Will they be allowed to marry?

(The answer, of course, is “no”. Why? Just cuz.)

I will be traveling shortly (to your beautiful country, if you are an American), and so will be brief.

I think many conservatives consistently underestimate or misunderstand the nature of the change occurring around them. The sputter and gesticulate approach to the latest “outrage” when, of course, most of it stems from a relatively logical movement of ideas, has been losing the social war for the last 50 years (and more). If you don’t grapple with the underlying motivations, logic, and beliefs in liberalism, say, then you are going to keep losing your social battles – again and again.

Therefore, if social conservatives are to start winning, they must go back to basics, and that means honest assessments of their own arguments. The results, I think, will in some ways not be conservative at all, but progressive in another direction from “progressives”. This means making what sound like shockingly absurd or radical propositions, but that come out of solid theoretical foundations with a different basis than liberalism, and then working slowly and steadily to bring them about.

If social conservatives wake up and realize the actual lay of the land, I think that they will have to realize that their excuses to deny homosexuals marriage are just that – ad hoc excuses that at best will delay the inevitable crushing theoretical ice of their opponents’ better thought out glaciers of social change (moving quicker than slower – I suppose).

If a core group of smart, young, talented conservatives were to get their wits about them, I think they could start moving to lay the groundwork for such a family-centric (i.e., about raising children) view of marriage, and forget about the homosexuals (which, as you rightly point out, are coming in the wake of other, more important changes to “marriage”). If they were to do such a thing, I think 15-25 years is a good rule of thumb for bringing about this sort of change.

Have a great week.

I already addressed this (“Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.”). To say it another way, you wouldn’t retroactively affect anyone, but rather change the qualifications for entrance into marriage going forward.

…in so far as it furthers the transformation of marriage into an institution where bearing (and to an extent raising) children isn’t part of the meaning of that institution.

To an extent? Excuse me, but that seems completely absurd in terms of the practicalities. You only need one person to actually bear a child. In fact, you can only have one person bearing a child at one time; the book “The Mythical Man-Month” illustrates the indivisibility of certain tasks by pointing out that you cannot produce a baby in one month by putting nine women on the job. It takes another party to fertilize the egg, but that man need not know or have any involvement with the woman who bears the child. We need institutions because we raise our children, not because we need them to give birth.

To allow homosexual marriage *reinforces* this aspect, that’s the whole point.

I think we have gotten away from “procreative marriage”, if indeed we have done so, primarily because of the decline in infant mortality and consequent increase in population. But again, this in any case misses the point. Lesbian women can (and do) conceive, Gay men can (and do) donate sperm, and Gay couples can (and do) raise children.

conradg

…you will have to win over the vast number of straights who already condone and even encourage childless marriages.

Just to state this proposition shows its absurdity, as well as its unprecedented nature. How would you do this? Require every married couple that didn’t produce children within some specified period to divorce?

I appreciate your honesty and consistency, but I can’t see how your position reflects the current state of marriage in our society, or demonstrates how gay marriage would alter that state.

“so we should let special interest groups push and pull at the fabric of society until it suits them, instead.”

Culture in a free and open society is just that – a collection of “special interest groups”, each competing with one another for cultural influence and custom. One cannot look at modern culture and not see how traditional “special interest groups” have been rapidly losing influence over the last century, while all sorts of other special interest groups have been gaining influence. This certainly hurts if you favor a certain kind of traditional ideal, but one can’t argue that we should not allow this to occur, unless you want to abandon a free and open society and instead institute a closed and authoritarian society. Is that what you are suggesting?

I’m not sure there’s any other way to prevent such changes as gay marriage from occurring. Look at the trends. As you admit, there have already been such profound changes to marriage due to the overall liberalization of society that traditional marriage for purely procreative purposes is no longer held to be sacrosanct. I know you think the notion that allowing gay marriage is a natural part of that modernizing process “just doesn’t follow”, but it’s certainly part of the overall trend, and we can’t ignore that. It’s not as if people are proposing gay marriage in the midst of some traditional culture. They are proposing it when traditional marriage has already been utterly transformed into a purely intimate sexual bond that is no longer considered inferior if it lacks children.

