Tradition does not come from nothing. It distills the experience and wisdom of generation upon generation of human lives.
The first man and woman lived their life in a natural way. They first behaved in instinctive ways and modified their behavior based on the results of their actions until they assembled a coherent way of living. Their children imitated their way of living, as children do, and tweaked some parts based on results. Bit by bit, generation after generation, on it went, building a tradition. From these family traditions grew traditions of clan, tribe, nation, and civilization. Traditions have the weight of the past in them. They are human ways of surviving that have been proved to work over hundreds and thousands of years.
Historians and anthropologists tell us that our kind of monogamous marriage is a relatively recent development. Earlier peoples tried many other forms of marriage: polygamous; polyandrous; monogamous and monoandrous; matrilocal; patrilocal; matrilineal; patrilineal; both patrilineal and matrilineal simultaneously; group and ladder arrangements; even matrilocal and matrilineal non-marriage in which women couple freely with any men who please them, raising their children in their own mother’s home (or village) with their brothers serving as adult male role models for the children and men left without domestic responsibilities. The Western tradition settled on monogamy (or one man marrying one woman for life) for historical reasons, and stayed with it because it is kinder to women and children than other family forms, because its inherent stability allows wealth to accumulate, because it allows all the men in society to marry thus bringing peace to society, and because children have a better chance of living to adulthood in monogamous families.
I can hear some of my readers complain. “But this isn’t marriage. Marriage is true love. It is companionship. It is a commitment to remain eternally infatuated with one person, until it ends.” My counterargument is that marriage as a family form is important. It has to do with the way that people reproduce and accomplish long-term goals that take more than a lifetime. “Be fruitful and multiply,” is not only God’s command, it is the central fact of all life, including human life. Reproduction is our purpose as living beings, if you will. Certainly if we do not reproduce then we will be no more than a footnote in a hundred years.
Compare the concept of marriage as a family form, the structure in which humans reproduce, to the concept of marriage as sexual companionship. One continues our kind. The other gratifies libido and provides pleasure. One has long-term effects and encourages the accumulation of wealth and technological progress. The other is basically short-term and encourages spending. While exceptions happen, the structure of the two types of marriage necessarily produce quite different effects.
From looking at marriage in the anthropological way to looking at marriage in the romanticized 20th century way as sold by Hollywood is a leap from marriage as a family form to marriage as an expression of true love between two “adults,” with children as an afterthought or even a distraction from its purpose. The two kinds of marriage are not the same. We could say marriage is family. Or we could say marriage is companionship and eternal infatuation. But when we say both we confuse the issue and render the word “marriage” meaningless.
With regard to infatuation, is a lustful gaze across the dance floor at the senior prom the foundation of a lifetime together? I’m convinced that marriage as an expression of true love between two people is an adolescent parody of real marriage, which holds family as its purpose. Our modern society has extended childhood into the teen years, pushing back the onset of adulthood from puberty, where it used to be reckoned, to the age of 21 when it’s now legal to get drunk. With the invention of adolescence, society has transformed many formerly adult things into adolescent versions. Perhaps the most important of these is marriage.
I believe that changing the popular definition of marriage from the core of a new family and the intersection of two extended families was a big mistake. It has driven down the rate of reproduction in the West to the point where populations are dying off and our Ponzi scheme social security funds are poised to fail, while our sparse population is attracting hungry migrants from more crowded parts of the world. And it has damaged us: our behavior, our ability to plan for the long term, our moral clarity.
It’s time to change the definition back. Marriage should mean family; a new family and the joining of two extended families. Marriages without children are sad and incomplete and deserve our sympathy and kindness. They are not the model which families blessed with children should emulate. Families with children, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins, are the model.
Not so fast
Robert A. Hahn Wednesday, January 14th at 9:51AM EST (link)because it is kinder to women and children than other family forms, because its inherent stability allows wealth to accumulate, because it allows all the men in society to marry thus bringing peace to society, and because children have a better chance of living to adulthood in monogamous families
Be careful. You don’t know this. There is a big difference between saying that marriage-as-social-institution is a product of thousands of years of trial-and-error, distilling a huge amount of accumulated wisdom that we ignore at our peril; and claiming that we know what that wisdom is.
To claim that you know that traditional marriage works because yada yada ya comes from the same intellectual hubris as the typically liberal idea that “accumulated wisdom” is simply a euphemism for “oppressive ideas from the past” and that we today are so smart that we can design social institutions that will prove superior to those we inherited from previous generations.
Pejman has a RedHot out there right now concerning the not-very-smart idea that the economy is a mere machine that we humans can understand and “fix.” If the economy is too complicated for our puny human minds to comprehend, I guarantee you that our entire societies are too complicated. So don’t pretend that you know why a particular design works. None of us know why it works. We only know that it does.
It is also a bit of hubris to call lifelong pair-bonding a “Western tradition.” It’s better than that. The same “tradition” has somehow become the accumulated wisdom not just of Western civilization, but of every human society that has amounted to a hill of beans.
You’re right to focus on this as something very important. But please don’t fall into the trap of those you oppose by copying their biggest mistake, which is to believe that they understand the problem.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you’re dead.
The author is correct in his claims for marriage
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 1:34PM EST (link)Study after study has borne it out. You probably don’t trust “studies” any more than I do, but general experience bears it out, too.
The author is correct that marriage
is kinder to women and children than other family forms,
its inherent stability allows wealth to accumulate,
it allows all the men in society to marry thus bringing peace to society,
children have a better chance of living to adulthood in monogamous families
And this list of the benefits of marriage and family is far from exhaustive.
But if you are objecting rather to the author’s claim that marriage has endured in the West (so far) BECAUSE of these benefits rather than for other reasons, then you may have a point. It may have endured because of these benefits, or for these benefits and others, too, or for entirely separate reasons. (And an historical inquiry into the matter would be both interesting and useful.)
But even if we cannot say with utter certainty and comprehensively why marriage has endured for so long in the West, nothing prevents us from pointing out the obvious benefits of the institution, nor is it illogical that people desire marriage partly or largely for these benefits.
Thank you icbm
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 1:56PM EST (link)Your response was an intercontinental ballistic missile aimed right at the heart of the issue.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
sure thing. i can understand why RAH would
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:11PM EST (link)object. you phrased it in such a way that it seemed as if you were giving THE REASONS for the survival of marriage, rather than some of the reasons.
i’m not sure RAH actually disagrees with the idea that we should try to inquire into why marriage has survived, what its benefits are, why we should prefer it as the basis for the family and for society in general, etc.
not that i should speak for him.
