|
|
|
This is in response to "I Am Made of Scars" multi-point response about 2/3rds the way down page 785 of the "If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian" thread, on the M and R board.
Well, seeing as the demise of the ice cream looks...pretty definite, here's what I can give you at the moment.
Summary of Scarguments 1) Banning gay marriage on the grounds that any potential benefits (e.g. reversing the anti-marriage trend) have not been proven makes no sense. In fact, denying gay marriage promotes the anti-marriage trend because gay couples have no option but to use the very alternatives that undercut marriage in the first place. 2) Legalising gay marriage protects and promotes marriage because it... a) simultaneously reduces the number of unwed couples whilst raising the number of married couples b) removes the needs of homosexual couples to resort to alternative relationships which ties into points 1) and 2.a), above. 3) American gay marriage can't be properly compared to the gay marriages of other countries because of societal differences 4) Since you haven't had a chance to look for links about the damages of incest, here are a few off-the-cuff ones, courtesy of the usual suspects: wink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incesthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreedinghttp://www.lycos.com/info/incest.htmlhttp://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_4_1.htm(Yes, we both agree that incestuous relationships are terribly risky in general.No disagreement there. The zoophilia thing likewise remains uncontested. I already stated my reasons for raising those spectres.) 5) The value of marriage is centred around the concepts of stability, social maturity (and accompanying social status), and truly safe sex. These reasons make actual marriage preferable to less-complete alternatives. 6) Allowing homosexuals to be legally married will normalise the present deviance by introducing them into the mainstream; this normalisation is inevitable. Theoretically, the benefits of marriage, listed above, will also be transferred to gay married couples. 7) Why deny anyone marriage--especially those begging for it--when so many are simply dismissing it for whatever reasons? 8 ) Marriage risks effectual death if it stagnates. The change represented by gay marriage could be the very salvation of the institution. Reasons for this include: a) The movement to use and promote marital alternatives will lose potency as people now take advantage of an option--full, legal marriage itself-- previously denied. The weakening of this driving factor will hurt opposition to marriage. b) The "equal rights" issue with relation to unwed couples will become moot, since marital rights will once again be reserved for people who are legally married. This will automatically put unwed couples back into a more definitive category that clearly does not equal marriage. 9) How did we get off the original topic? So.... am I getting all of that right? I really should find that out before I respond, or I'll probably just create more tangents and confusion.
1) While I understand the logic, there, here’s why I don’t really agree with it. I feel that the factors that have contributed to the decline of marriage were in effect long enough before the present gay-rights movement, that I don’t see any real connection between the two. By that I mean that heterosexual marriages were failing independent of homosexual relationships, and, because of that, I don’t see any real reason why allowing homosexual marriage will affect the problems that have broken up past marriages.
I think I see your point in suggesting it will help future marriages, though, but again, I don’t see enough of a link to really believe the effect will be significant. What I see is not so much gay marriage protecting the institution of marriage itself, as simply promoting the idea that it’s nice to be married. To me there’s a significant difference.
Besides, if heterosexual couples are already marriages shy, I really question whether a sudden surge in marriages—gay or otherwise—would do anything to allay or remove those fears.
2) I think my answer to point 1) covered most of this. Again, it’s encouraging “being married” vs. protecting what marriage is, and what makes it significant.
3) I’ll grant that there are some real societal differences between the US and Europe. But what about Canada? Beyond that, the cultural differences seem rather diminished in today’s “global village” type of world, where the Internet allows for such rapid and widespread sharing of ideas.
Though Britain certainly isn’t representative of The Continent, my two years there—and this was in, among the people, living much like them, and spending time with them, not just going to college—persuaded me that the cultural differences between the UK and the US really would not have any significant impact on marital expectations and such, except that the British seem generally less inclined to marry in the first place.
Again, Canada has some striking cultural similarities to the US. I think we really could draw valid inferences from their experiences. Given that the US is a “melting pot” anyway, with people drawn from all over Europe, and with a relatively diverse national culture ourselves, I think the differences that might nullify comparisons are not likely to be very meaningful.
Relationships of all sorts stand or fall on the same principles, regardless the type of relationship, or the culture involved. Respect, trust, commitment, compassion—none of these things are culture specific, yet all are universally regarded as beneficial in relationships, romantic or not. Take those away, and things fall apart, no matter which country you’re in.
Because of that, I think we really can evaluate the success or failure of homosexual marriages in other countries, and glean valuable lessons from it.
4) Websites, no debate. Moving on.
5) You may be surprised, but I agree with all three of the quotes you gave on what makes marriage valuable. Allow me to expand on those points a little.