“the debate about what marriage is, and what it ought to be, is important. If we decide that we want marriage to be “x”, and SSM furthers “not x”, then it matters.”

The debate is certainly important for each individual, but we live in a society where the meaning of marriage is left to each couple to decide. We do not have marriage police monitoring our lives to see if we are living up to the standards this debate might wish them to. In light of that, in light of the incredibly lax standards we have come to accept for every aspect of marriage, from adultery to childlessness, it surely doesn’t seem to me that SSM is out of line with our present cultural norms. Whereas instituting the kind of traditional authoritarian position on marriage you are advocating seems utterly out of line with current culture.

“it [SSM] furthers the transformation of marriage into an institution where bearing (and to an extent raising) children isn’t part of the meaning of that institution.”

But as I’ve demonstrated, that has already happened. You can’t blame gays for something that straight people have already done to the meaning of marriage in droves. I guess you can argue that there’s an incremental movement further along these lines by adding SSM to the mix, but it’s a tiny addition to a fait accompli. There is simply NO movement in the culture at large that I know of to stigmatize or ban couples without children from marriage, and such a thing would be considered a completely unacceptable and radical transformation of our society that is completely at odds with the present culture.

“this fact is used by people, such as yourself, as a lever to argue for homosexual marriage. To allow homosexual marriage *reinforces* this aspect, that’s the whole point.”

Yes, that is exactly the point. It’s a remarkably effective lever in this argument, because hetersoexuals have already done what you fear homosexuals might subtly “influence” them to do. This seems completely unfair, to punish homosexuals for potentially “influencing” straights, while condoing straight couples for legitimizing something they have already accomplished throughout our culture. If you want to win this cultural war over marriage as a child-bearing institution, you will have to win over the vast number of straights who already condone and even encourage childless marriages.

“That’s what I just suggested! (i.e., “As far as where society should go, it seems to me that rarefying marriage towards an explicit focus on raising a family makes more sense than making it simply about something like cohabitation[.]“) Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.”

I appreciate your honesty in stating this, but it seems like a total fantasy in respect to our present culture. What exactly do you think the chances are of actually winning the general culture over to this viewpoint?

“Right, which is exactly what people would have said about SSM 20 years ago.”

Yes, but examine the trends of modern culture. They are heading in the liberalizing direction on virtually all counts, not in the direction of your own special interest group. That’s too bad for you, but unmistakable. The mere fact that acceptance of SSM has risen so dramatically in the last 20 years tells us that we are even further away from the kind of marriage consensus on procreation that you would like to see emerge. So far, in fact, that it appears to be nothing but nostalgia for a bygone era we can only idealize, rather than re-create.

A further stab. Not applicable to gay couples.

Gay people were only halfway out of the closet 20 years ago.

Anyway, there’s a big difference between a movement to expand marriage rights to include the excluded, and getting a majority of people to agree to restricting their own currently-held marriage rights. Self-interest being what it is… well, good luck with the latter. The vast majority simply do not want outsiders (church or state) butting into their personal relationships.

I see, so we should let special interest groups push and pull at the fabric of society until it suits them, instead.

“the changes made to marriage of the last century or so – divorce, open pre-marital sexual relationships, effective birth control, the emancipation of women, sexual equality in the workforce and most everywhere, and many more factors – have so utterly transformed marriage”

I agree with this, as I’ve alluded to in my comments (ex. “This is simply societies coming to terms with the meaning of highly effective, widely used contraceptives.”). However …

“that allowing gays to marry hardly even matters anymore”

just doesn’t follow. Perhaps *relatively* it doesn’t make a big difference, but the debate about what marriage is, and what it ought to be, is important. If we decide that we want marriage to be “x”, and SSM furthers “not x”, then it matters.

