Well, this subject seems to have come up a lot for me lately, so I'm going to post on it. Same-sex marriage. So much for shying away from controversy on this blog...
Anyway, let me say again at the outset that I'm a supporter of civil unions. I think giving access to the same rights is a good thing and that equality is a worthy and important goal.
So why not also support same-sex marriage? Because I see a difference between heterosexual marriage (herein "traditional marriage" for sake of ease, not because I'm trying to make a point) and same-sex marriage. It's a big difference:
One of the chief purposes of marriage is procreation. Not just raising children (which same-sex couples can do just fine in my opinion (just as can single adults)) but also the creation of children. Quite simply, and obviously, this is a purpose that cannot be achieved by same-sex couples. Therefore, a same-sex marriage cannot fulfill all of the same purposes of marriage in the way that a traditional marriage can, and thus a reasonable (and arguably important) distinction can be made between the two.
The ready-made response of same-sex advocates is that there are also traditional marriages that do not achieve this purpose of marriage. This is a fair point to raise, but I feel there's an important response that has been largely unvoiced in the same-sex marriage debate: Traditional marriages without children frustrate one of the purpose of marriage by impediment (infertility or unwillingness), whereas same-sex marriages frustrate this purpose of marriage by definition.
As I wrote on Mike's blog, "I think the difference is pretty obvious, and it's relevant both philosophically and practically."
Philosophically: Human nature is oriented towards procreation. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here. One of the functions of marriage is to serve this aspect of human nature (and I'd even argue monogamous relationships like marriage are human nature themselves, and that locating the procreative function inside of those relationships is also a part of human nature). Obviously same-sex marriage can't be oriented towards babymaking, so philosophically same-sex marriage has a different orientation than traditional marriage.
Practically: Allowing only fertile couples to marry requires a fertility test for traditional marriages before issuing licenses. Homosexual couples require no such test. We know they can't have kids, never could, never will, and there's no exception to the rule. So practically, if we want to encourage procreation as one of the purpose of marriage, it makes sense to draw the line at same-sex vs. traditional marriage.
So basically that leaves us with a pretty fair reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex unions and traditional unions. Is it going to be compelling for everyone? No. I'm sure there are those who would say both that we don't care about procreation within marriage and/or that allowing same-sex marriage is more important than drawing this distinction.
Personally, I think it's an important distinction, but I don't see any reason to deny same-sex couples any of the rights associated with marriage (unless there are rights attached only to procreation, but I can't think of any). That's why I support a dual marriage/civil union framework. It allows us to give everybody the same rights, while at the same time maintaining the important distinction between same-sex and traditional marriages.
And as I see it, that's pretty much the case against same-sex marriage.
And all the stars were crashing 'round
As I laid eyes on what I'd found
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
so they just can't use the word "marriage"? that's kinda lame.
since your argument centers around procreation, what about couples that don't procreate? or couples that adopt?
it's just a word. get over it, world.
Did you even read my post?
Any word on how that story was recieved?
i did read your post. but if you're basing it philosophically on procreation, i think there's a lot of people who wouldn't think of their marriage as philosophically-based on procreation.
i turned the story in on saturday. i suspect i'll either get a C or and A on it. i don't think i can get the same grade i got before on it because then it's like saying there was no point to revising.
First, "based on" is far too strong of language. Procreation is one of the purposes of marriage, not the singular foundation.
Second, there's a big difference between a traditional marriage without procreation and a same-sex marriage: the difference between impediment and definition. A traditional marriage, even ones where the couples are infertile, can be oriented towards procreation (they just wouldn't be successful, because of the impediments). A same-sex marriage, by definition, cannot be oriented towards procreation. That's a big difference.
But all you've argued is that there is a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. You haven't given any reason why that distinction implies that there shouldn't be same-sex marriage. Your argument could just as easily be used to support couples who choose to have children outside wedlock.
No one disputes that there are differences (boys have penises, girls have vaginas, and penises != vaginas, FYI). But even if you accept that one of the reasons we want marriage in our society is that we want to encourage marital procreation, how does having marriages that will not result in procreation diminish the supposed incentives for those that do?
It isn't about incentivizing. It's about structure. The question is whether we want a society structured in such a way that we acknowledge the distinction between same-sex and traditional marriage or whether we want them all lumped together.
My argument is that the differences between the two are relevant (because the two types of unions are oriented at different purposes). To go directly to the heart of your challenge: I'm saying we should acknowledge the difference in the type of unions. The way to do that is with a dual marriage/civil union framework. All the same rights attach to both (thus not a question of incentive) but we call them different things because they are different in a relevant way. It's about whether we structure our society to acknowledge this difference or not.
And if we do structure our society to acknowledge this difference, we affirm that procreation is one of the goals of marriage, and if we decide to lump all of these unions together in one framework, we at least diminish the claim that procreation is a part of marriage.
This was written pretty quickly, so if it doesn't work, let me know...
Matt,
Marriage is a completely artificial construct with its roots firmly set in religion. I do not deny that it has historically been a successful and even beneficial institution within society, especially in terms of establishing a stable framework for procreation, but to say that it is human nature itself is an overstatement. Your argument, to me, reeks of "separate but equal" with the whole marriage/civil union duality. Gay marriage in NO way infringes upon the rights of non gays, and to deny them a certain title is flat out discriminatory.
There is mounting evidence that being homosexual or heterosexual probably has a genetic component, they dont have a choice about their inborn preferences, in the same way that someone with a particular racial heritage has no choice about the amount of melanin in his or her skin.
Procreation is certainly a necessity for the species, but within the human species there should be equality for everyone, regardless of their ability or intent to procreate.
A Church is entitled to filter its own actions based on the belief system it upholds, but the government should not be involved in discriminatory activities, it is there to protect the freedom and rights of all citizens, not just the prudish majority. So, if a Church wants to deny marrying a gay couple, thats on their conscience, but for the government to make it illegal, thats a whole other matter.
Marriage is a completely artificial construct with its roots firmly set in religion.
How sure are you about that? What are you basing it on? I'd argue that, historically and anthropologically people have almost always entered into monogomous relationships, one purpose of which was procreation. Whether or not that was called "marriage" is irrelevant, the concept of a traditional union has been pervasive throughout human existence. Even societies where extra-maritial or homosexual affairs were common (say, Ancient Greece) there were also traditional unions, and it was within those unions that the procreative function was located.