Note that Rauch mentions the idea of someone depending on you. That’s just it—someone does depend on you when you’re married. Historically, it hasn’t just been one someone, it has been several “someones,” as children enter the picture.
I’m going to take a little tangent, for a bit, but it is relevant to this point. I’ll try to keep it concise without being insultingly so. I’m going to be speaking very generally, since I’m trying to examine principles that may be applied to thousands or millions—to a large enough body that exceptions become statistically insignificant.
Can we agree that societies function best on principles of trust, dependability, cooperation, and maturity? If so, let’s move ahead with that.
Can we also agree that any given society works best when each individual in the collective whole is fulfilling his/her role in society (I’m not discussing what those roles are—I’m just positing the idea)? If so, then I think we’re set.
Enduring societies preserve themselves by rewarding bevahiours considered “socially acceptable” and by punishing “unacceptable” behaviour. Generally speaking, actions that promote society and its survival are categorised as “acceptable,” with the converse true for “unacceptable.”
Though individuals may be fully capable of surviving as individuals, the risk of conflict arises if individuals need to compete for it. This results in Darwinism, and let’s face it—I don’t think the weak really enjoy being on the short end of the stick. An enduring society does not necessarily reward weakness, but it does compensate for it. It has to, or our children wouldn’t live to be more than a few days or weeks old.
On the note of children, since we all start our in ignorance and innocence, the need to be taught is apparent. We need to be taught not only how to survive, but how to contribute to the society in which we live. If children are not taught how to contribute, they are more likely to be seen as “socially unacceptable.” Since parents are often judged for fitness on the general acceptability of their children, there is an implied impetus that parents raise their children to be “socially acceptable” in order to deflect any negative stigmas from themselves, which may result in their own censure. Beyond that, I think that good parents really do want their kids to grow up happy and acceptable and good anyway.
With that need for teaching children in mind—since children will eventually replace the previous generation as it ages and dies off—societies then also reward those who engage in practices more likely to raise children who will perpetuate the society. The historical result has been a monogamous relationship involving a single parent of each sex. I’ve already mentioned the advantages I’ve seen in the parenting arrangement I just mentioned, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say that such an arrangement is commonly agreed—notice I didn’t say “universally agreed,” though I think that’s actually not too inaccurate a statement—is the one most likely to produce children who will benefit the greater society in which they live, and will help that society endure.
So… societies have historically rewarded such arrangements because such arrangements have proven themselves the most enduring. I guess that is a form of Darwinism, in a sense. Marital alternatives just didn’t hold up as well, over time, and have fallen by the wayside, in a sense.
I think it’s reasonable to ask ourselves why that kind of arrangement work. Admittedly, that’s a debatable question, but I feel comfortable with suggesting that it has to do with the levels of commitment, and with the balance provided by the arrangement, among many other things. Marriage commonly represents a pinnacle of commitment. I think it’s possible that we see it that way for several reasons:
a) biologically, it represents a likely continuation of our genetic legacy
b) since the individuals choose their mate (at least in our culture, though arranged marriages involve the agreement of potential spouses as well), we believe that the commitment is entered into without coercion, which could be blamed for any future violations of that commitment
c) emotional, physical, mental, and social bonds are seen as typically stronger in a successful marriage than in a non-married relationship
Now, to examine the reproductive issue that allows societies to replenish themselves.
The physiological differences between men and women predispose them towards different breeding strategies. Since a single male can inseminate any number of females, it is biologically advantageous for a male to mate with as many females as he can.
On the female side, pregnancy, in some measure reduces a woman’s ability to care for herself, and labour and delivery leave the woman particularly vulnerable. Once the child is born, the mother’s time available for caring for herself is commensurately reduced, unless she wants to risk neglecting the new child. Therefore, the best female reproductive strategy is to keep her mate, and let him do the providing. By extension, the “strongest, most capable” males are the most logically attractive targets for women to mate with.
Beyond that, men and women bond in very different ways. Men bond more physically; women tend to bond more emotionally. Those bonds tie closely to the aforementioned reproductive strategies.
Since society thrives on responsible individuals, and since responsible individuals are more likely to be the product of stable, two-sex parentage, society rewards that scenario, even though it represses basic biologic urges brought on by basic mating strategies. Allowing men to rampantly fertilise women, well… I think we both know what kind of confusion that tends to cause. On the flip side, not every woman on earth can marry Brad Pitt, so the rest of them are left with “second best,” in a sense. wink Even then, it’s nothing unusual for a married woman to encounter a man who she might see as “more capable” than her husband. Her mating strategy would compel her to seek to mate with—and keep — the more capable man, even if that man already has a wife. And… it does happen.