(i don’t mean to respond to your gracious reply with criticism. i’m only trying to explain what i think the cause of the disagreement was, and why it may not be a very deep disagreement.)
I understood, but I wasn't coming up with a cogent answer
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:15PM EST (link)and that’s where you stepped in.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Late for dinner
Robert A. Hahn Friday, January 16th at 1:16AM EST (link)But if you are objecting rather to the author’s claim that marriage has endured in the West (so far) BECAUSE of these benefits…
Yes, it’s that. I don’t think we know precisely WHY this form is so successful. I’m also suspicious of any list of supposedly dispositive benefits that offers virtually nothing to one of the parties to the arrangement. (Note that I am not saying that marriage offers nothing to one of the parties; only that the suggested list of reasons that marriage succeeds as an institution includes nothing that would cause one of the necessary partners to the arrangement to care whether it succeeded or not. This leads me to suspect that the list is incomplete.)
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you’re dead.
The Rise of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 10:08AM EST (link)coincides with the rise of Christianity in Western Civilization. It wasn’t trial and error, nor scientific analysis that led to it. And pretending that monogamous heterosexual marriage was arrived at out of the desire to use empirical means to find the best form of union rather than a massive religious awakening doesn’t solve the problem (maybe what we really need is another massive religious awakening?). Of course, I’m pro-gay marriage (rather, pro anti-government sponsored marriage of any kind), so what do I know?
ljmiller: This is why you don't do what RAH said
Neil Stevens Wednesday, January 14th at 10:18AM EST (link)You give openings for silly counterarguments like this.
Don’t presume to know why traditions work.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
we do know what some of the benefits of tradition are
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:02PM EST (link)because they are apparent on the face of things. As to why traditions develop, obviously they didn’t grow from empirical research in a laboratory. They grew in the wild, in and among people.
We also know that people act. They act for rational reasons, or reasons that appear rational to them at the time. So if they change the way they do something that too is based on a rational calculation. Which is the same thing, in a roundabout way, as saying that they arrive at a certain tradition via many generations of trial and error and the analysis of those errors. How is that substantially different from empiricism?
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Somebody get Odysseus on the phone
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:33PM EST (link)Tell him that Penelope isn’t his monogamous wife. She’s something else. He shouldn’t worry about all those other suitors sniffing around the place, angling to steal his land, shag his wife, and murder his son.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Odysseus?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 2:49PM EST (link)If your idea of “traditional marriage” is the ancient Greeks, then I don’t even know what planet you’re from.
Isn't that the point?
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 2:58PM EST (link)What is traditional marriage? Certainly, even in the West, we have had many examples of what traditional marriage is. We’ve had polygamy, we’ve had marriage for political or economic reasons, etc.. We’ve had strict prohibitions on divorce and we’ve had loosening on those same rules. We’ve had some rules for the upper classes and others for lower classes.
From a societal stability point of view, having couples enter into committed relationships for the purposes of raising families has worked pretty well. I think allowing and yes validating same sex marriage will actually strengthen the institution of marriage. It confirms that notion of strong family units as the basis of stable societies.
marriage has always been btwn men and women
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:03PM EST (link)and it has always been fundamentally linked to the creation and maintenance of a family and household
just because there have been other kinds of variations doesn’t mean that any kind of variation is justified
nor should we automatically say that the kinds of variations that have existed are automatically good just because they once existed
how does that work?
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 3:19PM EST (link)you wrote:
“having couples enter into committed relationships for the purposes of raising families has worked pretty well. I think allowing and yes validating same sex marriage will actually strengthen the institution of marriage.”
We’re agreed on the first sentence. How does the second sentence relate? Will same sex couples be raising families? They do not make a breeding pair, so how does that work?
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
the ancient greeks did not have homosexual marriage
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:01PM EST (link)they were also monogamous
are you aware of something i’m not? i ask seriously
As I recall
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 3:04PM EST (link)They all had multiple partners, both male and female.
that may be foucault's version of the ancient greeks
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:18PM EST (link)but i don’t think it’s based on solid sources from the time
In Greek culture
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:10PM EST (link)there was broad acceptance of homosexuality outside of marriage. You are correct that marriage per se was heterosexual and monogamous. However, the practice of marriage allowed for extra-marital affairs (husband only), and other practices that we would not consider “traditional”.
You just described the way the US views marriage and homosexuality as well
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 3:25PM EST (link)and as I noted elsewhere in the article, I don’t think that *all* tradition is worth keeping unaltered. A husband’s tom-catting around is not a desirable part of marriage, no matter how traditional it is.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Almost
Finrod Wednesday, January 14th at 5:29PM EST (link)While the Greeks may have been accepting of men having homosexual relationships, nowadays it’s women that are much more likely to be accepted in having a same-gender relationship. Just look at how female-female scenes are much more accepted in heterosexual-oriented pornography than male-male scenes are: practically every _Girls Gone Wild_ tape will have girls kissing and more, whereas the corresponding _Guys Gone Wild_ tapes, the men are all solo acts.
Finrod’s First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
“Obama: ancient Kenyan word for Kennedy” — Robin Williams
TMI = too much information
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 5:54PM EST (link)I didn’t need to know about Guys Gone Wild.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
ok, then we are partly on the same page
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:26PM EST (link)i am not so sure about the acceptance of extra-marital affairs (after all, we can be sure that adulterous affairs have always occurred in every society, but the question is whether the society approved of them to the point of undoing marriage.)
but even if adulterous affairs were common, they understood the importance of maintaining marriage as a separate institution. they did not - unlike the western europeans of our day - abandon marriage in favor of cohabitating freely (without or without children).
this is where we are today - do we believe in marriage or just in individual love? if we do, then for what purpose? if it is like any other contract, then we don’t need it (because other types of contracts can replace it, or because one or mroe love affairs can replace it). but if marriage is different and has unique aims, what are those aims, and are those aims contradicted by allowing two men to marry?
values in Greek culture changed over time
kyle8 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:39PM EST (link)Remember if you are describing many centuries of history the answer will change just as the USA values are not the same now as they were a century ago.
Basically they were monogamous and had a more open view of homosexuality although it was in some cases considered “immature” behavior.
But they also had the Bacchanalia in which men and women could, for a few days each year, have sex with total strangers.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
actually
kyle8 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:41PM EST (link)Bacchanalia was the Roman term, but it was the same thing.
Roman = Bacchus
Greek = Dionysius
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
But . . . and this is the point (I think) . . . they did not call it "marriage" n/t
Steve W Wednesday, January 14th at 4:06PM EST (link).
