my point: In the end, HB can't keep religion out of it.
Sorry, Iamhoosier; I know you were trying to provide him the benefit of the doubt ...
Doc,
So now, we we 4 things that define what marriage is for. Hmmm
1. Partnership--no argument from me and certainly not limited to opposite sexes.
2. Purity--commitment that is followed would have the same benefits whether opposite sexes or the same.
3. Pleasure--while I do not have personal recognition of this, I am pretty sure pleasure, orgasms, etc are not limited to opposite sexes. I will have to give you the point on "fit". Are you then
saying anything other than missionary position is wrong?
4. Procreation--You win on this one.
2 gay men commit and remain faithful, enjoy pleasuring each other and are not lonely together.
A sterile man and woman commit and remain faithful, enjoy pleasuring each other and are not lonely together.
Both couples make 3 out of 4. The one they both miss is procreation. I maintain that you still have not answered my question. Why is one partnership entitled to legal standing and the other is not?
NA,
Well, so far, he has pretty much kept religion out of it. I give him credit for that.
However, HB has went from marriage basically starting at the beginning of time to the Supreme Court defining it and back again. Did not the Supreme Court also issue Roe v. Wade? Say "seperate but equal" is okay? Not your best move HB, sorry.
By the way, where are all these people who were intmidated to post on NAC last week? Could it be that their main objection was religous in nature and HB pretty much shut them out in his original post?
I agree with HB, marriage is meant to be with one man and one woman.
I have seen first hand what divorce, affairs, and sexual addictions can do to a family. It is not pretty. A matter of fact it DESTROYS the family!!!!!!!
It starts back as early as my great grandfather. My Great Grandfather had affairs and slept with prostitutes. That has continued on down the generational line to my grandfather, brother, and many more. My brother has a sex addiction problem and cheated on his wife and has completely split the family. Way too many details, but my point is yes marriage between one man and one woman goes along with God's law, but it is also what is best for families. Divorce, sexual sins, and gay and lesbian relationships destroy families. Before anyone thinks I am a homophobe let me say I AM NOT. I am just sharing what I have seen through experiences. I have shared my views with my family and because I disagree with their lifestyle doesn’t mean I hate them, I love them very much.
A positive point would be my husband and I, we have been happily married for almost five years. We have a little boy who is happy and secure because he lives in a happy household with parents who love each other. Neither of us have had other partners and I believe we have an AWESOME marriage because of that. We are a ton happier than my brother and grandfather who have destroyed their lives (and others) trying to seek what they THOUGHT would make them happy.
gay and lesbian relationships destroy families
Please provide evidence of that.
We have a little boy who is happy and secure because he lives in a happy household with parents who love each other. Neither of us have had other partners and I believe we have an AWESOME marriage because of that.
That's great but how would that be any different if you and your husband were of the same sex?
As for the comments about the other readers, we could not explain it any better then the very rational postings from HB.
We are reading and watching all of you continually accuse anyone disagreeing with being a homophobe because you have not made any rational argument except that you want it to be legal.
come on bluegill, statements like yours make you look extremely ignorant. Surely you recognize the difference between men and women and their individual roles.
I'd be willing to bet you have a mom AND a dad.
Anon 4:36,
Excuse me. I don't believe that I have called HB a homophobe.
Perhaps you would like to answer my question that was asked above at
3:46. What is the difference in the two couples? Why should one couple have legal standing and the other not?
I still have not seen an answer to that. What do I call the relationship with "my woman" for the past 26 years? I hesitate to use the word "wife" since we have no children. Why should I be considered married? Lots of questions and still no answers.
iamhoosier,
I think it has been answered and you just do not want to accept the answer.
You and your wife, being male and female, have always had the abiltiy to be a mom and a dad by natural processes.
If you chose or couldn't, that does change the underlying natural facts. What is so hard to understand? It's like the book example HB used. Male-female relationships are intrinsically destined for a higher purpose
Bluegill,
Let me try and explain why I believe gay and lesbian relationships destroy families.