We know that society frowns upon marital infidelity, though. Why? Doesn’t biology encourage it? Yes, it does. It comes down to several things. First, we get the problems listed above (the “unrestrained mating” scenario). Additionally, given the level of import we’ve assigned to marriage, the violation of those vows is rightly seen as a very real breach of integrity. A breach of “contract” as it were. The message sent, then, is “I’m willing to violate my word if I find the right reasons.” Since marriage is seen as one of the strongest of bonds we can enter, then the society around the unfaithful may well lose a measure of trust. “If you’re willing to break a vow to your spouse, why would you be more likely to keep one you’ve made with someone you haven’t committed your life to?”
So… we’re encouraged to keep our commitments, both by society (fear of censure, and/or desire to contribute), as well as by whatever personal sense of honour we have.
Commitments can change people who keep them. Once a man marries, he willingly surrenders many of the liberties he enjoyed during bachelorhood. In a broad sense, he trades those liberties for a chance to raise his social standing, and to get a much better chance of a continued genetic legacy. The same goes for women, especially in these post-women’s-lib days, where women seem to take great pride in their independence from males.
Taking on responsibilities alters a person’s perceptions of the world. As the individual shoulders those responsibilities, he/she most likely realises several things: a) they can’t always shoulder those burdens alone (especially in the case of child rearing), b) the world doesn’t revolve around their whims, and c) fulfillment of responsibilities is innately rewarding, and generally improves your social standing since you prove your dependability.
As spouses share responsibilities, and take care of each other, the initial bond that led to marriage grows stronger, and the commitment more valuable (consider long-term maturing investments). Just look at the respect given people who have been married for 50+ years, for instance.
Long story short, boys and girls who marry (and especially those who start raising children) grown up. They earn privileges and social status through proving themselves dependable, contributing members of society. If they raise their children well, then their children are also counted to them for prestige.
So, yeah. Making and keeping commitments—especially of the marital magnitude—really is a good stabiliser.
As you said, “marriage lite” isn’t as valuable because the commitments and bonds are not as strong, since the arrangements are more easily obtained and dissolved. That’s a big part of the reason I’m not big on the contemporary idea of “test-driving a marriage.” That’s fine with a car, but buying a car is nowhere near the same kind of commitment that choosing a spouse is. I mean, who really gets hurt if you sell your car and buy a new one?
Additionally, you have the moral and psychological problems that come with unwed cohabitation. Since we’ve already agree on those, I won’t elaborate.
The problem is this, though: our society currently suffers from a growing measure of “entitlement mentality.” It’s what I call the “Wal-Mart and Pepsi” mindset—you can have whatever you want, right now and with no price tag (or at least not one that really hurts you). We’ve been slowly programmed to disdain patience, sacrifice, and self-restraint. We’ve been bombarded with messages ranging from simple misconceptions like “Reward yourself! You’ve earned it,” (when there was no, actual earning done), to outright lies like, “The more you spend, the more you save!”
Relationships—including marriage—have suffered because of that. We see a real and spreading plague of self-centeredness. “My Space.” My Gaia.” “My documents.” “My account.” The list goes on. When that self-centeredness, entitlement mentality, and a lack of willingness to work for anything gets carried into relationships, then of course we’re going to see failure. Because people want the benefits of marriage without the commitment, our society has chosen to provide “marriage lite” to appease them.
I think that’s a mistake. It seems we both agree on why that is.
Recall my analogy relating marriage to the colour purple? Well, let’s call the red part of purple “commitment” and the blue part of purple “societal propagation,” i.e. “child bearing and the requirement of parents of each sex.” The cultural trends I mentioned above have hurt both of those colours, and, thus the resulting fusion. We’ve already examined how alternatives to marriage have eroded the sense of commitment which is vital to a successful marriage (not to mention how it has eaten away at any sense of commitment—hence the great new term “friends with benefits”). So “red” has faded. “Blue” seems to have faded at least as fast, if not more so. If you don’t even want to commit to someone you’re in an emotional relationship with, why on Earth would you want to commit to kids? Kids are naturally selfish because they don’t know any better. A newborn is completely helpless, of course, and most (if not all) of what it thinks about are things pertaining to basic physical survival. Since it can’t do anything for itself, its only recourse is to depend on those who can. Since it has no responsibilities, and no views beyond its own, immediate needs, it sees no reason to not simply beg for, or even just demand what it wants without regards to the needs of the provider. I think it’s obvious how such an attitude would be viewed as “socially unacceptable,” and we’ve already talked about the need to teach children.