We can change the words, the concept that I'm getting at - monogomous heterosexual relationships, one purpose of which was procreation - are a function of human nature. Whether or not those relationships are considered religious is irrelevant because they've existed in every human society, regardless of theistic belief.
Your argument, to me, reeks of "separate but equal" with the whole marriage/civil union duality.
Well it shouldn't, because I'm saying that there's a distinction to be made between the two types of unions. I'm not saying that the two types of unions are the same, but that it's ok to treat them differently; I'm saying that the two types of unions are different, but that we should treat them the same in everything but name. That's not "separate but equal"; it's more like "nearly-together but distinct".
Gay marriage in NO way infringes upon the rights of non gays, and to deny them a certain title is flat out discriminatory.
I'm not saying that same-sex marriage infringes on any rights of others, or anything like that. I'm just saying there's a distinction that can (and should) be made. As such, I can admit that it is "discrimination" in a techincal sense (we're acknowledging that a difference exists"). What I'm saying is that that discrimination is, in essence, justified (and I personally say it's only justified if it's limited to the labeling of the union, not denial of rights).
I'm curious about your line about denying them a title... I'm pretty sure that in the military higher ranking women aren't called "sir". Is that unjustified descrimination? There's a difference between men and women, our language gives different titles depending on gender, so is it ok to call ranking women "Ma'am", or are we committing the same type of horrendous offense by giving them a different title?
Also, if a state decided to get rid of marriage, and only have "civil unions" would that violate a right of everyone? Do people really have a right to a particular label? That seems pretty low down on the list of rights people should be striving for... Speech, Religion, Title... yeah...
There is mounting evidence that being homosexual or heterosexual probably has a genetic component.
Yeah? So? I've never denied this. I've never thought of being homosexual as a choice. How is this relevant?
The government should not be involved in discriminatory activities.
Actually, the government makes discriminating laws all the time. We discriminate based on age, citizenship status, residency, marital status, etc. The list goes on and on. In fact, there are only a very few areas where the Court has said discrimination is (almost always) not allowed, those being: race, gender, and handicap status. And even then, there are lots of laws that have been allowed for those particular classifications.
The question isn't whether the government should discriminate; The question is whether any particular discrimination is justified.
Where a real difference exists, then it can make sense for the government to discriminate. A real difference exists between same-sex unions and traditional unions. Ergo...
Look, you say that its a justifiable discrimination, but I disagree. If a homosexual couple wants to get married and abide in a loving monogamous relationship, then they should not be denied that right by the Government (the Church is free to do so, as I have already said). If they dont want to be "labeled" differently, then they shouldnt have to be. Labels carry psychological weight.
Homosexuals perceive this "nearly-together but distinct", as you call it, wording difference a form of persecution. Are you willing, for the sake of hanging onto a traditional viewpoint, to put your fellow human beings through what they experience as persecution?
My point about the genetic nature of homosexuality is that, but for the grace of God you could have been born with those tendencies, and who knows, met a loving guy who you are not permitted to marry, by your government. Marriage is a word with weight, it has cultural value and there is pride, are gays not entitled to enjoy the pride inherent in saying the phrase "we are married"? Did you ever consider that what they are really looking for is validation, for society to say, yes, you are the way you are, and its ok. On some level its about trying to fit in, to feel included, even though they are a bit different. They want their cake, and they want to eat it too (different, but accepted as normal). I dont see any harm in that.
I am not ignorant, I know that the government makes many laws that are discriminatory in nature, based on age and many other criteria. But I think in the majority of those cases, the laws are in place to protect society. Society doesnt need protecting from gay people.
Nate -
You've obviously got a very passionate view on this subject. That's fine. I agree that labels and the word "marriage" carry weight. That's why I think we need to be careful about how we apply them.
There is a difference between a same-sex union and a traditional union. Given that difference, and the fact that it strikes at the heart of one of the primary purposes of marriage, why shouldn't we call the different unions by different names?
Your point seems to be "but people feel really really bad if they can't have their relationship called the same thing." I don't see how that's a response to the point I'm raising: that there is a very real difference between the types of unions. You empathize with those who are excluded, and that's a very good thing. I do too (which is a good part of why I advocate for civil unions that get same-sex couples all of the same rights). But it can go too far.
I understand that the desire is one of inclusion, of a wanting to fit in. But unfortunately a same-sex union DOESN'T fit into our society the same way a traditional union does. No matter how much people want it to. There is a real difference between the types of unions. No amount of wishing that weren't true, no amount of wanting to have the same thing, will change that fact. It seems to me your empathy has caused you to overlook this key difference.
Marriage is, in part, oriented towards procreation. Same-sex couples, by definition, can't procreate. It follows logically that a same-sex union can't be entirely consistent with the orientation of marriage. So why should we call it a marriage?
I'm with David here. You can say that there's a definitional difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, but you haven't given any reason to think that it's not a trivial difference. Many of us will look at the difference and say, "Who cares?" You do, obviously, but it's not clear why.
If fertility testing were cheap and easy, would you support only letting fertile couples have "marriages" and forcing everyone else into "civil unions?" I find it hard to imagine that you would. Or how do you feel about 80-year-old widows and widowers getting married and spending their final years together? I expect you're happy for them and that it never crosses your mind that letting them marry destroys marriage's procreative intent. So why does it bug you when gays want to do it? Your definition of marriage comes off as conveniently prejudicial.
And why the emphasis on procreation anyway? Shouldn't our concern be about raising kids, not the technical details of how they're created? It's true that a gay couple can't simply make a baby the fun way, but they can come to care for one. They can raise a child fertilized with the sperm or egg of one member of the couple. Or they can adopt. Or they can raise a child born of a previous marriage, perhaps before the parent realized he was gay (it happens). In any of these cases, how are the children better off being cared for by parents in a civil union rather than in a marriage?
Matt,
Jacob has beat me to the hetero-geriatric marriage point I was about to make. Women who have undergone menopause cant procreate, by definition, as you seem hot to point out, so by your reasoning, they shouldnt be allowed to get married, whether they were seeking a hetero or homosexual relationship.