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
- Ronald Reagan
Lefty myths notwithstanding, both the Greeks and Romans
Achance Wednesday, January 14th at 3:41PM EST (link)had real live boring oppressive monogamous heterosexual marriages. The rich, the politicians, and the celebrities were mostly degenerates just as they are today, but the average citizen had his one other sex spouse in a financial and security committed relationship that raised kids and held property.
Societal standards for sexual dalliances were much different, but that had nothing to do with marriage. In fact, today’s very rigid standards for fidelity to a marriage are an aberation even in Western tradition. Only in the last century or so was a little fun with the dancing girls or the barmaids considered a dire threat to the sanctity of marriage - so long as the dallier could afford it; Mama’s cut had to come off the top. If you spent the grocery money or the rent at the cathouse, it was a bad thing. But a lttle time at the cathouse was pretty much expected of a man who could afford it In the days when birth control other than Vatican Roulette was restricted only to the very rich and very urbane, I suspect most married women didn’t mind at all that their husband expended some of his “energy” elsewhere. I’ve walked around in those old cemeteries where you had the patriarch’s grave, at least a couple of wives’ graves, and many, many, many little graves surrounding them. There were really good reasons for women to fear sex and childbirth before the second quarter of the 20th Century.
In Vino Veritas
there's a new perspective
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:43PM EST (link)interesting, achance
I believe in marriage.
margo Wednesday, January 14th at 10:30AM EST (link)Marriage hasn’t worked out so well for me and more than half my siblings have atleast one divorce. But we were all raised to see what a lifetime marriage could be and I know that we are better for it.
I will try again and then I will respect marriage as sacred. We have got to all return to believing what our parents took for granted.
They did not even think about 2 men or 2 women getting married.
But isn't that the counter argument, margo?
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 10:49AM EST (link)That is, if marriage were truly “sacred” then there would be few if any divorces. There would be little if any infidelity. Divorce, especially no-fault divorce and hetero-sexual couples “shacking up” have done more to undermine traditional marriage than same sex marriage ever would.
Hands off on lecturing couples
margo Wednesday, January 14th at 12:41PM EST (link)I don’t want my government telling me what hetero-sexual couples can and cannot do. “Shacking up” is a lot smarter than a man and a woman making a bigger mistake.
Divorce doesn’t demean marriage. Liars do.
I'm not suggesting the government do anything
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 1:49PM EST (link)I’m responding to your notion that we will go back to “believing what our parents took for granted”. Traditional marriage meant no divorce. It meant no pre-marital co-habitation. If you don’t want the government telling heterosexual couples how to live (and I don’t want that either), then they shouldn’t have any role in telling same-sex couples how to live. Marriage as a civil institution should not discriminate between hetero and same-sex couples. As a religious matter, each faith should set the rules for marriage as they see fit.
They aren't telling them jack
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 1:53PM EST (link)Anybody can get married in a church… the only issue is if you can have the government recognize that marriage and get the goodies that go along with it. I don’t see how you get from “It’s none of the government’s business” to “Same sex relationships need the stamp of government approval.” They are not compatible ideas.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm saying civil marriage should not be
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 1:57PM EST (link)limited to heterosexual couples. Marriage in civil terms is simply a contract. The law should not discriminate when protecting the legal status of a civil marriage contract just because the partners are of the same gender.
Civil Marriage.
NightTwister Wednesday, January 14th at 1:58PM EST (link)Now there’s something to strive for…
Get Connected in Colorado.
Not strive for...
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 1:59PM EST (link)just no reason to prevent it.
Apparently the humor was lost on you.
NightTwister Wednesday, January 14th at 2:03PM EST (link)I often have that effect on people.
Get Connected in Colorado.
and there are many more such jokes
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:12PM EST (link)to be made, and enjoyed fully.
marriage has to be second only to death (and maybe lawyers) as the source of good jokes
You got a laugh out of me (nt)
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:13PM EST (link).
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
My snark meter is low on batteries.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 2:17PM EST (link)Sorry about that.
It's not simply a contract
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 2:05PM EST (link)People can replicate most, if not all, of the contractual parts without a marriage license. The part they can’t replicate is the government benefits that go along with official recognition. So I’m missing the part where this has anything to do with government not getting involved in these relationships. You just want government to get involved in a way that benefits same sex couples.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
indeed, zuiko, it is by treating marriage as merely
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:07PM EST (link)a contract like any other that we have arrived at the point where we are today.
not that i’m telling you anything you don’t already know.
there were other factors, too, but this was a very big one
Partnership contracts are available now
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:07PM EST (link)No changes in laws are needed or have been needed in a long time. So what are people fighting over then? To be allowed to visit a non-”related” loved one in a hospital? More beneficial rules for mutual inheritance on survival? Is that it? Then why not just address those circumstances directly instead of targeting marriage?
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
exactly. this is about validation of homosexuality,
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:08PM EST (link)not about marriage.
Validation?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 2:52PM EST (link)What about homosexuality is “invalid” and how would gay marriage change that?
You are redefining the word validation
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 3:01PM EST (link)Whatever one thinks of homosexuality, it is certainly possible to people to seek or provide validation of it. The same goes for any other behavior.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Perhaps your question should be
mbecker908 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:34PM EST (link)“What about homosexuality is “valid”, and why should we change that?”
Even sacred things will be trampled if
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 1:39PM EST (link)all barriers around them are removed.
Some of us *are* against easy divorce
Neil Stevens Wednesday, January 14th at 2:19PM EST (link)So it’s not a counter argument at all. It’s a two wrongs make a right fallacy.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
right. i was explaining, not counter-arguing.
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:20PM EST (link)n/t
Sacred is what you bring to it
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 2:36PM EST (link)The sacrament of marriage is powered by husband and wife both giving 100% to the union. Contrary to shooflyguy’s argument, you can’t just get married and reap all the “sacred” out of it.
Good luck and God bless with your next go-around, margo.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
If it's all up to the parties involved,
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 2:40PM EST (link)then why can’t two men or two women also put 100% into a marriage union and thereby make it as sacred as any hetero union?
because calling something a marriage doesn't
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:55PM EST (link)make it so
it’s definitional. marriage is fundamentally about procreation and raising a family, in addition to fulfilling our need for profound companionship.
Well, then you've made my point.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:02PM EST (link)Same sex couples can do all in your definition of marriage except procreate in the traditional sense. Additionally, many heterosexual couples never procreate either by choice or by circumstance. Indeed, many older couples entering 2nd or 3rd marriages know full well that there will be no chance for children to come from their relationship. Yet, we still celebrate and validate those unions.