I believe it is a choice to be gay/lesbian and along with sex outside of marriage and affairs it has consequences, some not always seen.
The majority of homosexuals believe they were born “gay.” The belief they were born gay gives them comfort, so they don’t feel the need to change. I believe there is no solid scientific evidence that people are born homosexual. The majority of gay people are normal genetically. They are 100% male or female.
I believe homosexuality is a learned behavior that is influenced by a number of things, disrupted family life growing up not feeling loved by one or both parents, didn’t identify with the parent of the same sex . These problems can result in a search for love and acceptance, envy of the same or the opposite sex, a life controlled by various fears and feelings of isolation.
One thing that does seem clear homosexuality is brought about by many different causes fear of the opposite sex, incest, or molestation. All of these may play a part in causing homosexuality, but no individual factor can cause it alone . I believe it is their decision along with another factor. I believe few will admit this.
My brother for example was molested by a man who was his youth minister at a young age. That has messed him up and because of that he has a sex addiction. There are experiences in life that can lead us in a direction, but it boils down to a decision. I don’t believe a personal decision should change the law to meet their needs.
I am sure I don’t really need to give examples of why a child raised in a household with a mother and father is better off than in a home with same sex parents. Let me end it with this Men and Women are different and play different roles in a household a child needs them both.
In following the postings, it is very clear to me that disagreement with "intellectuals" cannot be on equal footing.
HB has presented ample evidence to support his stance and the intellectuals have presented nothing to support theirs except for what they "feel" is right.
What is your basis for your "feelings". What are your standards? How are you going to prevent brothers from marrying, or sisters, or polygamy?
You have no explanation, or is it ok for all of these?
Can this question be answered: How would allowing same sex civil unions (not with minors, siblings or parakeets)make heterosexuals stop getting married and having families?
Anon 5:05,
You just contradicted yourself.
"You and your wife, being male and female, have always had the abiltiy to be a mom and a dad by natural processes."
Then you bring in "could not" and just dismiss it. If it is known beforehand, what is the purpose of marriage? His book analogy is in error. If the author KNEW that no one would read it, he would not write it.
"Male-female relationships are intrinsically destined for a higher purpose"
What is that purpose? Children? Okay, it is obvious that it takes a male and female to have children.
I think we would agree that HB's 3 other components are also key. No one has yet refuted my earlier example. Why should the government give legal status to one and not the other? Children are out of the equation in both examples. What is so hard to understand about that?
iamhoosier,
the government sanctions marriages even in the examples you give because they still can provide a mother and father if needed.
My extended family had both a mother and father killed in an accident. The aunt and uncle raised both kids from the time they were young and was able to give them both parents. You could do the same as well as the example you provided. Homosexual couples could never do this.
5:56,
I understand what you are saying. I will even say that there may be some validity to the notion that "parents" ideally should be male and female. Unfortunately, we do not live in ideal world. I have known homosexual couples that would have been far superior parents to many heterosexual married couples I know.
Even if you believe that male/female is the ONLY way to go on parenting, it does not necessarily follow that the male/female would have to be married.
Well I see it has been a very lively afternoon discussion and since I am finished with patients, I will contribute one more diatribe.
Some of the other statements and arguments brought up or alluded to in the postings are that same-sex attraction is natural for gays or there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. I am surprised someone hasn’t brought up the argument that the animal kingdom is filled with examples of same-sex erotic behavior or that scientific evidence indicates that sexual orientation is physically pre-determined and condemning homosexuality or restricting adoption rights is wrong because sexual desires are not chosen; they are part one’s physical constitution.
There are two claims here that propel this kind of argument. The first is that homosexuality is “natural” and this is highly debated. The second is that if a condition is natural, then it must be moral.