And what of the morbidly obese? They also by definition cannot procreate, so should hetero morbid obese people not be allowed to marry if they find love?
And what about someone who is genetically an XY, but who had a little trouble developmentally in terms of regulating their gene expression and hormone levels and therefore possess a vagina, but no uterus. Lets say this "man" is brought up as a woman, as is very frequently the case with these individuals, and falls in love with and marries a "normal" man. When the couple is unable to procreate they go for fertility testing only to find out making a kid is out of the question. Would you take away their marriage license?
Marriage means a lot in our culture, its a part of the american dream. Its validation. I say its wrong to be exclusionary on what are, yes, trivial differences. The pursuit of marriage and the pursuit of happiness are one and the same for many people (whether it ends up delivering the happiness they hope for is another matter), so as I see it, its a constitutional violation of rights to deny gay marriage. Until such a time as you are willing to deny marriage to infertile hetero people along with gay non procreators, then your argument has no merit for me.
Also, you made a whole big point about how they dont fit the norms of our society, and wishing wont change that. You are perfectly right! They dont fit, and wishing wont help, which is absolutely why we need to actively change our society in this respect. Gay marriage needs to be embraced and intentionally included into our culture, and part of that process is to eliminate laws that barricade that process. As I see it, its no different than eliminating laws in the past that had to do with limiting the rights of women and black people.
Jacob & Nate -
I'm gonna lump you together here because my response really goes to both of you.
I think marriage is oriented towards procreation, at least in part. Jacob, you seem to challenge this a little, but your challenge seems to rest largely on the fact that marriage is ALSO oriented towards raising children. Those are two seperate purposes of marriage, and the existence of the later doesn't invalidate the former. If you want to really make the argument that marriage isn't oriented towards procreation, then I think that's something that deserves it's own comment. If you make the case a little more fully, I'll be willing to take it up.
Second, if procreation is one of the goals of marriage, then maybe it follows that those marriages that can't achieve that goal should be generally excluded from being considered marriages. That would probably include people who can't have children for whatever reason: age, infertility, even weight (nice contribution there Nate...).
But that seems a little harsh, right? So what I propose is that we don't base whether a union is a marriage or not on the couples' chances for success in procreation, but instead we consider whether that union can be oriented towards all of the goals of marriage. Because you can be oriented towards something and still not achieve it. I've been looking for jobs in MN for a long time, but haven't been successful. There are couples that are oriented towards procreation but never achieve it. Orientation and success are two very different things.
This being the case, I'd say that for anyone who could be oriented towards procreation their union can be considered marriage, because that union can be consistent with the orientation of marriage.
Now we come to the really interesting question: who's union is oriented towards procreation (and therefore all the goals of marriage)? I take it as uncontested that a same-sex union is not oriented towards procreation. That means we'd exclude same-sex unions from being considered marriages. This is the gist of the argument against same-sex marriage.
So the challenge has been issued: what about other unions that can't achieve procreation? (Note that this is not an argument in response to whether or not same-sex unions are oriented towards marriage, but can more accurately be taken as a challenge to exclude others too).
This is where I drew the distinction between in my original post. First, practically, we can know without reference to anything other than the existence of the couple that same-sex couples aren't going to procreate. We don't know that about other traditional unions without reference to something else (whether that's age, a fertility test, or even weight...). So practically speaking, drawing the line at same-sex couples makes some sense. Jacob, you issued a challenge regarding fertility tests (Nate, you might appreciate this point too). I would say that if there were a simple, cheap and accurate mechanism for immediately knowing whether or not a couple could procreate, then yeah, this practicality argument goes out the window, and there's more cause to exclude other unions from marriage.
But there's also the philosophical argument to be made here: a same-sex couple can't have children by definition. A traditional couple who can't have children can't have children because of impediment, whether it be age, sterility, or even weight. As such, they can still have the goal of procreation, and they can still be oriented in that direction. A same-sex couple cannot be oriented towards procreation. This is where the difference between orientation and success comes into play. To consider whether a union is a marriage or not it isn't relevant whether a couple actually procreates, it's relevant whether they are oriented towards procreation. That's why I draw the line where I draw it.
Whether or not a couple can have kids isn't the point. It's whether or not they can be oriented towards having kids.
Now I suppose I'd consider that there are other potential couples that are not oriented towards procreation, and therefore should be excluded from being called marriage. I think the "definitional" vs. "impediment" issue is a pretty stark line though, and I don't know if there are any others that fall on the "definitional" side, beyond the same-sex unions (I suppose inter-species unions... but that's just being silly, right?). If y'all want to make the case that other unions aren't oriented towards procreation, then (provided you make a compelling case), I'd say those are also unions that shouldn't be considered marriage.
And again here, we're talking about drawing a distinction in name only. I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't sanction same-sex unions, just that they are different from marriage.
Matt,
Why on earth do you cling so dearly to this most minor of distinctions you have so painstakingly ferreted out, when the practical upshot of this results in human suffering?
So, gay couples are not oriented to procreation WITHIN a homosexual union, though they may still seek it through such methods as in-vitro fertilzation/surrogate mothers and whatnot.
For the sake of emphasizing that two people of the same sex cannot mix their DNA, though they may find other means of procreating and raising a child, you are willing to discriminate and persecute them? And dont make any excuses for yourself on that point, it is persecution.
Having an exclusionary cutoff for marriage serves no purpose, it is divisionary, and the distinguishing criteria you set for it is trivial.
I dont feel like you actually responded adequately to the whole infertility issue, because the fact of the matter is that fertility tests arent all that hard to come by, besides which there are very natural states of infertility that really require no testing at all, and I would put forth that a hetero sterile person is NO different than a homosexual in terms of his orientation towards procreation. To think otherwise is
an exercise in futility. And as for hetero couples that are fertile yet dont want kids, they are certainly LESS oriented towards procreation than a gay couple who plans to adopt. I dont hear you calling to ban their marriages.
I think the distinction of "orientation towards procreation" doesnt matter in the first place, and should not be a basis for discrimination, but even if it were a valid point, you havent made a strong enough case that such a distinction actually exists. Nor do I believe it is possible for one to be made. Either you admit that sterile people cannot be allowed to marry (to which I would respond that in all fairness we must find them and subject them to this law, its only fair), or you admit that denying gay people that right is wrong.