I’ve yet to hear a good argument against same sex marriage that didn’t include within it’s “merits” a good deal of the “ick factor”.
they can't procreate in any sense at all
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:05PM EST (link)two men cannot procreate
two women cannot procreate
it still takes one man and one woman to procreate, whether you mean “in the modern sense” or “in the traditional sense.”
Just a matter of time
lapert Wednesday, January 14th at 3:17PM EST (link)It’s already been done in mice without sperm and it is just a matter of time before it is possible for humans - it might make this disucssion moot even without determining whether in-vitro with donated sperm counts.
the biological act is not the whole deal
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:40PM EST (link)even if somehow men could reproduce with other men, or for that matter individually, there would still be the matter of rearing children. and children are not reared and educated as well by homosexuals, on the whole, as they are by a man and a woman, on the whole.
it comes down to our natures. by nature we need one man and one woman as parents. no other version works properly.
homosexual marriage contradicts this marital purpose not just in practice but in principle. hence its threat.
if a man and a woman abuse marriage by treating it lightly, they contradict the purpose of marriage in practice, but not in principle.
if we allow a contradiction in principle to exist, then we can no longer claim that marriage is for having families and rearing children. and if this purpose cannot be argued for - even if it remains true by nature - then we will see marriage be treated only as a contract like any other, to be made or broken according to one’s sense of personal happiness at any moment.
ICBM
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 4:20PM EST (link)I have a friend who had a uterine infection and as a result cannot have children. If “marriage is for having families and rearing children,” shouldn’t she be banned from getting married?
good question. but no, because while
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:26PM EST (link)she in practice cannot have children with a man, in principle she can.
in principle, two men cannot; two women cannot; but a man and a woman can.
this is why it’s no offense to the institution to allow old men and women to marry, or impotent men and women to marry, etc.
"In Principle" she can have children?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 4:31PM EST (link)I’m sure she finds that very comforting.
So what you’re really saying is “as long as the typical person with anatomy similar to yours can have a child with the typical person with anatomy similar to your partner’s, it’s okay for you to marry”?
basketball...don't shame icbm for answering your question...
Attack Mode Wednesday, January 14th at 4:37PM EST (link)You brought your friend in and used her ailment as a political tool for debate, if anyone should be shamed I think it would be you.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
well, yes, and i am saying more than that, too
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:40PM EST (link)see my other posts
by the way, to consider anatomy as something arbitrary that has no effect on our psychology is an error.
children aren't raised on average
lapert Wednesday, January 14th at 4:20PM EST (link)While I won’t argue with the notion that heterosexuals generally raise chldren better than two homosexuals (it is irrelevant if true or not) I don’t think we want to get in the business of determining what individuals are best at raising children based on general charaterstics. Individual children aren’t raised in the average home but in a specifc home.
The claim that ‘no other version works properly’ is easily falsified as there are plenty of functioning adults raised by a different standard than one man and one woman (be it a single parent, multi-family structure or even homosexual couple) and it only takes one example to falsify the general statement. Maybe it doesn’t work properly as frequently, but the failure rate for even ‘proper’ homes is fairly high as well.
Until we are willing to take children away from widows and place them in suitable married homes I don’t think this argument holds much merit against homosexual marriage (that isn’t to say other argumetns don’t exist).
And a calrifying point, marriage historically really is a contract (and until recently one between the man and the woman’s parents as much as the woman herself) and not a biological construct for the purpose of rearing young. If we want to make the contract more durable the solution is to make the penalty for early withdrawl (no pun intended) stricter.
And Achance is aprticularly right above, the obsession with sexual monogamy is not a historical norm in human society (or really any other species - only 3% of mammals mate for life and only 10% of those don’t ‘cheat’ sexually).
but laws and institutions are made on average
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:31PM EST (link)and according to our nature
contrasting an example of a criminal who was raised by a loving, married man and woman versus an example of an upstanding police chief who was raised by two homosexuals - does not disprove the rule.
regarding your widows point, see my other posts about principle and practice
and i don’t deny that marriage is a contract. i just deny that it is a contract like any other.
law and institutions are made in total
lapert Wednesday, January 14th at 4:38PM EST (link)Not on average - the standard door frame isn’t deisgned to accomodate the average height but a much higher distribution of people. To exclude a class of potentially capable parents because a higher percentage of them will be incapable than other classes seems cruel more to the children than to the class of people.
it's crueler to children to allow a tiny percentage
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:45PM EST (link)of the population to marry when it overturns a governing principle of marriage.
much more damage will be done to children if we decide as a society that marriage is not fundamentally about taking care of and educating them.
by the way, this might be a good time to note that support for homosexual marriage is only the most recent attack on marriage. heterosexuals have already degraded marriage for decades by treating it as an ordinary contract between two individuals with no other purpose. and, indeed, if this is our view of marriage, then there is no reason not to have homosexual marriage.
but the degradation of marriage that has occurred so far - with such things as no-fault divorce and the promotion of selfishness generally - is reversible. to allow homosexuals to marry is to give up entirely.
There are plenty of homosexuals
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:18PM EST (link)who have fathered or bourne children of their own and raised them within the confines of their same-sex relationships. The fact that the other partner is not a biological parent does not diminish that family. After all, there are plenty of blended hetero families and we don’t look down upon them.
actually, it does
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:45PM EST (link)the blood connection is vital
So adopted kids are out of luck?
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:49PM EST (link)I agree that blood relation makes things easier but I disagree strongly that it is vital. There are plenty of step-parents and adoptive parents who do a marvelous job of loving and raising their non-blood children.
It ain't the same, though.
Achance Wednesday, January 14th at 4:00PM EST (link)I’ve raised both a bio kid and step kids and I assure you that you can’t make yourself feel the same about them. You can work very hard and minimize how that causes you to treat the step kids, but they are different. There’s both nature and nurture in a kid, and the bio kid’s nature is at least half yours. The step kid doesn’t share your nature and with the modern mommy a man usually doesn’t have much influence over their nurture. So, it’s a lot like living with aliens. You can love them, you can care for them, but they’re still at least a little alien.
In Vino Veritas
That's interesting Achance
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:17PM EST (link)My wife and I have often discussed adoption. We have 3 of our own already but since we are committed to adoption services as an alternative to abortion, we have often talked about doing more than just donating time and money. I still think it would be worth it and worthwhile but you have definitely given me something to think about. It makes sense to go into things with one’s eyes open.
interesting. i also would like to adopt,
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:20PM EST (link)partly for the same reason.
in the end, even if it’s not the same, the difference between a child’s growing up in a foster center (or with multiple foster families) and his growing up with two loving parents, is immense and life-changing.
