How the so-called "same-sex marriage" debate compares to Freud's personality theory

[livingwordunity]

The emotional arguments of the ones who want so-called “same-sex marriage” can be compared to what Freud called the “id”. And the moral arguments we Catholics use can be compared to what Freud called the “superego”. What Freud saw in personality traits we can also see in the larger picture of societal moral struggle which we as Catholics know is rooted in original sin.

In the Freudian view, human personality consists of three components the id, ego and superego. According to Freud,

• The id operates on the pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants to feel good all the time and not feel badly, without regard for anything or anyone else; loosely speaking, “if it feels good, do it.” The only concern for the id is that its needs get met to its satisfaction.

• The ego operates on the reality principle. The ego understands that the needs and desires of others also have to be met and dealt with. The role of the ego is to meet the id’s needs with the bounds of practicality and the consideration of others.

• The superego operates on the ideal principle. It is the moral part of us and arises from moral and ethical considerations placed on us by our parents and society; loosely speaking it’s our conscience. In a normal person, the ego is constantly working and negotiating to simultaneously satisfy the needs of the id and the superego within the bounds of practicality. The ego and superego have access to the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. The id is confined to the unconscious.

The conflicts between the id, ego and superego occur in the unconscious mind and are the result of the work in reconciling sexual, aggressive and other morally or socially unacceptable impulses of the id. Because the conflicts exist in the unconscious mind they are inaccessible to the person and to a therapist. However, the conflicts sometimes bubble through to the surface via slips of the tongue, dreams, jokes, anxiety and what Freud termed as Ego Defense Mechanisms. These are used by the ego to reduce the conflict between the id and superego serve a useful protective function, but they usually involve a degree of self-deception and distortion of reality. Ego defense mechanisms are usually learned during early childhood help the ego deal with inner the inner unconscious conflicts between the id and superego. These defenses include denial (barring an anxiety provoking external stimulus from awareness), repression (barring an anxiety provoking internal stimulus from awareness), projection (placing unacceptable thoughts or impulses in yourself onto someone else), displacement, (taking out impulses on a safer substitute), sublimation (channeling unacceptable impulses in a socially acceptable way), reaction formation (converting the unacceptable impulse into its opposite), rationalization, (supplying a logical or rational excuse for a shortcoming), regression (returning to a previous more childish stage of development). Of these, only sublimation is viewed as a healthy outlet. Source

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

None of those terms are useful in the context of the politics of same sex marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

None of those terms are useful in the context of the politics of same sex marriage.

Instead of basically saying “you’re wrong” which is like an emotional response, can you tell me what part of what I said is not true and give me some kind of logical and factual reasoning why?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Instead of basically saying “you’re wrong” which is like an emotional response, can you tell me what part of what I said is not true and give me some kind of logical and factual reasoning why?

This one:
" The superego operates on the ideal principle. It is the moral part of us and arises from moral and ethical considerations placed on us by our parents and society; loosely speaking it’s our conscience…"

Have you listened to the arguments from those who support same sex marriage but who are not themselves gay? They frequently argue from their “ideals”, falsely believing this is about “love” and “equality”. They usually know and love someone who is gay, and they want what they think is “the best” for that person–and they mistakenly believe that the opportunity for a state sanctioned homosexual relationship would be best for society. They point our past sins of discrimination–and they seem to think they’re involved in some kind of “new civils right” movement. They are very much driven by their consciences–but their consciences have been malformed by a society that sins have already alterered the nature of marriage through contraception, divorce, single motherhood and IVF. Try telling them that marriage has anything to do with the production of children and that children deserve both a mother and father–and a confused look will cross their faces.

And also this one:

• The id operates on the pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants to feel good all the time and not feel badly, without regard for anything or anyone else…

I hate to have to say it, but not everyone who argues for traditional marriage comes across as having the best interest of society at heart. Some of us come across mean and judgemental, like we get our kicks out of thinking we’re better than other sinners. Yep, we all have sins, but sometimes people seem as if they feel better about themselves by pointing to others who have different sins. Since homosexuality is a sin that few people feel inclined to act on, some point to that sin to feel better about themselves.