The claim that homosexuality is natural may appear on the surface to have some truth. It’s not unusual, for example, to see male dogs mount each other in an erotic way. But there are two problems with this view.
First, the observation is flawed because it assumes that erotic behavior in other mammals is the same as homosexual desire in human beings. Male homosexuals engage in sodomy because of an attraction to a gender. They are male erotic, and sodomy is an expression of that desire and the other male is the object of the desire.
Does the animal kingdom display this kind of same-gender eroticism? When a male dog mounts another male dog, is it because he’s attracted to the male gender of the other dog? I don’t think so. This same dog will mount sofas or shrubs or anything else available, including the leg of your dinner guest, boss, or neighbor. None of these things are the object of the canine’s sexual desire; they are merely the subject of it. The dog does not desire your unfortunate visitor. He simply desires to be stimulated. This argument in no way proves the animal has homosexual desires in any way parallel with humans.
Secondly, this view also inherently asserts that simply because the condition “occurs in nature” it is “natural.” But by this use of the word all sorts of things would be natural—humans mating with animals, children eating feces, rain forests being replaced with concrete—because all would be occurring “in nature.” Human beings are part of nature by this definition, and therefore all and any human conduct would be natural. Virtually nothing could ever be considered unnatural on these terms.
Generally we mean something else when we say that replacing virgin forests with parking lots, eating feces, and copulating with beasts are not natural. Things are natural if they fit the pre-technological, natural order of things; they are functioning according to their primitive pattern or purpose, and that’s key. A natural sexual desire, then, is a desire that serves to accomplish a sexual goal in the primitive order of things.
However, this definition of “natural” won’t help the argument for homosexual relationships either. According to the primitive natural order of things (evolution), the natural purpose of sex is reproduction, getting one’s genes into the next generation. But homosexuals don’t reproduce, so homosexuality can’t be “natural” on this definition either.
Everyone would consider it unnatural if someone had eyes, but couldn’t see, or ears and couldn’t hear? Why is it then deemed natural to have male genitals, but be disinclined or incapable of using them to accomplish their reproductive purpose with the opposite sex?
Homosexuality does not seem to be natural in any meaningful sense of the word. Therefore, it cannot be defended by a mere appeal to nature.
One final question before I sign off.
If civil unions were established, what is the harm that I do not see?
Goodnight to all. Thanks Doc.
Sorry, just read Doc's last post.
Good job. Refute points that no one has made during this discussion. Excellent. I see that Karl Rove book is paying off(smile).
See ya tomorrow.
HB,
I agree with your last posting. The only thing I would add is male dogs mount other male dogs because they are claiming dominance over the other. It still gets the same point across, but explains the animal behavior.
I have thoroghly enjoyed the postings today and think HB did a fabulous job of presenting his case.
If this was a trial, he won hands-down.
Proponents of same-sex marriage continually deny the traditional view that marriage is about children.
Instead, they always say marriage is an ever-changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society and there is no essential connection with children. They always come back to saying it is about two people in love.
We always here the argument that “As long as people love each other it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”
Initially, this seems hard to deny because in our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. But if we think about it further, it is clear that love and marriage don’t always go together.
In the history of the world, most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it. If love were the sine-qua-non of marriage, no “for better or for worse” promises would be needed at the altar. Vows are not meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state has never cared if the bride and groom loved each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t primarily about love. It’s about a commitment that is supposed to deliver stability for families. That’s what society is really interested in because that’s what ensures the continuation of a society.
Love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the societal purpose of marriage. The ability to procreate is the societal reason for marriage and why it needs to be preserved.
I agree. Let's not prevent heterosexuals from getting married and having families. But my question remains: How would allowing same sex civil unions cause heterosexuals to no longer want to get married and have families?
anonymous,
I have not read anywhere or heard anyone on this posting state that civil unions would cause heterosexuals to not want to marry.
The argument remains; why should the definition and benefits of marriage be altered?