Adoption might well be different.
Achance Wednesday, January 14th at 6:16PM EST (link)Frankly, I love my wife dearly and we’ve pretty much made it past raising the kids, BUT: If one of my buddies came to me and said he was involved with a woman who had kids by another man, certainly another man still alive, I tell him to go sleep with her one more time for old times’ sake and RUN LIKE HELL.
Rush did a parody on it a few years ago where the man is trying to do the simplest discipline and the woman is putting herself between him and the kid. Intellectually, my wife and I were pretty much on the same page when we were TALKING about the kids. But, when it came down to actually managing their behavior, she was absolutely constitutionally incapable of denying her babies anything. An otherwise intelligent, rational woman became a complete blithering idiot; no intellectual match for a six year old having a tantrum.
And my experience is no different except in details from my friends who’ve done the stepdad role. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. I get along OK with them now, it helps that they don’t live here anymore, but there were plenty of times that the ONLY thing that kept me from killing one of those boys was the threat of certain longterm incarceration. It wouldn’t have been murder, it would have just been exercising the right to choose in a very advanced trimester.
In Vino Veritas
as bill cosby liked to say to his kids,
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 6:35PM EST (link)“i brought you into this world and i’ll take you out of it.”
again, very interesting achance.
much agreed, shooflyguy
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:17PM EST (link)and i don’t mean to diminish those parents who are so wonderful to children they did not bear. not in the least.
i mean only to indicate how important the blood relationship is. the absence of one’s blood father or mother can’t be fully made up for.
my statement was so brief that it sounded harsher than i meant it
So now
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 3:07PM EST (link)You have gone from saying it isn’t the governments business to the government needing to “celebrate and validate” people’s relationships (but only if we are talking about SSM here and not something icky like polygamy). There is no consistency in this argument. It’s the kind of thing you hear from the left all the time.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There is a difference between how the
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:15PM EST (link)government treats a practice and how we as individuals or as a society treat it. I think the government should be absolutely neutral in the case of civil marriage. I don’t think the government should celebrate any kind of contractual union nor do I think it should condemn it as long as it is properly executed between the parties. From a legal perspective, my argument has been, I believe, consistent.
Neutrality
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 3:23PM EST (link)There’s nothing neutral about expanding the scope of marriage to cover SSM, but at the same time refusing to cover any other relationship people want to use it for. You are just putting the stamp of approval on SSM while refusing to do the same for any other types of relationships. And for no good reason, other than SSM is cool and other things like polygamy are icky. How is any of that neutral?
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
after polygamy, how about interspecies marriage?
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 3:32PM EST (link)how about group marriages? interspecies marriage? Spain already gives human rights to apes. It’s only a matter of time ’til a someone marries his pet sheep somewhere. Does the US government have to allow it? Do they have to double his tax deduction?
I think I see a wonderful tax scam for the future, for people who don’t mind polygamously marrying all their farm animals. Suddenly they get a full dependent deduction for every single one of them.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
An animal cannot enter in a contract.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:38PM EST (link)Using polygamy and bestiality as arguments against same sex marriage is pretty is pretty weak ammunition. I think a case can be made that two people should be allowed to enter into a union for the purposes of sharing assets, hereditary rights and to raise children. In that case, there is no argument for limiting the two parties to people of the opposite sex.
As to the case of giving apes human rights, the Spanish resolution limited those rights to ensure “that “non-human hominids” should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.” There are no other rights granted.
Why not? PETA says fish are sentient. nt
Achance Wednesday, January 14th at 3:47PM EST (link)In Vino Veritas
and the IRS fix would be to disallow all deductions
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 3:53PM EST (link)not to “redefine marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” like it should have been defined all along.
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Which would be a win right there
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 4:02PM EST (link)If the end result is getting the government to stop their social engineering with the tax code, I’m afraid I’ll have to support government recognized interspecies group marriages.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Weak ammunition
zuiko Wednesday, January 14th at 3:52PM EST (link)Just because you don’t have a logical response. We are supposed to “arbitrarily” limit marriage to two people but if we “arbitrarily” limit marriage to a man and a woman it is some sort of travesty. Nobody has ever been able to explain that. The explanation is obvious though. One of those relationships is fashionable. The other is not. I’ll let you figure out which is which.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That's a fair argument.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:00PM EST (link)I did the same think I accused the other side of doing. There are several instances in the law which limit contractual engagement between parties. However, you are correct that in this case, the limit is arbitrary. However, I would argue that the limiting marriage to one man and one woman could also be seen as similarly arbitrary.
simularly arbitrary except
kyle8 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:07PM EST (link)for the huge weight of centuries of usage, law, and tradition.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
And that brings us back to the original
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:21PM EST (link)argument about tradition that sparked discussion on this post.
I doubt I will convert anyone today nor will I be changing my opinion.
However, as one more thing to ponder. If the government were to legalize same sex marriage and it became widely accepted by society at large within a few years, what would persons of your ideological persuasion think about “tradition” in relation to marriage 100 or 200 years from now? Would same sex marriage then be ok because it was well established and validated by years of usage, law and tradition?
the answer is no, because the change you
icbm Thursday, January 15th at 7:55AM EST (link)describe contradicts marriage. in 200 years, we will have a tradition related to something which cannot properly be called marriage.
we do not give follow tradition merely because of the time that has passed.
So?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 4:26PM EST (link)“the huge weight of centuries of usage, law, and tradition.”
There are centuries of legal and traditional child labor, slavery, monarchies, feudalism, public hangings, repression of women, and persecution of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Just because it’s been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that it’s the best way.
typical liberal disdain for tradition
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:35PM EST (link)this is an entirely different discussion
i have never been able to persuade liberals to think more highly of tradition.
they always want to wave the bloody flag of slavery and dismiss all of history with a wave of the hand (as if no one knew what was right and good before they were born).
i think it is a belief that almost defines what a contemporary political liberal is nowadays.
i prefer to give at least some weight to “the democracy of the dead.”
Woops
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 4:43PM EST (link)See my response to Martin below.
So restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is equivalent to endorsing slavery, child labor, etc.?
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 4:40PM EST (link)I get the point you’re trying to make … but this attitude toward tradition is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
As G. K. Chesterton once said, the last person you should allow to knock down a wall is the guy who cannot tell you why it was put there in the first place.