No friendly fire intended. The other side of this marriage debate wins hearts and minds of many heterosexuals specifically because they invoke the “superego”. If all we can come up with sounds like “It’s a sin!”, we won’t win this debate. We’re all sinners–and sins of the past and present generations have caught up to us. Racial discrimination and unkind remarks towards homosexuals, combined with contraception, divorce, and a host of heterosexual sins–created this firestorm. We need great holiness, prayer and fasting to help us overcome it…

 

[livingwordunity]

I hate to have to say it, but not everyone who argues for traditional marriage comes across as having the best interest of society at heart. Some of us come across mean and judgemental, like we get our kicks out of thinking we’re better than other sinners.

There are some bad ones who argue for traditional marriage. But I would say if we look at the actual substance of the arguments on both sides, the side that wants “gay marriage” typically uses an emotional appeal in one form or another. For example, on the TV show GLEE, the show starts out with a fantastic and emotional singing performance. They get you get you in a sentimental emotional mood, then for the rest of the show they are promoting “gay marriage” and using appeals to emotion. And I would say that trying to bring up things like slavery, which has nothing to do with their situation, is an emotional appeal. They want people to feel sorry for them. Accusing us who disagree with them of being mean is another appeal to emotion. They want people to feel like those who disagree with them are mean ogres. In both cases, logic is not needed and is shunned. What the ones who want to change the definition of marriage are basically saying is “I want it because I want it” which to me compares with “the id”.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Instead of basically saying “you’re wrong” which is like an emotional response, can you tell me what part of what I said is not true and give me some kind of logical and factual reasoning why?

For the id you’d be conceding sex is a need which it isn’t and is incompatible with Catholicism, the superego presumes God is man made and operates without the concept of natural law.

I’ve met many people argue against gay marriage withe emotions and fallacies. There are people who argue for gay marriage rationally, but their definitions are off.

 

[livingwordunity]

For the id you’d be conceding sex is a need which it isn’t and is incompatible with Catholicism

The id isn’t about need its about gratification of “the pleasure principle”. It’s hedonistic, like so-called “same-sex marriage”.

The id operates on the pleasure principle. In other words, the id wants to feel good all the time and not feel badly, without regard for anything or anyone else; loosely speaking, “if it feels good, do it.” The only concern for the id is that its needs get met to its satisfaction.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There are some bad ones who argue for traditional marriage. But I would say if we look at the actual substance of the arguments on both sides, the side that wants “gay marriage” typically uses an emotional appeal in one form or another. For example, on the TV show GLEE, the show starts out with a fantastic and emotional singing performance. They get you get you in a sentimental emotional mood, then for the rest of the show they are promoting “gay marriage” and using appeals to emotion. And I would say that trying to bring up things like slavery, which has nothing to do with their situation, is an emotional appeal. They want people to feel sorry for them. Accusing us who disagree with them of being mean is another appeal to emotion. They want people to feel like those who disagree with them are mean ogres. In both cases, logic is not needed and is shunned. What the ones who want to change the definition of marriage are basically saying is “I want it because I want it” which to me compares with “the id”.

The “id” as you and Freud call it, may be moving some who push it one others, but if it stopped there, they’d only get maybe 1-2% of the population to go for that idea. They aren’t simply appealing to the emotions, (although they do plenty of that.) They are appealing to the logic of marriage in our culture–which misunderstands marriage and thinks its only about romantic love between adults, divorced from “openness to life” and somewhat divorced from the production and raising of children. If marriage is only about romantic love between two consenting adults, then they can create a logical argument from that perspective. (Of course, then we can come back with a logical arguement about how it opens the door to polygamy and incest. Some will listen; others may dismiss it because they don’t see that the magic number"2" in marriage relates to parenting–ie mother and father-- and that the prohibitions against incest isn’t just about the “icky factor” but about the genetic diseases that can come up when close relatives marry–because marriage relates to the production of children. But that’s long winded and they have to be willing to hear it out. We’ve got a culture with attention problems, so we need to come up with something quick and to the point before their minds go off to commercial break. As you can see from the length of my response, I don’t have that quick, pithy response down yet.)

