J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Hi all,
I’ve read many defenses of the traditional understanding of marriage and some great arguments why same-sex marriage is a non-reality, but I was musing the other day and thought of something I’d never heard discussed.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage isn’t simply a creation ex-nihilo but the expansion of the current concept and social reality of “marriage” to include a homosexual dimension. Furthermore, it doesn’t simply mean social recognition of a relationship but the government making official a particular relationship, uniting the two before the state and society. Yet what is the point of such legalisation?
Some suggestions:
(i) Social recognition of our love - you hear this a fair bit, and it is probably what many same-sex couples want: the state to officially recognise their loving relationship so that it is somehow “on par” with heterosexual ones. But I find this a very strange thing to legislate on. After all, boyfriends and girlfriends don’t need their relationships rubber stamped by the government, nor do de facto couples, or best friends. So, I don’t think this makes sense. If it did, you’d be essentially saying that unless the government legalises something and approves it publicly, it cannot be real or true, which wouldn’t say much for religious faiths!
(ii) Social recognition of our commitment - this has the same kind of problem. Aren’t boyfriends and girlfriends committed to each other? Oh, but we mean a life-long commitment. Well, this can’t be right either. As long as divorce is legal, it presumes that marriage is in itself not a life-long commitment, since one can get divorced. So, I don’t think this makes sense.
(iii) It’s about property and its regulation - now, I think this has an element of truth, in that inheritances and so forth are more easily passed on to those to whom one is married. But, I don’t think this can be the primary legalised social function of marriage. After all, other property relationships and laws to regulate them exist (in civil unions, for instance, or “next of kin” relationships), and we don’t consider these marriages. Moreover, one does not have to enter into a “marriage” with someone solely to leave property to them.
I think it’s helpful to look at what we consider “moral” in marriage to come to a better understanding. For instance, why do we consider incestuous marriages immoral, or polygamous ones questionably moral? It isn’t because of property issues. Rather, because marriage has a sexual component: it involves sexual relations. The danger, then, for society, is not just that incestuous or polygamous marriages can harm the adults involved, but that problems can arise with the children born from them. Likewise, if we look at other marriage forms, which some of us might not consider “true” marriages, such as arranged marriages or those resulting from diplomatic negotiations among the nobility, the important factor always seems to be, not the adults, but the children, the heirs of the marriage.
We can, I believe, see that the fundamental purpose of the government legalising and socially recognising a sexual relationship between adults as “marriage” is to help in the regulation of children. One presumes that a child belongs to his or her parents. And how do we know who they are? Because they are married to one another. Now, obviously, this is not always the case, but it is most of the time. Therefore, the government can target particular adults with responsibility for the child, and marriage is an integral social institution for doing this.
However, same-sex marriage is infertile - there can be no children. Consequently, I don’t see what the point of the government legalising or socially recognising such marriages is. Its akin to the government legalising “the liking of chocolate” or, more pertinently for many, “the revulsion to brussel sprouts”.
Thoughts?
I’ve read many defenses of the traditional understanding of marriage and some great arguments why same-sex marriage is a non-reality, but I was musing the other day and thought of something I’d never heard discussed.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage isn’t simply a creation ex-nihilo but the expansion of the current concept and social reality of “marriage” to include a homosexual dimension. Furthermore, it doesn’t simply mean social recognition of a relationship but the government making official a particular relationship, uniting the two before the state and society. Yet what is the point of such legalisation?
Some suggestions:
(i) Social recognition of our love - you hear this a fair bit, and it is probably what many same-sex couples want: the state to officially recognise their loving relationship so that it is somehow “on par” with heterosexual ones. But I find this a very strange thing to legislate on. After all, boyfriends and girlfriends don’t need their relationships rubber stamped by the government, nor do de facto couples, or best friends. So, I don’t think this makes sense. If it did, you’d be essentially saying that unless the government legalises something and approves it publicly, it cannot be real or true, which wouldn’t say much for religious faiths!
(ii) Social recognition of our commitment - this has the same kind of problem. Aren’t boyfriends and girlfriends committed to each other? Oh, but we mean a life-long commitment. Well, this can’t be right either. As long as divorce is legal, it presumes that marriage is in itself not a life-long commitment, since one can get divorced. So, I don’t think this makes sense.
(iii) It’s about property and its regulation - now, I think this has an element of truth, in that inheritances and so forth are more easily passed on to those to whom one is married. But, I don’t think this can be the primary legalised social function of marriage. After all, other property relationships and laws to regulate them exist (in civil unions, for instance, or “next of kin” relationships), and we don’t consider these marriages. Moreover, one does not have to enter into a “marriage” with someone solely to leave property to them.
I think it’s helpful to look at what we consider “moral” in marriage to come to a better understanding. For instance, why do we consider incestuous marriages immoral, or polygamous ones questionably moral? It isn’t because of property issues. Rather, because marriage has a sexual component: it involves sexual relations. The danger, then, for society, is not just that incestuous or polygamous marriages can harm the adults involved, but that problems can arise with the children born from them. Likewise, if we look at other marriage forms, which some of us might not consider “true” marriages, such as arranged marriages or those resulting from diplomatic negotiations among the nobility, the important factor always seems to be, not the adults, but the children, the heirs of the marriage.
We can, I believe, see that the fundamental purpose of the government legalising and socially recognising a sexual relationship between adults as “marriage” is to help in the regulation of children. One presumes that a child belongs to his or her parents. And how do we know who they are? Because they are married to one another. Now, obviously, this is not always the case, but it is most of the time. Therefore, the government can target particular adults with responsibility for the child, and marriage is an integral social institution for doing this.
However, same-sex marriage is infertile - there can be no children. Consequently, I don’t see what the point of the government legalising or socially recognising such marriages is. Its akin to the government legalising “the liking of chocolate” or, more pertinently for many, “the revulsion to brussel sprouts”.
Thoughts?
He was willing to sacrifice all for “love”! Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn - they were happy together, which is what matters most, right?
) what I found. There are still many who prefer the “old school” way of being gay, with pleasure and possible promiscuity as the preferred way. I’ve also heard that the pressure in society to legalize “gay marriage” is often coming more from liberal politically-correct sympathizers as a pet cause than as a unified movement of all gay persons.