It's Not at all the same
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 4:42PM EST (link)I will try to make the point a different way. Given your stated respect for the way things have been done, I assume you oppose allowing interracial marriages, which had been illegal for hundreds of years before the Supreme Court stepped in and decided (only 35 years or so ago) that they must be allowed?
waving the flag of slavery (and segregation) again
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:49PM EST (link)please stop
that does not represent all of tradition, nor even a very large part of it, and there were plenty of competing parts of tradition as well, even at the time that segregation and slavery existed. why do you think they were abolished? this effort was not against tradition but in accord with it.
people who were born in the 40’s and 50’s did not suddenly, all on their own, by some shared congenital mutation or cosmic coincidence, realize that, contrary to what humans had thought and done until that time, racial segregation was wrong.
I'm Not Talking About Slavery
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 5:03PM EST (link)2 points:
1) I’m pointing out that what we would define as a “traditional” marriage today would have been viewed as sick and wrong and contrary to hundreds of years of traditional marriage 50 years ago.
2) Well, if you’re going to bring the public opinion into it…A recent CNN poll found that when asked whether or not they supported gay marriage, 44% of respondents said yes, 55% said no. There is a clear public consensus against gay marriage.
However, in 1968 (one year after Loving v. Virginia), when Gallup asked people if they supported interracial marriage, only 20% of respondents said yes, while 73% said no. In other words, gay marriage is polling 42 points better now than interracial marriage did when Loving V. Virginia was decided.
baseketball, the poll is beside the point
ZootSuit Wednesday, January 14th at 5:11PM EST (link)Of note, however, if polled I would think (and hope) that the plurality of respondents would chose “really don’t care one way or the other” if given as an option.
As for the fundamental difference between same-sex and interracial marriage, however, see below.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
I agree with much of what you wrote
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 5:20PM EST (link)However, the argument that I’m trying to make (although we’ve wound up pretty far afield) is that the fact that things have always been done a certain way is not necessarily an argument in favor of continuing to do things that way.
I cannot speak for Martin Knight but ...
ZootSuit Wednesday, January 14th at 5:07PM EST (link)I personally don’t give a rat’s arse about interracial marriages. While I confess that I am only getting into the conversation in the middle, I also must say that I, as a Black man, am always amazed (although no longer surprised) that every time I express my thoughts that same-sex marriages should not be allowed, someone raises the rejoinder, “but if you oppose same-sex marriages then you must oppose interracial marriages”: as if interracial marriages somehow makes my life and/or the lives of other Black and non-White people better.
Posited in the fact that the issue of interracial marriage was raised is the idea that Martin Knight (or anyone else) should really care about it. And to let you in on a little secret: neither I nor most of the (Black) people I know care.
But to address the issue of interracial and same-sex marriages and how they differ, the former is based on what you are while the latter is based on what you do. Indeed, let me say that I wholeheartedly support the rights of all legally competent adults, whether gay or straight, to marry another legally competent adult of the opposite sex (with caveats regarding incest, etc.). However, I strenuously oppose legally competent adults, whether gay or straight, from marrying other legally competent adults of the same sex. Again, I do not care what your sexual preference is, it is the activity that I strongly oppose giving legal sanction.
Furthermore, normative for the discussion of why banning the former is and should be unconstitutional while the latter is not, the Fifteenth Amendment effectively bars all distinctions based on race but neither it nor any other part of the United States Constitution bars any distinctions based on sexual preference and practices. Thus, I do not think the government can legally define or distinguish the race or ethnicity of the (two, of the opposite sex) parties within a marriage contract.
Note that the above is why I think affirmative action should be considered unconstitutional but I will admit that mine is not the standing opinion at this time. But that, perhaps, is another discussion.
***** Unrepentant African-American nationalist, Unapologetic African-American conservative!
liberal segregationists
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 5:17PM EST (link)the majority of African-Americans - and for that matter of Latinos and many other minority groups, conservative or liberal - are with you.
I’ve always been amused - and bemused - by liberals who maintain that forbidding homosexual marriage is like forbidding inter-racial marriage when the majority of African-American opinion is against them.
one of the more honest liberals whom I once heard speak replied to my objection that the majority of African-Americans have simply sided with the “segregationists” on this issue.
well.
liberals are now the ones most like segregationists, because they won’t take seriously the thinking of the majority of African-Americans (and other minorities). liberals are now the ones who act dismissively toward them, the implication being that those minority groups can’t really think for themselves. minorities need to be led by those of us who are enlightened (and, somehow by chance, white).
baseketball your argument is specious and immature
kyle8 Wednesday, January 14th at 5:08PM EST (link)In this case it is TRADITION along with a historical value to families, values, and sentiment.
It is apples and oranges
The racial laws that used to be part of some of the states were enacted exactly because they were NOT what the people really wanted. They had to enact laws making blacks second class citizens because as soon as those laws were off the books people began to do normal business with black people and whites and blacks had more social interaction.
Those laws were an UNATURAL control on the tendencies of humans. However, trying to REDEFINE the ages old tradition of marriage into something it is not goes against the will of the people.
Now if the people change their minds and vote for it, then so be it. But they won’t, which is why it is being rammed through the court system.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
As I just pointed out
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 5:13PM EST (link)“Now if the people change their minds and vote for it, then so be it. But they won’t, which is why it is being rammed through the court system.”
When Loving was decided, people opposed interracial marriage 20-73. It got “rammed through the court system,” despite public sentiment that was much more against it then public sentiment is against gay marriage today.
Given that I'm black and having been in a serious relationship with a Bengali girl ...
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 5:15PM EST (link)… I don’t think I’m the right person to ask this.
That said; this “illegal” thing is what we call ahistorical, not just worldwide but in the United States as well. If I’m not mistaken (and I’m not), it was far from unheard of for white (and even black) men in the Old West to be married to Native American women, or Chinese women. Or for white men to marry “mulattoes.”
The problem with you liberals when it comes to same-sex “marriage” is that you seem to find it difficult to accept the fact that marriage is THE universal institution of mankind - it exists in every nook and cranny of the world and has existed for thousands of years.
Because if you did, you’d notice that the restriction that only people of the same race can get married to each other is a rather recent and short-lived one in one area of the world. People of different races were getting married all over the world even as Virginia was persecuting the Lovings.
In other words, the same-race thing is no more a fundamental tradition of marriage than the restrictions that forbid a man and a woman of e.g. different castes to marry each other in India.
I put it to you that the fundamental, universal institutional traditions of marriage (as found all over the world) are the following;
[1] Two people - even polygamous marriages meet this definition. One man married to three women is in three individual marriages, each one of which is constituted of just him and one particular woman, independent of the others.
[2] Of opposite sex.
[3] Of different natal families i.e. one may not marry any one of his/her parents and blood siblings.