“I simply fail to see how gay marriage in anyway impinges on child-bearing”

I have not argued that it does, except in so far as it furthers the transformation of marriage into an institution where bearing (and to an extent raising) children isn’t part of the meaning of that institution.

“The far greater threat to procreative marriage is the large number of straight people who marry without any intention of having children.”

Right, and this fact is used by people, such as yourself, as a lever to argue for homosexual marriage. To allow homosexual marriage *reinforces* this aspect, that’s the whole point.

“you should advocate some kind of marriage law that would exclude childless couples.”

That’s what I just suggested! (i.e., “As far as where society should go, it seems to me that rarefying marriage towards an explicit focus on raising a family makes more sense than making it simply about something like cohabitation[.]“) Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.

“But of course no such law would ever pass. People would consider the mere suggestion absurd, which is an indication that current marriage customs do not in any way fit the ideals you are promoting.”

Right, which is exactly what people would have said about SSM 20 years ago.

“the whole point of my previous comment is that, if we are to start discussing how to change the definition of marriage, then we need to start talking about what marriage should be in terms of what is best for society”

That’s not really the issue in question, and I don’t think it ought to be. I’m not in favor of using marriage laws to somehow socially engineer the abstract “best for society”. Neither you nor I know what is best for society. We have trouble enough figuring out what is best for ourselves.

The issue is whether gay marriage really represents a serious departure from the current, present day practice of marriage, not from some idealized or past tradition of marriage that is no longer widely practiced as such or defined by law. I made the point, and I haven’t seen anyone challenge it, that the changes made to marriage of the last century or so – divorce, open pre-marital sexual relationships, effective birth control, the emancipation of women, sexual equality in the workforce and most everywhere, and many more factors – have so utterly transformed marriage as it exists today that allowing gays to marry hardly even matters anymore, if one is concered about preserving some ideal of “traditional marriage”.

I certainly agree that having children is one of the most important aspects of marriage, at least for those who wish to have children, and that preserving that is very important. I simply fail to see how gay marriage in anyway impinges on child-bearing, in that gay people are not going to start marrying straight people and having children if we forbid gay marriage. They will simply continue their current relationships without the protection of the law or the encouragement of society. It wouldn’t result in one less child being born, and in fact would probably result in more children being born (by lesbian couples) or adopted.

The far greater threat to procreative marriage is the large number of straight people who marry without any intention of having children. Gay couples do not influence those decisions in any way at all. If you really want to encourage married people to have children, or otherwise ensure that marriage is about procreation, you should advocate some kind of marriage law that would exclude childless couples. If that were enacted, I think gay people would feel less singled out for exclusion. But of course no such law would ever pass. People would consider the mere suggestion absurd, which is an indication that current marriage customs do not in any way fit the ideals you are promoting. Which is also why gay marriage would hardly be noticed, or have any significant affect on straight marriage, anymore than childless couples are considered some kind of scourge on the marriage scene.

Treating unequal things equally is unjust. The union of man and woman, by the complementary nature of their bodies, is different in kind from the parodic union of man and man or woman and woman…

Here we have the fundamental disconnect. I follow the logic that actions spring out of the basic nature of specific individuals, and that the fundamental equality of persons requires that we respect their relationships. Acts come way down the list for me. As for the repeated invocation of “nature”: nothing truly contrary to the laws of nature can exist in real space, and in fact the laws of nature limit language itself, so some things we cannot even describe.

It is incompatible because homosexuality is an inherent act of selfishness and rebellion (against God and nature), that is utterly contrary to marriage.

I have to weigh that statement against a mountain of evidence, including a huge amount of personal experience, that tells me nobody chooses to love a member of the same sex (nobody chooses to love a member of the opposites sex either, as far as I can tell). I have to weigh it against the utterly selfless, inspiring love I have personally encountered in people engaged in same-sex relationships. Someone simply asserting that they understand “nature” (strictly speaking, nothing contrary to the actual laws of nature can exist, at least not in real space) won’t do. Invoking the laws of the Creator as recorded in scripture will do, but only for those willing to actually grapple with what those laws actually say, and to whom (and under what circumstances) they apply.