So… we have a large segment of the population that thinks marriage is only about romance and love. And somehow they know there may be some type of financial benefits, but they don’t know exactly why society established benefits for the surviving spouses except it somehow relates to marriage. And they see two people who love each other, who may be in relationships that have lasted longer than many heterosexual marriages, (see divorce rates) and they wonder why we don’t allow two homosexuals to marry each other because they see two adults with romantic feelings for each other, and they think that’s all marriage is. It’s logical. They don’t understand marriage in the first place. Set aside divorce rates and simply look at the annulment rate in our culture. You will see that many who go through a Church wedding didn’t have a good understanding of marriage. Our culture is not raising people to understand marriage–and this is one of the possible logical conclusions of a culture that does not understand marriage.

 

[livingwordunity]

The “id” as you and Freud call it, may be moving some who push it one others, but if it stopped there, they’d only get maybe 1-2% of the population to go for that idea. They aren’t simply appealing to the emotions, (although they do plenty of that.) They are appealing to the logic of marriage in our culture–which misunderstands marriage and thinks its only about romantic love between adults, divorced from “openness to life” and somewhat divorced from the production and raising of children. If marriage is only about romantic love between two consenting adults, then they can create a logical argument from that perspective. (Of course, then we can come back with a logical arguement about how it opens the door to incest polygamy and incest. Some will listen; others may dismiss it because they don’t see that the magic number"2" in marriage relates to parenting–ie mother and father-- and that the prohibitions against incest isn’t just about the “icky factor” but about the genetic diseases that can come up when close relatives marry–because marriage relates to the production of children. But that’s long winded and they have to be willing to hear it out. We’ve got a culture with attention problems, so we need to come up with something quick and to the point before their minds go off to commercial break. As you can see from the length of my response, I don’t have that quick, pithy response down yet.)

So… we have a large segment of the population that thinks marriage is only about romance and love. And somehow they know there may be some type of financial benefits, but they don’t know exactly why society established benefits for the surviving spouses except it somehow relates to marriage. And they see two people who love each other, who may be in relationships that have lasted longer than many heterosexual marriages, (see divorce rates) and they wonder why we don’t allow two homosexuals to marry each other because they see two adults with romantic feelings for each other, and they think that’s all marriage is. It’s logical. They don’t understand marriage in the first place. Set aside divorce rates and simply look at the annulment rate in our culture. You will see that many who go through a Church wedding didn’t have a good understanding of marriage. Our culture is not raising people to understand marriage–and this is one of the logical conclusions of a culture that does not understand marriage.

Thank you for that very thoughtful response. But I would say that the kind of “logic” the “same-sex marriage” side uses is a type of emotional logic because the appeal to pop culture logic is still an appeal to how people feel and mostly ignores objective realities such as proportional statistics which show that legalizing “same-sex marriage” won’t do anything to eliminate their misery.

 

[KEP1983]

The emotional arguments of the ones who want so-called “same-sex marriage” can be compared to what Freud called the “id”. And the moral arguments we Catholics use can be compared to what Freud called the “superego”. What Freud saw in personality traits we can also see in the larger picture of societal moral struggle which we as Catholics know is rooted in original sin.

Totally agree with you livingwordunity. The gay marriage argument is about hedonism vs agape love.

Individuals may use emotional or rational arguments on both sides; but the actual philosophical basis that each sides stems from is hedonism vs agape love.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Totally agree with you livingwordunity. The gay marriage argument is about hedonism vs agape love.

Individuals may use emotional or rational arguments on both sides; but the actual philosophical basis that each sides stems from is hedonism vs agape love.

I’d say a confusion more like a confusion between eros vs. agape, with some “motherly love” on “philia” love thrown in. Basically, it’s a misunderstanding of what love is and what type of love(s) marriage involves. Seriously, I’ve heard the other side chanting “Love is love.” They don’t get it. They don’t recognize that there is more to marriage than just loving the other person. I do believe that some gay partners may love each other apart from simply eros/sexual love. They may very well sincerely love and care for the other person in ways that go beyond sexual love. Love is an emotion. It is also an action. Marital love involves actions that can be reproductive by their very nature–actions that transform people into mother and father. But in a society that accepts various unethical reproductive technologies and contraception and divorce and sex outside marriage, we have a much harder time explaining how homosexual unions can never be marriage. The idea that marriage and love involve sacrifice is lost on a culture that sacrifices children on the altars Planned Parenthood because sex and marriage and babies seemingly have nothing to do with each other. Yes, we are called to Agape love–but it’s really, really hard to explain Agape love to those who have never felt it. We have to show it to them. Thus, those who wish to defend marriage best must become saints and radiate Agape love to those around them.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… Thus, those who wish to defend marriage best must become saints and radiate Agape love to those around them.