But lets leave all that behind and examine what the practical upshot is of either allowing gay marriage, or prohibiting it.
Lets start with the current situation, Gay marriage is not allowed, what do we see? A segment of our population suffers mental anguish at what they perceive to be persecution. Conservatives feel smug.
New scenario, gay marriage is allowed, what do we see? Many gay couples get married, lots of conservatives grumble, but really dont suffer an ill consequences.
One of these situations is discriminatory and causes human suffering, is that really the one you want to be behind? And for the sake of what? Making a distinction and feeling good about it?
Give me a break.
Nate -
I think you're making a couple of mistakes. First, I think you're overstating the consequences. Persecution? Really? C'mon. Especially when I'm advocating civil unions...
Second, I think you're overlooking what I just wrote. You say, "I would put forth that a hetero sterile person is NO different than a homosexual in terms of his orientation towards procreation. To think otherwise is
an exercise in futility." This statement amounts to a rejection of the reasons I just put forth, but you don't actually address the key way I show them to be different (recall the discussion of success vs. orientation, and that even unsuccessful traditional couples can be oriented towards procreation). You need to actually address the reasons I put forth. The closest you come is the suggestion that scientific methods might be used for same-sex couples to procreate. But these clearly require third-parties, who are outside the union, and therefore the union itself is not oriented towards procreation.
Notice too that here you aren't disputing the fact that same-sex unions aren't oriented towards procreation. So regardless of whether non-procreative heterosexual unions are included in marriage, you still haven't presented a counter-argument that say same-sex unions should be.
Third, I think you're overlooking the simple fact that there is a distinction between same-sex unions and traditional unions. They are different. So why would we call them the same thing?
Here's my challenge to you: either show that same-sex unions are no different than a traditional marriage with procreation (for the sake of argument I'll grant that even traditional unions that can't procreate shouldn't be called marriage), or tell me why we'd call different unions the same thing.
Now you raise a good point regarding traditional unions where the people don't want children. Frankly, I think it's worth questioning whether those are truly marriages, and maybe we should require people to swear that they'll try to have kids before giving out marriage licenses.
I'm curious too what your response would be if I were to just say that successful procreation was relevant to marriage. What if I said I was ok with excluding other relationships?
Of course, whether a different type of relationship should be excluded from the label 'marriage' isn't itself a reason why same-sex relationships should be included.
----------------
Your ultimate point seems to be that you really really want same-sex unions to be called marriage because otherwise people feel bad. How far are you willing to take that principle? What about adult siblings? What about polygamy? What about the union of different species (I'm not even quite sure how that would work, but let's see how far you're willing to take your princple of "but people feel bad"). Why do you draw the distinction between government and churces? What about same-sex couples who feel really bad that a church won't marry them? It's the same harm, right? Should churches have their tax-exempt status taken away if they won't marry same-sex couples?
Your point, throughout, has been the harm to same-sex couples if they're not allowed to use the term "marriage". I challenge you to describe in detail this harm, and why it is so pervasive that we can't acknowledge the real difference that exists between procreative unions and non-procreative unions. And why, at the same time, it isn't so pervasive that we still allow churches to discriminate.
As for why I "cling so dearly to this ... distinction"... It's because it's accurate. Saying a same-sex union is the same as a traditional union is not honest. What's more, I think we need to continue to affirm that procreation is a part of marriage. Allowing marriages clearly not oriented toward procreation diminishes the idea that procreation is a primary goal of marriage. I believe structuring society to affirm that procreation is a part of marriage is both an honest and good thing to do.
Yeah, what Nate said. As for your comments...
"If you want to really make the argument that marriage isn't oriented towards procreation, then I think that's something that deserves it's own comment. If you make the case a little more fully, I'll be willing to take it up."
I don't actually have any opinions on what marriage is truly oriented towards. It obviously plays many roles for many people and I think it's a bit silly to pick out just one of these and base your definition of marriage around it. Sure, it's often oriented toward procreation. It's also oriented to raising kids, getting people to settle down into more stabilized lives, providing a safety net for a couple as they face the hardships of life, and making people happy. Those are all good reasons for opening up the franchise of marriage to any competent adult who wants in.
"Second, if procreation is one of the goals of marriage, then maybe it follows that those marriages that can't achieve that goal should be generally excluded from being considered marriages. That would probably include people who can't have children for whatever reason: age, infertility, even weight (nice contribution there Nate...).
"But that seems a little harsh, right? So what I propose is that we don't base whether a union is a marriage or not on the couples' chances for success in procreation, but instead we consider whether that union can be oriented towards all of the goals of marriage."
Wow. Shorter version: Denying the right to marry is harsh, so let's not do that to straight people, only to gays.
You can torture the reasoning all you want, but this still just comes off as anti-gay bias. There are many gay couples who want nothing more than to get married and care for a child. There are many straight couples who don't want anything to do with children, perhaps have affairs, and end in painful divorce. It's cruel to deny marriage to the gay couples and allow it to the straight couples just because the latter can be "definitionally oriented" to all the purposes of marriage, which just happen to conveniently include the one thing gays can't do.
The only reason you've given for wanting to exclude gays from marriage is that allowing them to marry would weaken marriage's procreative component. Leaving aside whether or not that's plausible, by not letting them marry you weaken marriage in other ways. You send the message that companionship, happiness, security, and even raising children can be enjoyed perfectly adequately outside of marriage. You make it so that marriage is set aside only for making babies. How is that good for marriage?
Honestly, I don't think you'd find your argument at all compelling if you weren't precommitted to banning gay marriage. The question is, why are you committed to that?
Those are all good reasons for opening up the franchise of marriage to any competent adult who wants in.
You present a number of worthy aspects of marriage. But there's a difference between the total sum of worthy aspects and marriage itself. The worthy aspects are all seperable, and what we want to encourage is their confluence. So we sell them as a package. If you just want one piece, don't buy the bundle.
Shorter version: Denying the right to marry is harsh, so let's not do that to straight people, only to gays.
Well, not quite. What I was going for with the "harsh" line was more that "excluding all non-procreative marriages doesn't seem right for some reason" and I'd say that reason is because even if you're not successful at procreating you can be oriented towards it. It's harsh to include people who fail at procreation when they otherwise have good reason to be aimed at it.
