Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[Robert_in_SD]

And history will show you also that marriage has been redefined multiple times across the centuries.

Would you please provide some specifics? I’d like to see what events you are referring to here.

Rohzek:

It was not even considered a sacrament until the 12th century in the Latin West.

Again, could you provide some authority for this assertion?

Rohzek:

For the most part it was considered a simple contract. While many began to seek the blessing of their local priest, clerical involvement was never necessary to validate a marriage. It was merely validated by the couple’s vows, and nothing more.

In Catholic understanding, it is the man and woman who convey the sacrament to one another. The priest is a witness for the Church. But again, if you could provide some authority for this assertion, it would be appreciated.

Rohzek:

In light of this evidence, you would be hard pressed to tell anyone that they should not redefine marriage to suit their own needs.

You haven’t authenticated any of this “evidence” nor have you shown how changes in form are akin to a complete redefinition. Is there any evidence that marriage was somehow constrained by Christianity to be “limited” to man and woman?

Rohzek:

It would be akin to telling women a century ago, “Hey, never in human history have women voted before. Therefore, you should not push to have the right to vote.” It is a ridiculous form of logic to propose.

Your analogy is incorrect. The redefinition of marriage is not just an expansion of existing rights. It is the act of changing an institution on a fundamental level, and to a destructive degree, in order to broaden it’s application. A better analogy is to say that never in human history has there been a female “father” so let’s broaden the definition of “father” to also include female parents. The redefinition of the word “father” made in a misguided attempt to make women feel better about single parenting, perhaps (?) renders the unique institution of fatherhood meaningless. It also misleads people (both male and female) into thinking there is no difference between fatherhood and motherhood, when we know the presence of the father in the home has a profound impact on the child.*

*See:

• David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensable for the Good of Children, (New York, The Free Press, 1997)

• Paul Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,” in The Future of Children, “Marriage and Child Wellbeing,” Volume 15, Number 2, Fall 2005, (Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton and The Brookings Institution)

• Katherine Reissman and Naomi Gerstel, “Marital Dissolution and Health: Do Males or Females Have Greater Risk?” Social Science and Medicine 20 (1985): 627-635

• George A. Akerlof, “Men Without Children,” The Economic Journal 108 (1998) 287-309

• Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405

• Kyle D. Pruett, Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, (New York: The Free Press, 2000)

• David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, (New York: Basic Books, 1994)

• Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994)

• Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584

• Scott Coltrane, “Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988) p. 1088

• Richard Koestner, et al., “The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717

• E. Mavis Hetherington, “Effects of Father Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters,” Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313 –326

• Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31

• Sara L. McLanahan, “Life Without Father: What Happens to Children?” Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper #01-21. Princeton University, August 15, 2001

• Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, “Paternal Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 375-384

• Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, “Single Motherhood and Children’s Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52;

• L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992

• Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000)

• Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (1993):91-103.

• Chris Wilson and Andrew Oswald, “How Does Marriage Affect Physical and Psychological Health? A Survey of the Longitudinal Evidence,” currently unpublished paper from the University of Warwick, May 2005, p. 13. (paper accessed at www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/healthlong2005.pdf)

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

it is NOT a sin for gays to get married. divorce causes more damage than homosexuals getting married ever has.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I believe that should be ‘minority’. And those who specifically express an opinion against it is just 40%. Far from a majority I’d say.

Polls can be misleading. The majority of voters passed Proposition 8 in CA. Majorities also passed laws and constitutional amendments in the States. While I would concede that expressions of support are on the rise, I don’t think its fair to say that the scales have tipped decidedly in one direction yet.

Bradski:

The future is in the hands of the coming generations. And I think we can all see which direction the graph on that link is heading.

The same could have been said about abortion rights in the 1980s, but we can see that the numbers did not continue to climb. They are still pretty evenly divided. Perhaps it will take a few decades of living with “gay marriage” before the tide begins to ebb.

Peace,
Robert

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

and no the church isn’t too accepting of gays. if they were, they’d let them practice their version of marriage according to how they saw it. if we let muslims practice humanely slaughtering animals, why not let gays get married? it won’t harm people. i’m thinking of leaving the church because they’re not built on logic and the many scientific studies that have shown that gay marriages don’t hurt people. the only reason you think it hurts people is because you’ve never seen it happen and you’re too scared of new things.

 

[Rohzek]

Would you please provide some specifics? I’d like to see what events you are referring to here.