…it is simply about political conquest and appetites.

First of all, you have no idea who, if anyone, has “political conquest” as a motive in this situation, and secondly, I find these references to “appetites” profoundly offensive. Human beings form families; that defines us.

Right, but the whole point of my previous comment is that, if we are to start discussing how to change the definition of marriage, then we need to start talking about what marriage should be in terms of what is best for society.

Raising children isn’t just some use a few couples have – it is probably the mainstay of what marriage is about, historically and nowadays. The form and function of families in society arguably is one of the most important aspects of it, and so laws impinging on that should be treated carefully and weighed deliberately – this is about more than just personal, intimate sexual bonds.

Having said that, where I live (in Canada) same-sex marriage has been legal for a few years now. There are several obvious outcomes that I have noted:

1. Elite hostility to the (now changed) institution of marriage has diminished, as it now allows homosexuals to marry each other.

2. Public educational curricula have been modified to be more inclusive of homosexual marriage.

3. Not many homosexuals are getting married.

That’s about it. The change in law was of course handed down by courts instead of voted upon.

Agreed. True inequality should be recognized in law, or we are simply constructing illusions. Treating unequal things equally is unjust. The union of man and woman, by the complementary nature of their bodies, is different in kind from the parodic union of man and man or woman and woman in their acts contra naturam.

“I believe that morality in the Western world, both in religious and secular terms, has moved steadily away from the notion of that kind of inequality, and necessarily so.”

There is nothing necessary about this move, except insofar as it often piggybacks upon declining standards of morality and wisdom.

You have set up equality as a god-term. Equality is only one of many goods, and not usually the most important. In many cases, inequality is the right path.

I am amazed that AmConMag has attracted such commentary on this issue, and annoyed we have to waste so much time playing “one of these things is not like the other.”

I suppose these commenters are a sign of a broad audience.

You are of course right that many develop an intimate sexual bond before marriage. I certainly did. But marriage itself is not reserved only for this purpose. Certainly many people have different personal notions of what marriage is, and what the purpose of their own marriage is. Some people marry without any interest in an “intimate sexual bond”, they just want children, like Henry VIII. I don’t approve of that, but I wouldn’t outlaw it either. But that’s just the point. My notion of what I want my marriage to be about shouldn’t require me to outlaw or preclude other people’s notion of what their marriage is about. Not in a free, democratic society at least.

Many straight married couples even persue a swinger’s lifestyle, without monogamous requirements. That’s not my choice, but I wouldn’t outlaw it either. Adultery in traditional society was considered a sacrilege, and ruthlessly punished regardless of whether the spouse desired that result. In our age, many married people commit adultery and are forgiven, it often does lead to divorce, but just as often not. There is certainly no requirement that a marriage in which adultery has occured be dissolved by the state. Likewise, there is no requirement that marriages which do not produce children should be dissolved by the state.

So I don’t see how these arguments support the notion of banning same-sex marriages. Marriage can have many purposes, and while procreation is clearly one of them, it’s not necessary. All that is necessary in our culture is that two people decide to embark upon a loving, most often sexual commitment to one another. Often, as you say, this has already occurred before the marriage ceremony. So the marriage is a way of making this a legal bond recognized by the state, conferring legal protections and benefits to both parties.

To deny those protections and benefits to two people simply because they have a different sexual orientation seems incompatible with both the moral and legal principles of our culture. It is a clear case of sex discrimination, in that the same rights are not granted to me if I choose to marry a man rather than a woman, all else being equal. If my sexual orientation led me to choose to marry a man, it would in no way mean that I would be preventing other men from marrying a women and having children, nor would it lead me to marry a woman with whom I would have children, it would merely deprive my relationship with that man of the legal benefits and protections I would otherwise have in marrying a woman.