It's cruel to deny marriage to the gay couples and allow it to the straight couples.
I think that in my comments above, where I acknowledge Nate's point about people who don't want kids, I show that I am willing to exclude others who aren't oriented towards procreation from the label of marriage.
I also have to say, once again, that whether or not other non-procreative unions should be called marriage is completely irrelevant to whether or not same-sex unions should be. The point that others might be candidates for exclusion is not a response to the underlying position that marriage is oriented towards procreation and therefore those who are not should not have their union called marriage.
By not letting them marry you weaken marriage in other ways. You send the message that companionship, happiness, security, and even raising children can be enjoyed perfectly adequately outside of marriage. You make it so that marriage is set aside only for making babies.
Now this is an interesting point. I'll have to spend some time thinking about it. My initial reaction is to go back to the point about marriage being more than the sum of it's good aspects, so that marriage isn't only for making babies, it's for all of these things and then some other nebulous goods that occur when all of these aspects exist in confluence.
I'd also suggest - at least initially, I'm not committing myself to this - that by creating an "everything but baby-making" alternative to marriage we aren't weakening marriage but rather are just promoting a new level of honesty about what marriage is. So let's say fewer people get married, but more take on civil unions. So what? If it's a more honest reflection of peoples' unions, then that's a good thing, even if it results in fewer marriages.
I don't think you'd find your argument at all compelling if you weren't precommitted to banning gay marriage. The question is, why are you committed to that?
I completely disagree. My whole assessment on the question of whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry started with the question "is there a difference between a same-sex union and a traditional union?" If the answer was no, I'd support same-sex unions. If they answer was yes, then I'd need to investigate further (and that's what I've done. When I saw a difference I naturally asked next, "what about traditional unions without procreation"? That led me to the question of whether the relevant criteria was successful procreation or orientation towards procreation.)
I see a difference between same-sex unions and traditional unions. That's really the basis of my whole argument: these unions are different. I have no commitment to banning same-sex marriage. I have a commitment to honestly appraising the world and reflecting that appraisal in my political views.
Okay, so Matt says the purpose - or at least one of the fundamental purposes - of marriage is procreation and wants to structure society around that, at least as far as labeling goes.
Nate, Jacob, and Barzelay - do you have a counter-reason for why society has the institution of marriage...and around which the legal structures of marriage (including labels) should therefore be designed? I mean, I guess if life-long, committed, companionship is the primary reason for marriage, then there would be less of a reason to deny it to same-sex couples. Although I don't see why a different label would deny companionship to same-sex couples in a committed union.
Or - Jacob, Nate, and Barzelay - is any reasoning about the purpose of marriage beside the point to you? Do you see it, not as a matter of societal structuring or the purpose of a particular institution, and more a matter of utilitarianism? Nate seems to make that argument, arguing that denying the label of "marriage" to same-sex couples causes psychological suffering, whereas allowing it causes only conservative grumbling.
Or is it a matter of personal liberty? That is, should any individual be free to define their own purpose for marriage and, as long as they are willing to go through whatever legal hoops lead to what the government calls "marriage" (i.e. getting a marriage license, some sort of ceremony before a minister or justice of the peace)...then they should be allowed to do so? That seems to be Jacob's argument.
I guess what I'm getting at is I'm seeing people arguing past each other here and I think it's because people are coming at it from a different basis...a different theory of how society and the government should be organized.
Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the position Matt has taken - support for full legal rights for same-sex couples under the name "civil union" - is actually quite a progressive position compared to the general American populace. (Not the most liberal possible opinion, but much further left than right.) Certainly he's opening himself up to vigorous criticism from the Right that the labels don't matter, he's basically supporting marriage for homosexuals under a different name, and he's for destroying marriage. I also suspect from previous discussions that Matt would support, say, a law banning discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation. People on the Right would say he's giving special rights to "The Gays."
So perhaps we should not be so quick to apply the label "homophobe" to Matt and group him with the people who would level such criticisms against him. There's a substantial difference between them.
(Why have I not stated my own opinion on this issue? Because I'm wishy-washy and it changes from day-to-day.)
And I wonder if any of my thoughts earlier in the comment will be discussed because I take up a weak defense of Matt in my last few paragraphs. I hope not. I'd like to see further discussion getting to those issues.
Matt,
I am not "overstating the consequences on this one". Gay people undeniably experience the marriage ban as persecution. It is cruelty. I said that I would allow no excuses about this, and I wont. I mean what else can I say, I am in training to be a physician, we learn to try and alleviate human suffering in any way possible, and when such an easy solution exists, then I am sure going to support it. No, its not cancer pain, but that doesnt mean that we should ignore it. Do we really need a discussion here about the nature of psychological suffering?
It looks like you are finally starting to understand my argument here, yes, I do "reject" your reasons, because after examining them I find that they are in fact not reasons as such, being that they are based on a fundamentally inaccurate and flawed rationale. This whole runaround about a hetero couple with the goal of having children in the face sterility equaling the golden standard of "orientation towards procreation" is gibberish. So yes, I do reject that argument, it has no intellectual merit.
In response to your query about what I would say if you were to exclude all non procreative relationships from the status of marriage, I would reply: I think its unnecessary, divisionary, and a bad idea, just like I say about excluding gay people.
Furthermore, I dont feel like its necessary to engage in an in depth discussion of bestiality or incest here. You want to know where I draw the line? It would require a lot of thought where exactly to place it, and once placed I would reserve the right to move it in the face of new information. For now lets say that it sits somewhere between polygamy and incest. I see no basis for not letting polygamist enjoy their chosen lifestyle granted that they are happy within it. Incest I would ban for genetic reasons.
I feel that Jacob makes some very interesting points as well, and I am curious to see your response to him.
I also understand if you are not able to agree with me on this issue, after all you might go into politics someday.
Good points, Ben. And I don't want to imply that Matt's anti-gay, though it's understandable that some of his arguments could be construed that way. He just seems to have some pre-commitment to opposing gay marriage. It seems to me like a such strange thing to care about that I really have a hard time understanding why anybody would.