No one has even tried to give a rational reason and the burden really is on those who want to change what is already the standard.
HB has given ample explanation for why it should remain the way it is.
Just curious, where did you find the info that states: " Children are legally entitled to an inheritance regardless of a parent's marital status?" I may want to use this info sometime? I have been told that in Indiana children of a couple are not entitled to anything.
Iamhoosier sounds very sincere in his questions and remarks and I want to share my story.
We were 2,4,and 5 when our parents were killed in a tragic accident. We were taken in and raised by my aunt and uncle who had been married 18 years with no intention on having kids.
My Dad (uncle) taught my brothers how to hunt, fish, work on cars and other masculine type of activities. My mom (aunt) taught me to cook and do other feminine activities.
She was there with me when my heart was broke over my first boyfriend. She was there when I started my periods and had terrible cramps. She was there helping me pick out my prom dress and my dad walked me down the aisle at my wedding.
We are now all professionals with families of our own and are grateful that God had a plan bigger than my aunt and uncle originally thought. They completed our lives by being our mom and dad.
There is no equal and no substitute for having both a loving mom and a loving dad.
Iamhoosier, NAC, bluegill, and all the others out there; you could have been that same aunt and uncle because you married someone of the opposite sex.
There is no comparison and that is why society should continue as it is!!
No one has said that the definition and benefits of marriage should be altered. Only that some of those same benefits that are bestowed by our government should be available to same sex couples.
I believe that HBs paragraph after paragraph is in a roundabout way attempting to ascert that the advent of civil unions would cause alot of people to decide to create a civil union with someone of the same sex just to get health benefits, etc. If that avenue was not available to them, they would be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex making it possible that pregnancy would result.
"There is no comparison and that is why society should continue as it is!!"
And it most certainly will, but you have not shown why the compassionate and loving aunt and uncle might not have been two men or two women, with preciesly the same result.
Anon 1:45,
Thank you for at least realizing that I am sincere.
You have my sympathy for your loss and my happy feeling for the Aunt and Uncle that raised you and your siblings. A tragic and glorious story in just a few words. Excellent.
I hesitate to bring up a possible opposing scenario in such a personal situation but here goes.
What happened in your situation evidently worked very well, but it is just that--a personal situation that turned out well. Are you sure that in a similar situation, children put with a loving homosexual couple would have turned out bad?
There are bad heterosexual marriages. There are bad homosexual relationships. There are heterosexuals that are predators and the same on the other side. The bad needs to be rooted out as much as possible.
Again, thanks for sharing your experiences.
To everyone else,
I live the same as most of you here. Married for 26 years. Work and pay my bills. Don't cheat on my wife. Pretty much obey the law(darn speed limits). Contribute to charity. I vote. I like apple pie but blueberry is my favorite.
Now, if I was a gay man, with all the same attributes as above, why should my partner be denied the right to speak for me on medical matters should the occasion arise? Why should my partner not be entitled to the inheritance laws?
HB keeps coming back to the children. For all of you who keep saying that he presented such a fine case--what else has he said?
My point all along has been the legal contract, which Doc has acknowledged as basically correct.
Marriage is for children. Fine. Why not a similar contract for those who cannot have children? Homosexual or heterosexual. In many cases of heterosexual "marriage" it is known beforehand that there will be no children. What is the point of getting "married" if there is no chance of children? There is none if the word marriage is for children. There would be a point to a legal contract, such as a civil union, in such cases.
Simply put, civil unions for all consenting adults that will not have children and marriage for all consenting adults who will have children. Does not that solve the issue? Doc, I just gave you what you wanted, marriage for children--only.
Amazing what we can work out in 24 hours on the blogs, isn't it?
As we wrap up this dialogue, I have just a few final thoughts. In our democratic society we have every right to speak up about issues of concern and when we want to change established laws, it is the responsibility of those wanting to change to prove their point, garner support and go through the proper channels to make the changes. Radical judges do not have the authority as was once again affirmed in California. [ Appeals Court Upholds State's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - Los Angeles Times]http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriage6oct06,1,4381808.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is an attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally wrong. Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe:
The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically--by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.
Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying many of the liberties of matrimony without the "piece of paper" but suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy.
The basic rule of justice is to treat equals equally. If parties are not equal in a relevant sense, then there is no obligation of our justice system to treat them the same. This is the key to answering the claims of same-sex marriage.
So are you claiming that homosexual relationships are really equal with heterosexual ones? Do you actually believe there is no essential difference between
the two? If there are essential differences, then the two are not equal and there is no obligation to treat them as if they were.
Giving a different title to the relationship is definitely the best option but because of the reasons above, it would never be accepted. Once again, I believe if a change is wanted, then it needs to be voted on by the people. Let’s put it on the ballot and let our representative republic make the decision.
There was a time, not that long ago, that southern whites believed desegragation was "deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally wrong." What would have happened had that been put to a vote in the South? If James Dobson had been there during that time, what do you think his position would have been?
You just will not answer questions will you? Are you afraid too? You write extremely well and sure do spend a lot of words saying the same thing. You bring up points that no one has brought up and then refute them. You were the only one to bring up activist judges. Of course, if one rules the way you think, that would be all right.
I am going to try one more time.
Did you not write(several times)that marriage is for children?
Based on that, there is no difference between heterosexuals who cannot have children and a homosexual couple. Remember, this is based on what YOU have said marriage is for. With your definition, it is a civil rights issue. It is your definition, so it is up to you to show me the difference. Not the other way around.
I'll cut it off here, too, but not before saying that the only facet of this discussion that I find annoying is HB's inability to understand that every one of his arguments on behalf of marriage as restricted to a man and a woman would have been used two centuries ago in precisely the same manner to defend the institution of slavery.
Yep, all of them. And yet, again and again, HB denies that the issue is about civil rights. To me, either it's about civil rights or it's about religious precepts, and if the latter, I take issue with it owing to the separation of church and state.
If the former, I look back at the way that concsciousness with regard to civil rights eventually usurped a brand of bigotry that had only the tired "it's always been that way" to gird it against logic and reason.
Casual readers should be aware that logic and reason are the biggest casualties of this discussion. Many of you think that I'm attacking your beliefs, when in fact, I'm trying to make clear that all of us should apply the same standards of knowledge to this topic as we do when peering over a cliff and concluding that jumping would not be in the best interests of our health.
Very nicely put Anon 11:31.
This is not a civil rights issue. Look it up. Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law.
Go back and read the posts. Gays have the exact same rights to marry as anyone else under the current law. If you don't like the current law, then change it within the current legal system. Slavery was wrong and we have disucssed it. Comparing the two is useless. How about Roe v. Wade. Many believe it is wrong. But it is not a comparison. We have made mistakes in the past and will again in the future.
Several times I have written that marriage is our social construct to protect families and especially children for the propagation of society. It is one of the four reasons for marriage,not the only one as you continue to imply, but is the one that separates marriage from homosexual unions.
Activist judges were brought up becuase it happened to have been in the news yesterday on this very topic. Give me an example of what you consider to be an activist judge ruling that was later overturned by the courts. Judges do not make law in our country and when they attempt it, they are wrong.
None of you have given any factual rebuttal on any of the arguments. It is all your opinion which is biased by your own view of morality and naturalistic thinking. It blinds you from the obvious.
None have you have answered the question posed:
Is there a difference between the two relationships? If yes, the argument is over. If no, your bias blinds you.
HB,
they cannot answer the question because their logic and reason prevents them from acknowleging truth.
They see what they want to see and believe whatever they "feel" and have no foundation to base any of it on.
Your arguments could not be any clearer.
HB, if it is changed, it will obviously be changed within the current legal system, which will likely be done through legislation. In reading your voluminous writings here, I find your claims that your arguments are factual, and all of the opposing arguments are biased rather curious.
