First, I would like to thank Meredithancret for a cordial and spirited debate. We obviously disagree, but she has been respectful and has engaged in dialogue on the subject of gay marriage—a subject most consider too controversial to discuss. I appreciate the fact that there has been actual dialogue, even if there is disagreement. Thanks, Meredith. You can check out her blog here.
Second, I hope to address some of the concerns which have been voiced. In fact, Meredith asked a very direct question which is at the heart of the debate concerning marriage. It is too bad that others aren’t asking the same question. She asked, “What is marriage?”
Historically, there have been 3 different answers posited in reply to this question. The answers are as follows: Biological union, legal contract recognition, or beneficial economic arrangement. Of these 3 options, I would say that I have been arguing for the first, while Meredith has been arguing for the second. Why do I argue for marriage as a biological union? On the basis of reality. I assert that the reality of humanity argues unambiguously for heterosexual marriage.
By this statement, I mean to say that heterosexual marriage is built into creation. You may prefer to think of creation as the 19th Century followers of the Enlightenment did—as Nature (with a capital N). Or, in your current progressive milieu, you may prefer nature (without the capital N). Or you may have progressed already so far that you prefer to refer to reality in the laughable (yet often accepted) language of mother nature. In former days, some would have used the terms, common sense.
Whatever you call it, it argues for heterosexual marriage. I mean to argue for heterosexual marriage from the perspective of easily recognizable reality. When a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to a wife, the two become a new family unit. The very natural outcome of the new couple’s coitus is, of course, children. Hence, humanity progresses through the process of a man and woman leaving two families to start another family. Nothing is more natural. Humanity itself is furthered by this conjugal union, a fact which ought to please the evolutionists among us.
In this sense, then, cultures and societies are built upon the biological, conjugal relations of a man and a woman forming a family unit. Contrary to what has been asserted, this notion is not the recent invention of the modern church. It has been around since the original couple, Adam and Eve (thus the Matthew 19 reference).
Now, before anyone gets his hackles out of whack, allow me to say that I do believe in Adam and Eve as the original parents. Evolutionists may or may not have a name for the original progenitors of humanity—I don’t know. Regardless, there was an original male and female joined together to continue the human race. Historically—even without reference to Adam and Eve—cultures and societies have been built around the conjugal union of a man and his wife.
We have records from the earliest civilization on record—ancient Sumer—which demonstrate that marriage was indeed between a man and a woman. The custom was very much like that of Israel in the Old Testament. The husband offered a bridal price for the woman he desired to marry. After paying the bridal price to her father, the groom was able to take his bride out of her family home and into his home, where the two became a new family unit, recognized by their government as a new family unit.
No one here is asserting that the norm has been perfect, ubiquitous, or without anomalies and exceptions. History includes polygamy and homosexuality. Nevertheless, the enduring reality of heterosexual marriage as a foundational institution endures today as a vital aspect of humanity. It is reality—even after New York. It is such an obvious, foundational element of humanity that heterosexual marriage will endure beyond the most recent assaults against it. Just as marriage endured as a lasting human institution through the political attempts of the 19th Century polygamists, so, too, will heterosexual marriage persevere through the 21st Century assaults of the same-sex marriage proponents. And the reason heterosexual marriage will endure is that it is a fundamental reality of humankind rooted in biological union.
Against this plain reality, an alternate definition is being proposed by Meredith, namely, that marriage does not mean anything except what society decides for itself that marriage means. Any attempt to establish marriage as inherently meaningful is so unreasonable that it could only come from religion. If it comes from religion, then it must be dismissed because there can be no religious influence in matters of state control. [I might be misunderstanding Meredith’s argument here, but this is the way I read it]. Therefore, marriage can only be given the definition of a social construct: Whatever society decides is right.
Against this, I would say that the ancient Sumerians weren’t “religious” if by religious we mean from a Judeo-Christian worldview. Nevertheless, they recognized the value for society of the marriage between a man and a woman. The Sumerians did not invent or define marriage, they recognized it as an inherent, biologically-based reality of the human condition. To make it something less is to make marriage meaningless. The notion that marriage is nothing more than what society decides is not pragmatically workable.
If this were the case, then marriage might just as well mean that 2 sisters living in an apartment together could call themselves married and, thus, enjoy the societal benefits of being married. Why not? What could possibly prevent these 2 consenting adults from being married? Why should society discriminate against them just because they never found a man or another woman outside of their own family? Why are these 2 sisters an acceptable target for the narrow-minded bigotry of restricting marriage to hetero/homosexual marriage?
Just as easily as society deems two men to be legally, contractually married, so, too, could society deem three men to be so or four men and two women. Why not allow families to define themselves instead of having government define families? Thus, the Manson Family would be every bit as legitimate as my family according to this definition. Or else, on what basis would society exclude [discriminate against?] these adults wanting to enjoy the benefits of marriage? On what basis would you exclude an adult daughter from marrying her father, especially after her mother passed away? Could a woman enjoy the benefits of being married to her dog? On what basis would that be excluded? If marriage is self-defined, then its definition would have a limitless range. In short, if marriage has no inherent meaning, then it has no meaning at all.
Viewing marriage as a mere social construct is untenable. I suspect that Meredith and others would not care if the definitions changed and morphed into any number of carnal contortions. Yet, that fact does not mean they don’t care about the definition of marriage. In fact, if marriage were a mere social construct, then there would be no effort from gay activists to redefine it.