You summarized my argument fairly well. I don't think there needs to be one primary reason for society to have marriage. Marriage leads to lots of good things, and people are naturally inclined to partner up with a high degree of monogamy. There's no need to look at individual couples and see if they match the checklist of all the things that marriage could be. If we just allow people to marry, many of them will and many of them will go on to have kids, raise kids, take care of each other, etc. Why make it more complicated than that? (From a legal point of view, anyway. If churches or other communities want to attach further conditions, I have no problem with that.)
(Also for the record, I don't think this should be a political question at all. The entire idea that people who love each other must ask some government bureaucrat for a "license" to sanction their relationship is offensive to my individualist sensibilities.)
Matt,
Upon further reflection I have come to realize that it was inappropriate of me to say that your argument is without intellectual merit. It was hastily written, and I regret having said it. It was not right for me to make an attack of that nature.
Furthermore, to have implied that you hold a certain opinion for the purpose of political posturing was disgraceful of me, and clearly wrong, so I apologize for that.
In the future I will attempt to filter out my frustration and keep my posts free of that sort of disrespectful content, which has no place in an honest discussion.
Just a couple quick thoughts for folks...
Nate - The apology is appreciated. First off, I think a discussion about the nature of suffering isn't a bad thing. Personally, I don't think suffering itself is necessarily a bad thing, and there are even times when getting rid of suffering costs more than the suffering itself. I'd suggest - especially since you're going to be a doctor - that you spend some time thinking very deeply and philosophically about the nature of suffering.
Second, I really do want to know where you draw the line when it comes to the "include everyone because people feel bad" issue. I want to know why you draw it there. You know the genetic argument is really weak when it comes to incest, right? (For a lot of reasons, not just that it's a weak medical argument. And it IS a weak medical argument since after just a handful of generations of inbreding any potential debilitations it would cause are all bred out. Check out, believe it or not, Levi Strauss' work on the issue.)
I also wonder about your distinction when it comes to church vs. government. Isn't the harm to the couple the exact same, regardless of who is doing the discriminating? Why are you drawing the line there? What about tax exempt status and the like? These are the hard questions your position (we should allow same sex marriage so people aren't hurt by denial) invites. You really need to address them.
Finally, just yes or no, do you accept that there is a difference between someone who is oriented towards procreation and someone who actually procreates? Let's start with that distinction. I'm curious if you'll even give me that ground.
Ben -
Thanks for the calming voice. I'd be interested in hearing why you switch positions on this issue from day-to-day. I have my [educated] guesses, but it'd be nice to hear it spelled out a little more because it's obviously an issue you give a lot of thought to, and seeing the tensions play out in your writing could be very interesting. I understand if you're not inclined to share, but I'd be happy to read it if you are.
Jacob -
We just allow people to marry, many of them will and many of them will go on to have kids, raise kids, take care of each other, etc. Why make it more complicated than that?
A real part of me gets what you're saying here. But when I try to embrace that, and head in the direction of "government should just stay out of marriage" something really tugs me back. It's really two-fold.
First, there's the honesty issue I was talking about before. If we just lump all relationships into the same heap, and they're not all the same, then there's something that strikes me as inaccurate about that. Better to err on the side of correctly labeling relationships than to take the easy road and call them all the same thing. Or something along those lines. I suppose it can go too far, but I think the same-sex/traditional distinction is such an easy and obvious one to make that it might as well be made. There is a difference, so why not just acknowledge it?
Second, I think marriage has a very real impact on societal structure. This goes back to my perception of human nature in a lot of ways (i.e. humans are communal, social animals by nature, we aren't simply individuals, there is no state of nature or social contract, etc.), but basically the family is the building block of society. We could structure our society differently, with people who are designated baby-makers, who are devoted solely to this task and who don't raise the kids; others who raise the kids until they're school-aged; a school system that provides housing and education and everything else, with no home life, etc. Or any number of variations. Instead we "choose" to locate all of these social functions in one discrete unit. I say "choose" because I think this is actually how we're wired; human nature dictates that we do it this way.
Anyway, the basic point here is that it really seems to me that the family is a social construct, and what the government says about the family shapes our society, over time, in a very real way. Very few of the effects are immediate of course, but in the long run, society looks different as a result of the positions government takes with regard to the family.
So I guess my question to you is: do you accept that premise? Do laws that touch on the family affect the structure of society?
Ok, I haven't read all the comments fully because I dont' have a lot of time, but as the whole sexual ethics arena is something I am passionate about I thought I would comment. First of all, Matt is correct (and actually follows what the Catholic Church says, which I know many people do not agree with but they use the same basic argument) when he says "Whether or not a couple can have kids isn't the point. It's whether or not they can be oriented towards having kids."
My response is also geared towards the comment,
I come from this from a slightly more theological view, but the philosophy is embedded in it.
Matt's statement forms the argument not only against homosexual marriage but also against contraception, which is another disputed topic (although much less hotly, as it is generally accepted in our culture, which does not mean in anyway that that means it is moral). Each act of marriage, in and of itself, by nature, is geared towards procreation. Additionally, it is not only geared towards procreation but also unity and fidelity of the spouses. As the sexual act (or conjugal act, whichever term you prefer) is the culmination of a marriage, the main way couples live their marriage, it matters completely what that act says in a marriage, and what may follow from that act (i.e., children). When you take away any of these components, the conjugal act fails to express what the truth of marriage.
Marriage is supposed to be a total self-gift: each spouse giving themselves fully to the other, including their fertility. Whenever it is excluded, the act is a lie--the spouses fail to give themselves completely to each other.
Now, some may argue (and I believe did, in the posts) that infertile and older couples cannot biologically have children, and that therefore procreation isn't a valid argument. It is, however. By nature, the act itself is ordained to all of the above--procreation and unity of the spouses. Whether or not it is physically possible does not take that naturally orientation out of the act itself. Contraception, and homosexual marriage, does not have the basic purposes of the sexual act inherent within it. And, as I mentioned, as that is the culmination and expression of the marriage itself, without it, the marriage is in a way invalid. This might sound harsh, but if you follow the logical arguments and believe in the what the conjugal act is truly about, then this conclusion is inevitable.
I am not as philosophically suave as Matt, but I hope my arguments make sense and clarify a little more the philosophical (and theological) arguments.