The restriction that they be of the same race is in a class so so so far below that of the restriction that they be of opposite sex, in terms of history, pedigree and universality that to compare both strikes me as desperation.
"You Liberals"?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 5:31PM EST (link)If I qualify as a liberal, then 85% of the country is flaming commies. I think a brief review of my posting history would prove to you that, while I’m more moderate than most people here (a CWAJGA Republican, sort of), I hardly qualify as a liberal.
As for this point: “I put it to you that the fundamental, universal institutional traditions of marriage (as found all over the world) are the following…[2] Of opposite sex.” Not as found in Massachusetts in the last 5 or so years. This the problem I have with your argument against gay marriage, it’s based on the position that since it hasn’t been done before, it shouldn’t be tried now. This leaves us with the following question: If, theoretically, by 2050 all 50 states have legalized gay marriage, then come 2150 you would no longer be opposed to gay marriage because it was no longer non-traditional?
You are certainly "liberal" on this issue. -nt-
mbecker908 Wednesday, January 14th at 5:43PM EST (link)I consider Chafee/Whitman-type Republicans to be liberals ...
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 5:48PM EST (link)… per their voting records (when the rubber meets the road), the notions they take as axiomatic (do they argue from liberal premises), etc. To be sure, I, however, don’t deny that they’re registered as Republicans or call themselves “Conservatives” (BTW, so does Andrew Sullivan).
To go back to the subject under discussion; what exists in Massachusetts right now is not marriage as per the definition of the institution (remember again that marriage is a worldwide phenomenon).
Personally, I think the can of worms opened in MA would become apparent the instant some guy and his sister/brother in MA decide to apply for a marriage license, and get their applications rejected. They’ll be able to take it to the SCOTUS as a violation of their 14th Amendment rights and they’ll have a very viable case.
shoofly: What about a 32 year old guy and his 30 year old sister?
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 4:30PM EST (link)Should the government be “neutral” there? Why not? Are they not consenting adults?
Ever wonder why, worldwide (note that marriage is perhaps the one social institution found in practically every single culture and civilization), marriages are limited to;
[1] Two people …
[2] … of Opposite Sex and
[3] … of Different Natal Families?
From a civil law perspective,
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 4:35PM EST (link)and a theoretical perspective, if a brother and sister want to enter into a relationship that allows them to share property, inheritance and other similar rights, I would be ok with that.
From a practical perspective, we don’t have much to “worry” about. There are very few people who develop a phyical attraction to their sibling (assuming they grew up with that sibling). There are studies that prove that mutual repulsion. However, even if you did have the very infrequent instance of siblings wanting to marry for the purpose of procreating and raising a family, I find it difficult to see why the government should prevent it.
thank you for your candor
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 4:38PM EST (link)i don’t mean that in a condescending way. i appreciate it sincerely.
some try to defend the limitation of two or the limitation against incest but it doesn’t work once you get past one man and one woman. you just have to rely on the fact that not many people - at least right now - seem to want to have incest or polygamy or marry a horse or three ducks or, for that matter, a stack of hundred dollar bills (why not?).
that is where the argument goes. you are on one side of it, and i am on the other, but at least we are on the same page about the lack of limitation.
shoofly...is the "natural repulsion" do to the shame that has been present with incest?
Attack Mode Wednesday, January 14th at 4:42PM EST (link)This is an important question.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
Given the number of girls who have been molested by their relatives,
janis Wednesday, January 14th at 4:49PM EST (link)I don’t think you can consider this a valid point.
Janis I think you meant to reply to shoofly..nt
Attack Mode Wednesday, January 14th at 4:55PM EST (link)“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
Duly noted, Aaron. You're right. n/t
janis Wednesday, January 14th at 5:10PM EST (link).
Two things.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 5:51PM EST (link)First, we were discussing sibling incest and not abuse by an adult against a minor. Second, it’s pretty well established that the adult abuse of children is not rooted in sexuality as much as it is in power and dominance.
No. It doesn't seem to
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 5:49PM EST (link)Here are a couple of links that have synopses. They have links to the broader studies.
link 1
link 2
shoofly...the second link doesn't work...
Attack Mode Wednesday, January 14th at 6:33PM EST (link)And the first link is asking me to pay in order to read the full article. A source that doesn’t require me to fund their research would be nice.
Anyhow from the little bit of text that was there it seems that the hypothesis is that kinship comes with a radar and that one instance of that radar is an aversion to sexual contact with one’s own kin. This of course does not rule out the act of incest between siblings from occurring, merely that it is the exception to the rule. Add the element of shame associated with incest in society and that could further limit the actual instances of incest in society, because like it or not, shame does affect ones decision making processes, nuture and nature so to speak..
I would make a wager that one could do a scientific study also proving that we have a similar radar with respect to homosexual intercourse, and if the element of shame was still the social norm we would probably see proportionate acts of homosexual behavior as we do incestual (sp?) behavior between siblings.
The overall point is that science and society both dictate what we are capable of and what is an accepted practice. Furthermore, if incestual (sp?) relationships were not thought of as shameful, in time there would be more acts and eventually someone would claim it as a civil right to have sex with their sibling.
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
That's very honest of you, shoofly.
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 5:29PM EST (link)Most proponents of gay marriage seem to catch a sudden case of blurred vision or deafness when presented with this argument.
That said; this is the argument (not the silly one about animals and inanimate objects), if properly deployed and vigorously defended against the usual outraged!™ suspects that can see 80% of Americans come down firmly on the NO side.
I'm not sure I understand, Martin
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 5:52PM EST (link)Perhaps you care to elaborate or maybe we can just pick this up a different time.
if you're interested in more arguments on the topic
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 3:16PM EST (link)take a look at this article, “The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman,” by law professor Lynn Wardle, who dedicates a lot of his time to writing and speaking about the importance of traditional marriage.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1211382
Just click on download and then on SSRN once you get to the web page and you will get a copy of the entire article in PDF.
Thanks. I will.
shooflyguy68 Wednesday, January 14th at 3:19PM EST (link)Read also David Blankenhorn's articles on marriage
icbm Thursday, January 15th at 10:33AM EST (link)“Protecting Marriage to Protect Children” (LA Times op-ed)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story
And see:
“Defining Marriage Down… Is No Way to Save It” (Weekly Standard article)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp
Lynn Wardle offers some good arguments. David Blankenhorn, as a liberal Democrat, offers additional ones.
The answer is NO
Steve W Wednesday, January 14th at 4:18PM EST (link)Sacred as currently used, and societally defined indicates:
So, in response to . . . .
the answer is that MOST religions/churches do not see those relationships as “valid”. (Perhaps that’s not the correct word.) So, if a relationship is not valid with respect to religion - according to the definition - it is not sacred.