I just wanted to add, that I threw in a whole bunch of things that contributed to our society getting to this point but we won’t win the debate if we can’t phrase it in a way that appeals to those who aren’t yet saints. Over 96% of the population falls between the two extremes of the 1-2% homosexuals and the <1-2% saints. The middle ground debates homosexual unions too. We don’t have to win the extremist on the other side to win the current debate. Win the middle ground and we win the current marriage debate.

 

[livingwordunity]

I just wanted to add, that I threw in a whole bunch of things that contributed to our society getting to this point but we won’t win the debate if we can’t phrase it in a way that appeals to those who aren’t yet saints. Over 96% of the population falls between the two extremes of the 1-2% homosexuals and the <1-2% saints. The middle ground debates homosexual unions too. We don’t have to win the extremist on the other side to win the current debate. Win the middle ground and we win the current marriage debate.

In our pop culture, emotion always trumps logic. That’s why we are losing in this culture war. Marriage became a joke to people in our culture, and now this is just another step. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but when people base everything on feelings nothing has to make any sense. All the logical reasoned arguments against so-called “same-sex marriage”, all the proportional statistics, get deflected with emotional appeals and straw man arguments.

 

[gardenswithkids]

In our pop culture, emotion always trumps logic. That’s why we are losing in this culture war. Marriage became a joke to people in our culture, and now this is just another step. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but when people base everything on feelings nothing has to make any sense. All the logical reasoned arguments against so-called “same-sex marriage”, all the proportional statistics, get deflected with emotional appeals and straw man arguments.

If you are going to insult people by saying things like “In our pop culture, emotion always trumps logic” you** will** lose this debate. It does not sound like you are being respectful of people on the other side or those in the middle. These are people in our culture. Learn how to work within our current culture to transform it.

Have you ever studied formal logic? From a book called Traditional Logic, “An argument is valid when its conclusion follows logically from its premises…An argument can contain true premises and still be invalid. Likewise, it can be perfectly valid, (or logical, if you prefer) and contain false premise. But if an argument is sound, its premieses must be true and it must be valid.” The other side* can be logical*, but they base their arguements on false premises.

But…it sounds like you might be afraid to appeal to other people’s emotions. If you think that emotional arguements will win this debate, remember that we can use emotional arguments too. We don’t have to sound like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. Go ahead, and make an emotional appeal to people if you think that’s what’s going to win the debate. Maybe we should better learn how to work within the “pop culture” to win this debate. And in the very least, we shouldn’t insult other people just because they happen to be wrong.

Look at what you wrote in your second post : *

*Instead of basically saying “you’re wrong” which is like an emotional response, can you tell me what part of what I said is not true and give me some kind of logical and factual reasoning why? *

You don’t want to simply read, “You’re wrong.” I don’t blame you, but you went on to ask for someone to explain the logic instead of the emotion–and I’m guessing that’s because you’re a person who tends more towards logical thinking. You want people to talk to you the way you think. Okay. Do the same for others–address them in the way in which they prefer to think!

Don’t be afraid to learn how to present this from an emotional point of view, but don’t dismiss the fact that some people on the otherside do use logic. They use logic when it helps them win, and they use emotion when it helps them win. We can do the same–but we have to do it with charity and love, otherwise we lose far more than the marriage debate.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

The emotional arguments of the ones who want so-called “same-sex marriage” can be compared to what Freud called the “id”. And the moral arguments we Catholics use can be compared to what Freud called the “superego”. What Freud saw in personality traits we can also see in the larger picture of societal moral struggle which we as Catholics know is rooted in original sin.

You are basically saying that all arguments for same-sex marriage are based off of emotion and pleasure, and all arguments against it are rational.

Two points: First, these are in themselves empirical claims that are easily disproven. All you need to do is talk to chaste Catholics who are homosexual and they will tell you that there are plenty of emotional and irrational Catholics who support Church teaching from what comes off as bigoted premises.

On the flip-side, there are plenty of LGBTQ activists who use rational arguments in support of same-sex marriage. Obviously in these examples the Catholics are right and the activists are wrong on their positions, but their motivations are quite different than what you seem to imply.

Next, even assuming that what you are arguing is true, what use is it to bring in Freudian terms?