Matt, a quick (semi-rhetorical) question: since your issue with same-sex marriage seems to be purely semantic, why are you not aboard my "have the government call them all civil unions and let the churches determine what constitutes marriage" freight train?
BTW, I'm glad the silly video I posted on my blog inspired Matt to draw out this argument.
(P.S. My Word Verification is "nuanke" which is so close to "nuance" as to be awesome.)
All, be sure to save this post and comments and go back and read it when you are in your late 40's and 50's. Hindsight is humbling...
Mike -
I think I kind of answered this question with Jacob. What I wrote there was that it's two-fold:
First, "if we just lump all relationships into the same heap, and they're not all the same, then there's something that strikes me as inaccurate about that. Better to err on the side of correctly labeling relationships than to take the easy road and call them all the same thing. Or something along those lines."
Second, "it really seems to me that the family is a social construct, and what the government says about the family shapes our society, over time, in a very real way."
I'd also say that even though the distinction is semantic in nature that doesn't mean it's without effect. Nate has made the point throughout that limiting the label "marriage" has a very real effect on same-sex couples. It might be just a word, but it does mean something. To draw a distinction in word alone is still to draw that distinction, and sometimes that's all that's important.
I hope that [semi-rhetorically] answers your question. Thanks for getting me started on this. That was sarcastic btw...
Hey man, I was just trying to make a few people laugh with a silly video. You're the one who got all fired up and decided to write a blog post about it :)
I am really running out of steam on this discussion, so I will briefly respond to a few things here.
I gotta be honest and say that the whole orientation towards procreation thing really does not resonate at all for me. It may be true, but I dont see it as being at all important. I honestly feel that whether someone procreates or not is about as momentous as whether they have have blond hair black hair, or eventually go bald. Its a truth about them, but in the grand scheme of things really doesnt matter to me. Ergo, I see the whole denying marriage thing based on sexual orientation and the whole orientation towards procreation being on common grounds with denying someone that right based on hair color. Does that make any sense to you?
In regards to the genetics of incest, yes I am aware that its not am imminent danger to the species, but with 6 billion folks on the planet, I dont think its too much to ask that people look a little bit further than their immediate family when they want to have a kid. Thats great that the jeans man was into genes.
And then you go and bring up religion. In short, I believe in freedom of religion, its one of those rights that I enjoy in my own personal life, and everyone is else is welcome to enjoy these same rights in their own way. The whole taxation thing is an issue I dont feel particularly strongly about, I suppose one could reason that it is through tax exemptions and the like, that religions are truly free to operate as they see fit. As for why I am ok with them discriminating against homosexuals, well, I dont like it, but I am not going to insist they act contrary to their beliefs, which would being denying them that freedom of religion they enjoy. I wouldnt want anyone telling me what I can or cannot BELIEVE, and thats what religion is all about, beliefs. I think you will agree with me that our government is not a religion, and therefore needs to be accountable to all the members of the society it governs, basing legislation on its goals to guarantee the freedom and equality of its citizens, irrespective of their many and varied beliefs. I guess it on this question it boils down to, I am tolerant of Churches being discriminatory to Gays because its on their conscience to do so. When the government discriminates, it is on mine.
I hope this helps you see things a bit more clearly from my point of view. I say, no one is hurt by letting homosexuals get married, so lets let them, no matter what color their hair is!
Nate -
Yeah, this conversation doesn't really seem to have the sustaining drive that the election/abortion post did. That being the case, I won't continue with the series of questions I was going to. But I will respond briefly to your points:
The whole orientation towards procreation thing really does not resonate at all for me. It may be true, but I dont see it as being at all important.
I get that it doesn't resonate for you. The idea of asking the question about even seeing the difference was just step one in my effort to try to get you to see why it is relevant. For now I'll just be happy knowing you acknowledge the difference, and won't delve into it any further. Suffice it to say, I do see it as relevant, and I think a series of more probing questions could also help you understand where I'm coming from on that, even if you would still disagree.
Second, on the incest thing: if there's really no direct harm in allowing incestual relationship, then why not just let adult siblings get married? Don't they feel just as bad as same-sex couples who are excluded?
Third, on church/state: I get the "someone else's conscience vs. my conscience" thing, but that strikes me as a cop-out. I mean, you've been very forceful in your position that not allowing same-sex couples to use the word marriage is persecution, to the point where you wouldn't even acknowledge any attempt to characterize that harm as anything less.
So if the harm is so great, then shouldn't we stop churches from doing it too? We tell them they can't practice human sacrifice or even ritual drug use. Ritual drug use doesn't even harm anyone else the way denying same-sex marriage does, right? I guess ultimately I'm wondering: are you saying that there are things (i.e. free exercise) that are more important than getting rid of this harm? And if so, do you care to dillute some of your previous statements about the intensity of this harm? Because to me at least they seemed like you were putting getting rid of this persecution above all other goals.
In regards to the whole incest thing, its a game of odds. There are higher odds of incestuous relationships leading to birth defects, anomalies, and generally speaking flawed offspring. In the field of medicine we are regulated by statistics. There have been many wonderful medications which have been pulled from the market due to extremely low chances of having negative effects on certain people, despite the fact that they were very efficacious for many others. When safer alternatives are available, then it is appropriate for them to be used.
And before you go on to make the argument that there are many non related people who genetically are at higher risk for having birth defects in their offspring, let me address it. Ideally, genetic testing would be widespread enough for everyone to know beforehand what risks they are undertaking, and I think someday in the not too distant future we will see more and more of that. In the meantime, we know that sibblings share many genes, and between any given two, they might have a heavy load of hidden recessives just waiting to be unleashed. In short, its like we have a free genetics test already performed, we already know they have higher risk. For some it may be an extremely low risk, but since we have safer alternatives, we should go ahead and use them.
Furthermore, I dont know that people desiring incestuous relationships do feel the same sort of persecution that homosexuals do. I am not incredibly well versed on them, but they seem to mainly be people who isolate themselves intentionally from the rest of society and are content to do so.
About the "my conscience vs. theirs", its not a cop out. Its legitimate.