Consider it this way: To all who would like to argue for the right of the state to define marriage anyway the state (or the majority of society) wishes it to be, I have this simple question for you to answer. Why are you unwilling to accept the definition the states (majority of society) have already embraced? About 60 % of the United States have constitutional amendments defining marriage exclusively between a man and a woman. The question is already settled. The states have defined marriage in the exact way they want it defined. Why seek to overturn this definition? On what grounds? You cannot answer that question without recourse to higher reality. You believe in the inherent value of things apart from social constructs, you just don’t want to admit it.
Wow. Air-tight. Thanks for this!
“Why seek to overturn this definition? ”
Because marriage, in the united states, exists as a state-sponsored contract that confers benefits on a couple. These benefits are given based on the implication that this couple will share their finances and live together, not on whether or not they will be having children or any other reason.
Given that, there is no good reason to differentiate between a heterosexual and homosexual couple as it relates to this state-sponsored contract.
You may view it as unfortunate that this contract has a name which you seem to prefer to remain only about heterosexuals, but that’s just the way it is.
You can choose to not view these homosexual marriages as ‘valid’, personally. You just can’t do it legally.
My response. It’s long, so I posted a blog instead of a comment.
So you’re still going on about gay marriage? …. Then I will ask the same question that you previously ignored, “How does homosexual marriage harm, or adversely affect you in way whatsoever?”
Your Brain Is God,
I am not sure what you mean by “still going on about” gay marriage. I did express my opinion about it right after the New York law changed, but. I haven’t said anything about it lately. I also haven’t changed my mind, mostly because I haven’t heard anything to sway my opinion. There is a good deal of emotion, but not a lot of reason—a good deal of heat, but very little light.
Take this response of yours, for instance: “How does homosexual marriage harm, or adversely affect you in [any] way whatsoever?” I didn’t answer the question because I believe it is not germane to the discussion. If I were to answer that homosexual marriage does not harm me, then is that supposed to eradicate my opinion, as though if it does not affect me personally, then I should not speak to the issue? The folly of that argument is easy to see by my simply saying the same thing to you in response. How does heterosexual marriage harm or adversely affect you in any way whatsoever?
Your question seems to be predicated upon the presupposition of a radical subjectivism which asserts that one can only speak from the disposition of emotivism. In other words, the question is based on the notion that subjective participation is a necessary condition for expressing an opinion, but that kind of assumption is fallacious. It would mean, for example, that no non-Christian could voice an opinion about whether prayers should be offered publicly in Jesus’s name. Or, that kind of assumption would say that legislation concerning the military could only be discussed by those in the military; or laws concerning debts and deficits can only be discussed by those who are bankers or economists.
Heterosexual marriage does not harm you; yet, you feel free to call for its abolition. On what ground? Most likely, the ground upon which you are making the appeal is that of “fairness” or “equality” or “civil rights.” (That is what you said in your earlier response). The notion of civil rights runs counter to your assumption that one should be personally injured by a law before gaining the credibility to speak for (or against) it. The appeal to fairness or equality is an appeal to an ideal outside of and beyond the individual, thus running counter to your implied thesis. Thus, the question about personal injury is, I think, irrelevant—and self-refuting.
Gay marriage does not harm me in a direct and personal way. However, I believe it does great damage to society at large by imposing an alternative view of gender, marriage, and humanity. Gay marriage seeks to redefine these fundamental aspects of reality into an alternate (and untrue) version of reality in which male and female are no longer recognized as dual aspects of a unified humanity. As one who cares about humanity, I believe that I am entitled—and even obligated—to speak on behalf of others even if I am not impacted adversely at the individual level.
Good. It’s nice to hear that gay marriage doesn’t hurt you. I was only curious to hear if you were going to make a monetary or scriptural argument. and was prepared to offer counter-arguments to both. Since you offer neither, and prefer to fall back on the tired rhetoric about societal damage and ‘what comes next, marrying goats?’ – please feel free to object to your heart’s content.
But, surely you realize that your opinion that gay marriage ‘does damage to society’ is outdated and is not what the constituents of many states (hint, the non-red ones) believe. We should, in all fairness, allow the States to decide for themselves. This is a democracy after all, right?
You can rest easy Doc. You’re nice and safe Georgia… You won’t have gay marriage in your big red state for a very very long time, if ever. And the subversive homosexuals won’ be knocking on your door anytime soon to convert you children to be Gay. Nor will many people – anywhere – be lobbying to be able to legally marry their goat, dog, cat or horse (sheep? – maybe, but only in New Zealand). Marrying an animal is flat-out weird, and socially unacceptable and everyone knows it. But marrying another human being who you love and to whom you are willing to commit isn’t weird, at least not in my eyes, nor in the eyes of many Americans.
That said, I will admit that as a person with several ‘very gay’ friends, I’m deeply offended by your comments against gay marriage. You have every right to make those comments, but I will say that I find them to be narrow-minded and bordering on bigoted. You’re clearly an intelligent guy, Doc. I very much hope that one day you have an awakening and you realize that you’ve been speaking unjustly against your fellow man.
I think you should try getting used to the idea of gay marriage in America. There’s a tidal wave of acceptance coming. Count on it. Of that I am 100% sure. New York is the tip of the iceberg in the good old USA.