I really hate sounding like Ronald Reagan, but there you go again.
First, you don't answer questions.
Second, you bring up non points in the discussion and then refute them. Third, when you asked the last question it came out--if you agree with me you are correct. If you don't agree you are biased.
I still don't know where the activist judges thing came from. Who mentioned them in this discussion? Who ever mentioned using activist judges to change the law? Who ever mentioned waving a magic wand and changing the law IN THIS DISCUSSION?
Yes, you mentioned 4. One time. I showed that any relationship amongst consenting adults could accomplish 3 out of 4. You ignored it. The fourth one brings us back to children. I don't think it "us" that is confused and/or biased.
At least I now know why you wanted the discussion over here. More applause. With one exception, none your "supporters" added a thing to the discussion. You wanted a chance to pontificate and you got it.
One last thing.
HB said,
"However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals,..."
Anyone who would use incestuous and pedophile in the same sentence with homosexual, in this type of discussion, is definitely biased and a homophobe. We may disagree on many things but HB I never thought that you would stoop that low.
I am done.
This is what I'll remember about this discussion:
"It is all your opinion which is biased by your own view of morality and naturalistic thinking. It blinds you from the obvious."
Since you all really don't get it, i'll try to explain it to you and I don't even have a fancy college degree like NAC.
HB listed 4 things for marriage. Three of four can fit everyone, but the fourth only fits male and females. This happens to be the one, and the sole reason that government has laws protecting and supporting it. You guessed it. That one is PROCREATION. Now how hard was that for all you educated people.
I knew before it was over, someone would accuse HB of being a homophobe. You can never speak the truth without being attacked.
I hope NAC does remember that phrase because he never had an argument supporting his views. He just had his views.
Look up the definition of a homophobe and then re-read his statement. You decide. To use those terms together, in the same context, I think most people would constitute it as hate. Look closely at the definition and then be totally honest.
I almost wrote about it yesterday but thought that, maybe with reflection, HB would regret the way he put that sentence together.
I thought long and hard before I wrote it today.
What IF I had written the following sentence. "Christian clergy, Republican Congressmen, and other child molesters......"
Wouldn't be quite fair, would it?
I certainly knew it was only a matter of time before the frustration of the discussion finally caused the accusation of homophobia to be hurled. I am surprised it came from iamhoosier.
First off, the paragraph you refer to in no way implies this and is completely different grammatically from your example. It began by talking about the restrictions that are currently placed on certain behaviors and/or sexual practices. Whether you will admit it or not, the human body is not designed or intended for sodomy. It is an alternative sexual practice that involves increased risk of physical harm. It is an abnormal behavior. People may enjoy it but it is still abnormal.
The definition of homophobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. I have friends, colleagues, extended family, and many patients that are homosexuals and whom I interact with and socialize with regularly. I disagree with their lifestyle choices but still care about them as individuals. There is no aversion and as discussed previously, there is no discrimination.
Your characterization is wrong. But since there is no other way to refute the arguments presented, attacking the messenger is a common ploy and is the perfect example of an “Ad Hominem” type of fallacy.
One more example might help you with this. Citizenship is also described and defined by laws in order to assist in maintaining societies. We do not allow everyone who sneaks across the border to become citizens just because they want it. The laws are in place for a reason. Are we discriminating against them as well? Or maybe you truly believe we should allow everyone who illegally comes to our country to automatically become citizens. It does not benefit society. The analogy is similar. The societal purpose for marriage has been adequately explained.
There continues to be no rational explanation for the contrary from any of you. You just believe it is wrong and you are entitled to your belief. You are not entitled to usurp the current legal definition.
I still have not seen any of you answer the question about whether there is a difference in the two types of relationships. Again, if there is a difference, there is no obligation legally to treat them as if they are the same.
Post a Comment
<< Home