And with the churches, I wouldnt think it necessary to explain why human sacrifice cant be permitted, but you seem to want me to. Ok, taking the life of a human being is murder, and deprives that individual of his basic rights, i.e. the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or something along those lines. Especially that first bit, life. And I have never been opposed to the use of ritual drugs in religious ceremonies. I have learned an awful lot about drugs in the past few months, and if it weren't for abuse and dependence I would have very little against them. Marijuana, for instance, is a relatively benign substance with extremely low risk of dependence, and a milder intoxification profile than alcohol, and as such has no business being categorized differently than alcohol.
Ideally, genetic testing would be widespread enough for everyone to know beforehand what risks they are undertaking, and I think someday in the not too distant future we will see more and more of that.
Just one question Nate:
When that day comes, will you also say that those predisposed to the risks can't get married?
Good question. I say, they can get married if they want, but I would advise them to do some critical thinking about whether they want to have kids or not. Marriage is about more than procreating so it shouldnt be out of the question, but if they do want kids they need to think about the risks.
As a segway to the inevitable abortion discussion, I would go on to say that in this scenario, careful genetic monitoring should be employed in order to identify and terminate a pregnancy in which the fetus was determined to be carrying detrimental genetic material that would impact its development.
Nate -
Whoa. Didn't want to head of in the abortion direction, so as to that point I'll just ask you to politely reconsider your stance that people with defects shouldn't be born.
As for the "marriage isn't just about procreating" part... if that's the case, and you'd let people with "detrimental genetic material" get married, then why not also adult siblings? I don't see the difference. And don't you think incestous couples withdraw because society forces them to? It seems to me that if you're going to be consistent in your position you need to allow adult siblings to marry.
Matt,
I would say that it depends on the defect. Anyways, now is not the time for the abortion discussion.
As for the sibbling marriage thing, like I said before, I am not well versed on the motivations of such individuals, but the ones I am aware of tend to stick to themselves, voluntarily. But since you are forcing the issue, I guess I cant object outright. I personally may find such practices repellant, but then again, I feel that way about the eating of raw seafood and I dont support prohibiting that either.
I would say that it depends on the defect.
I would suggest you examine some of the materials made available by the various disability groups out there, or, better yet, spend some time with people with disabilities. I think you'd find that people are people and their lives are worth living, no matter the defect.
Let me amend that statement. I would say that it depends on the defect AND on the parents willingness and ability to care for a child with said defect. Also, I would like you to consider some of the more severe defects which result in lifelong suffering and need for extensive care. Some parents may not have the means, be they financial, emotional, or otherwise, to embark on such a path. For parents who are willing to raise a child with disabilities, more power to them, I am not going to force them to have an abortion.
I do not deny that people with disabilities often find joy in life, and for any child who is born I hope that they do. I think if you took a survey of people with disabilities you would find that most of them wish they were not disabled.
You would also find that most of them are glad to be alive.
Anyway, I have like 900 responses to the stuff you've raised, but this is a long conversation (and the topic of many bioethics courses and reams of literature), so I won't go into it now. Suffice it to say, I think your position is demeaning and insensitive to people with disabilities and genetic diseases, that you completely overlook the value of life itself, and that you've placed yourself on a perilous course of discrimination. I think you'd be shocked at just how offensive your position is, and how many people would find it so.
What I find shocking is that you are labeling me as discriminatory. I am the one who is striving for equality for everyone, and the reducing of suffering. I do not look down on people with disabilities or genetic defects, and it is one of my life goals to do everything possible for these individuals to have the best life possible in the face the challenges they are up against. That being said, how is it harmful to strive for a future in which people dont have to face those same challenges?
Matt, I know people with disabilities, and honest conversations with them have divulged that they wouldnt want their children to have to struggle with the same challenges they have had to deal with all their lives. Yes, they appreciate being alive, but that doesnt mean they insist that future generations deal with the same disabilities.
Also, I was mainly referring to the extreme cases, where the effects were severe enough that the child in question had a very poor prognosis, there are defects where the infant survives only months even with the best medical attention. That sort of hardship for parents is avoidable. They can always try again, or failing that, adopt.
Nate -
I don't think you've done any of this intentionally, and sorry if it seemed that way. I didn't meant to take an accusatory tone, I meant to take one of surprise at your position (because, quite frankly, I am shocked at these views). I can't apologize for suggesting that your position has the effect of overlooking life and resulting in discrimination, because I honestly believe that it does. But I can, and do, apologize for seeming to suggest that you're wantonly doing both things intentionally.
The e-mail I sent will serve as my more detailed response, and we can end this particular comment thread, since it's gotten so far off course.
and they lived happily ever after.
Matt hit on the answer about 20 posts ago, anyway. The best solution to this problem is the one that will never get proposed:
"So let's say fewer people get married, but more take on civil unions. So what? If it's a more honest reflection of peoples' unions, then that's a good thing, even if it results in fewer marriages."
What the government should do is outlaw marriage by church's and make the institution entirely state-based. Civil-Unions for everybody. Once the Civil Union is formed, then if various religious couples want to have a ceremony, that is their private business.
Voila, no discrimination.
Well that wasn't quite what I was going for, but I think this marks the first time R.W. has ever "agreed" with me.
and the final capper to this thread... i quote Granddad from Boondocks...
"Let me just say that I believe that all marriage is wrong."
Very few people believe marriage is about procreation any more. Seeing marriage as essentially about procreation is, at root, a religious one. I used to believe, like you, in the dual marriage/civil union approach. I believe I have changed my mind. A lesbian friend said she wanted the right to get married because she wanted to show the public at large what is was she felt about her partner--that she loved her in the same way as heterosexual couples love their spouses. IT's a way of saying, "I love this person in a special way that I want the public to understand." By calling her relationship a "civil union" instead of a marriage she feels that her relationship is given a lesser status by the public at large. SHe wants her relationship recognized as equal to that of heterosexuals.
The dual approach goes back to "separate but equal." IT says that some citizens are less than other citizens.
ON the other hand, I do sympathize with religious people who don't want to be forced to recognize these relationships as marriage when they do not think they are, for religious reasons.
However, since the religious reasons are wrong, because there is no God, and marriage is simply a tradition, maybe even a good one, there is no reason to not expand it to include homosexuals. Things evolve. Let's just let the definition of marriage evolve. Better that a few religious people suffer for believing an error than 8% of the population being denied the right to say they are married.
cool!very creative!AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色
Post a Comment