So, yes… why commit to a whining, crying, demanding little person who constantly impinges on your time, your fun, your sleep, your sex life, and pretty much your whole way of living, if you’re not willing to commit to an adult who has at least said that he/she will stick with you and take care of you? Sure, some women still want to have kids and just ignore any commitment to a guy on the assumption that somehow, this child of theirs will “love them unconditionally,” implying that they simply don’t trust that a man ever would. I guess that’s a logical belief if you never even give a guy a chance. And let’s face it, there really are all too many scumbag men in this world.
I waffle.
Anyway, the central point of what’s destroying marriage, its meaning, its purpose, and its value is an over-inflated sense of self. It’s a reversion to our most primitive instincts, and as we move more toward a self-centered society, we will automatically lose societal cohesion. Sure, there will be vestiges of it maintained by fear, expediency, and the chance for mutual benefit, but just have a look at other countries already ruled by “The Law of the Jungle.” Why do you think Africa is in such a bind? Having spoken with several people who lived among various African nations and tribes, I’ve learned that the corruption in the government is just a reflection of a much more general corruption of entire populations. Those starving babies would quit starving if the adults would get their acts together and start taking care of someone besides themselves and their immediate interests, familial or otherwise.
Marriage has been slowly and carefully disassembled over time. “Marriage lite” has undermined “red” pretty significantly, since so many of the legal protections and benefits that were once the sole privilege of the married have been extended to so many unwed unions.
The things that have driven “marriage lite,” as I previously said, seem largely unconnected to whether gay marriage is legal or not. The erosive action of marital alternatives has been going on for much longer than this “new civil rights” movement.
That’s why I don’t see the legalisation of gay marriage as doing much—if anything—to slow (let alone stop or even reverse) the trend of marital alternatives. Since it’s already heterosexuals choosing not to marry, and since so many heterosexuals—and let’s face it, the gay minority really is a fairly small minority in this country—are likely to continue in those “let’s not marry” mindsets, I really don’t think their opinions of marriage would change just because gay marriages might be long-term, committed ones. If you look around, you can find plenty of good examples of enduring marriage already.
Apparently, that doesn’t matter. People don’t want commitment, they just want benefits. Since the governments of this nation have been so kind as to provide them alternatives, I think they’ll continue to take those alternatives as long as the alternatives suit their purposes.
6) I guess that really depends on what you consider “normal.” Will it increase the commonality of homosexuals, both as individuals and couples? I think it will, since that trend seems pretty clear already. Acceptance of homosexuality as a valid way of life seems to be increasing every day (with much help from the media).
I guess if we’re just talking plain old numbers, then yeah, I agree with that analysis of the trend.
I don’t agree, though, with the idea that the trend is necessarily inevitable or irreversible.
7) Why deny anyone the right to marry, when they’re begging for it? I think the little novel I wrote above should make my thoughts clear on that. Summarily, I think that there are valid reasons for retaining the marital structure as it is, and that a homosexual marriage scenario presents its own risks, just as a polygamous or incestuous relationship does.
The problem is, those risks are easily debatable, likely won’t manifest heavily for possibly even a generation or two, and are often so subtle that it’s difficult (if not impossible) to make a definitive link between homosexuality and the problems I suspect.
That doesn’t mean those problems aren’t already impacting us, or that they’re not detectable. Heck, aside from the studies I’ve read, I’ve had plenty of personal, anecdotal experience that seems to validate my conclusions. But then, anecdotal evidence counts for so little these days.
cool I roundly disagree with this point. I’ve already explained why I don’t think the opposition to marriage will lose any momentum. Beyond that, marriage has endured the entire breadth of human history. I think that really ought to tell us something.
If you’ve ever studied much history, I think you’ll have seen that history is more than a little repetitive. Yes, we have technology and knowledge that people never had in the thousands of years before the 19th century and the industrial revolution, but one of the most prominent lessons of history is this: humankind never fundamentally changes. Names, faces, places, minor details—those change all the time. The root causes for problems—those are timeless. Just like marriage.
I think marriage has already proven its inherent stamina. I likewise think that while it is currently suffering heavily, that legalising gay marriage will only add to that suffering, as it strips the “blue” from purple. It really will reduce marriage to little more than a certificate. Age requirements, distance of blood relation requirements, buying a marriage license—all easily attainable, and none of those really require any commitment beyond whatever the marriage license costs. Heck, it pretty much puts it on the same level as a driver’s license. Only… you have to pass a test before being allowed to drive.
As to the equal rights thing, well, sure, unmarried people might lose that excuse, and yeah, that would rob them of that momentum. That said, people who are determined to work the system have shown themselves to be pretty adept at finding their own justifications, and changing those justifications to suit them.
9) I think it was just the normal course of human conversations. Dialogues tend to be pretty tangential, neh?
 Llandygai · Thu Jun 18, 2009 @ 03:36pm · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