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
- Ronald Reagan
Two competing models going on
civil_truth Wednesday, January 14th at 10:34AM EST (link)The first views marriage as a way of promoting the interests of the clan. This historically has led to women being viewed as property (think Rachel and Leah’s dad in Genesis) or as tolls for advancement of the clan’s status (think of the various marriages of familial alliance throughout history). Today, this model is associated primarily with agrarian-based societies (or those early industrial socieities that still maintain prior customs, e.g. India, Middle East).
The second, which originalte a few centuries ago in the West views marriage as the product of individual affections (although “true love” has long been a part of folklore) and individual choices. Interestingly this coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, which uprooted agraian structures and created new societal structures that could support individualist marriages.
And I don’t see much likelihood, short of the complete breakdown of Western society (which could happen if Islamists bring th e whole house down), I don’t see a return to the first model among us in the West.
Commenter basketball makes a good point that marriage conventions are not the result of careful analysis, but is wrong is when he repeats the same error by consigning it to religious origins. Rather these structures represent a mixture of dogma and empiricism (i.e. what works).
However, appeals to history need to keep in mind this tension between clan interests and individual interests.
And Rightly So!
True, not just a clan thing
LJ "Beaglescout" Miller Wednesday, January 14th at 1:35PM EST (link)Very true. Consigning marriage completely to clan business isn’t desirable for us. One major problem with it is that we don’t have clans. So what is needed?
Given the fact that tradition is the distillation of generations of wisdom, I believe in gradual changes instead of sudden, total changes. The questions are: (1) where did we come from? (2) where are we now? (3) what is important?
WHERE DID WE COME FROM
Biologically speaking, marriage combines reproduction with lifetime pair bonding with the mutual sustenance of offspring. These are all common among animals, as well as people. Psychologically speaking it creates a family from a man and a woman who are transformed, each individually into husband and wife, and the pair collectively into a family. Phenomena such as infatuation are relatively short lived. Sociologically speaking, the marriage serves as a bond between two extended families, clans, or other groupings, and thus helps to bring people together with the understanding that “them” ain’t so different from “us.”
Marriage ceremonies acknowledge all these aspects of marriage. Infatuation and attraction are symbolized by the bride’s veil, the emphasis on ritual chastity (e.g. by the white dress), the first kiss, flowers and so on. The creation of a family is symbolized by the exchange of rings. And the involvement of extended families is literally present on the left and right side of the aisle as well as in the reception to feed and entertain them.
WHERE ARE WE NOW
Hollywood marriage is incompatible with traditional marriage ceremonies. That’s why people do things like get married while sky jumping or scuba diving. They can feel that their concept of marriage is not the same as the traditional one, and they change the vows and the setting to symbolize that their rules will be different. This sort of obstinacy predicts future obstinacy and marital strife. Those married couples who are lucky or smart enough to come to terms with the reasons why marriage has traditionally been the way it has been can survive a rough beginning and reconcile themselves with the traditional rules. Those who are not lucky nor smart end up in divorce court. Their children become pawns in conflict.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT
To square the circle and bring the ancient and traditional understanding of marriage forward, we need to know what is important. The most basic aspect of marriage is reproduction. It is the aspect of marriage that most affects husband and wife, families, and the world around us. So it is the best candidate we have for most important. Currently popular culture says the most important part of marriage is true love, that soul-to-soul connection. It is my belief that this damages the most basic and important goal of marriage, raising up a passel of well-adjusted kids.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE
I don’t have answers for what is to be done. But the wrong path is pretty clear. We’ve been traveling down it for a while and need to go back to the fork in the road where we left the traditional understanding of marriage. But this is metaphor. What are the concrete steps to take?
I don’t have the answers. Your ideas?
“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”
Just because marriage begins b/c of affection
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 2:14PM EST (link)between two individuals does not mean that its purpose is limited to that affection.
While the beginning may sometimes be more than half the whole, with marriage we must look a little further than the beginning to understand its entire purpose.
I invite homosexual marriage supporters to define marriage
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 5:48PM EST (link)This diary is an admirable attempt to discuss the nature of marriage. The topic is not easy. When I have tried to write on the subject, I quickly see the limitations of my thought on the subject.
But it is necessary to define marriage for many reasons, especially if you are in favor of taking the unprecedented step of permitting homosexual marriage.
I have not seen any proponents of homosexual marriage on this thread attempt to define marriage. Instead, they seem more interested in criticizing the definitions of others.
So I invite you to make the attempt. Post a diary on the subject. What is marriage? What is it for? Why should we continue to have it at all? And how will homosexual marriage be good for marriage?
If you’re serious about the subject, you should at least define the main term.
Marriage is a religious institution
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 5:55PM EST (link)And is therefore best served by allowing each religion to define it as they wish and marry whoever they choose, and keeping the government a million miles away from the whole issue. I’d like there to be no legal rules at all about marriage, in the realm of tax policy, social restrictions, nothing, and leave it all to the various churches.
And yet every single religion has it?
Martin Knight Wednesday, January 14th at 6:00PM EST (link)Doesn’t that hint to you that marriage may have its roots in something intrinsic to our humanity?
Read your L. Ron Hubbard
Neil Stevens Wednesday, January 14th at 6:01PM EST (link)Religion is a malicious implant in humanity.
Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis
Which aspect?
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 6:09PM EST (link)Which aspect of marriage do you refer to as being “intrinsic” to our humanity?
try defining it
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 6:01PM EST (link)it is a good intellectual exercise, and it will help you think more deeply about the issue.
“just leave it to the churches” doesn’t get us anywhere
Alright
baseketball Wednesday, January 14th at 6:07PM EST (link)The definition, as practiced most commonly today, would be “a promise that a man and a woman make to God, and to each other, that they will love each other for the rest of their lives.”
good start. now consider doing a diary
icbm Wednesday, January 14th at 6:14PM EST (link)and discussing it at some length.
i’d be interested in seeing it.
up to you, of course. not trying to order you around.
A cynic's definition
Slightly_Askew Wednesday, January 14th at 6:36PM EST (link)“The joining together emotionally and financially of two people who are attracted to one another so that the cost, both monetary and emotionally, of dissolving their union is greater than the effort to maintain it.”
You want to reduce the divorce rate, quit making it so darn easy to dissolve a marriage. I know people who have been married for years who have worked through infidelity, poverty, drug addiction, etc. and are better people today for it. I also know people who got divorced after six months because they couldn’t agree on what private school to send their yet-to-be-born kids to.