Again, could you provide some authority for this assertion?

In Catholic understanding, it is the man and woman who convey the sacrament to one another. The priest is a witness for the Church. But again, if you could provide some authority for this assertion, it would be appreciated.

You haven’t authenticated any of this “evidence” nor have you shown how changes in form are akin to a complete redefinition. Is there any evidence that marriage was somehow constrained by Christianity to be “limited” to man and woman?

Your analogy is incorrect. The redefinition of marriage is not just an expansion of existing rights. It is the act of changing an institution on a fundamental level, and to a destructive degree, in order to broaden it’s application. A better analogy is to say that never in human history has there been a female “father” so let’s broaden the definition of “father” to also include female parents. The redefinition of the word “father” made in a misguided attempt to make women feel better about single parenting, perhaps (?) renders the unique institution of fatherhood meaningless. It also misleads people (both male and female) into thinking there is no difference between fatherhood and motherhood, when we know the presence of the father in the home has a profound impact on the child.*

I do not believe my analogy to be incorrect. Gays do not want to change the meaning of father or mother. They simply do not see a problem with having two of one.

As for your question about authentication see:

d’Avray, D. L. Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

That would be a great place to start, but the historiography on medieval marriage is enormous. This book covers the whole Middle Ages though, so it should be sufficient. The idea of sacramentality of marriage does not develop until around the 12th century.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

so marriage was never a sacrament to begin with? wow, i’m starting to think we thought jesus’ “upon this rock i will build my church” thing wrong. it wasn’t what jesus said, it was us. remember that peter denied jesus three times.

 

[Rau]

it is NOT a sin for gays to get married. divorce causes more damage than homosexuals getting married ever has.

How do you feel about a couple of men participating in a sexual relationship with each other?

 

[Rohzek]

so marriage was never a sacrament to begin with? wow, i’m starting to think we thought jesus’ “upon this rock i will build my church” thing wrong. it wasn’t what jesus said, it was us. remember that peter denied jesus three times.

That is a bit radical in all honesty. The idea of the hypostatic union wasn’t developed until the fifth century. Still, that doesn’t make the belief in the doctrine any less valid or true in the metaphysical sense.

My argument merely is that the social understanding of marriage has changed in pretty significant ways over time. Therefore, if some communities want to redefine marriage, I am not one to stop them. But that does not require me or anyone else to surrender their own ideas of sacramentality, etc. on marriage whatsoever.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I do not believe my analogy to be incorrect. Gays do not want to change the meaning of father or mother. They simply do not see a problem with having two of one.

As for your question about authentication see:

d’Avray, D. L. Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

That would be a great place to start, but the historiography on medieval marriage is enormous. This book covers the whole Middle Ages though, so it should be sufficient. The idea of sacramentality of marriage does not develop until around the 12th century.

At no time in history (aside from the present) is marriage ever seen as the Union of two members of the same sex. The claim of the present day is novel and contrary to the historical reason behind the institution. Voting had nothing to do with gender. It is an act of participation in the political process. Marriage is fundamentally about binding children to their biological parents. Your analogy is weak. Your dismissal of my analogy is ridiculous. I’m making an analogy about how changing the definition of an institution can rob the institution of its meaning. That’s exactly what’s happening with marriage. I’m aware of the fact that gays don’t want to redefine the term father. But as a practical matter that will be the result.

 

[Rohzek]

At no time in history (aside from the present) is marriage ever seen as the Union of two members of the same sex. The claim of the present day is novel and contrary to the historical reason behind the institution. Voting had nothing to do with gender. It is an act of participation in the political process. Marriage is fundamentally about binding children to their biological parents. Your analogy is weak. Your dismissal of my analogy is ridiculous. I’m making an analogy about how changing the definition of an institution can rob the institution of its meaning. That’s exactly what’s happening with marriage. I’m aware of the fact that gays don’t want to redefine the term father. But as a practical matter that will be the result.

It doesn’t matter what marriage was defined as in the past. What matters is that you can’t hide behind “oh, well tradition says this and has never changed, so you can’t change it.” Tradition has changed, just as women’s place in society has changed. And if people want to push the change to include same-sex couples, then that is their right to associate in that way.

Marriage is not for many people about binding children to their biological parents. Have you not heard of adoption? Or DINKs (dual income no kids)? Your meanings are completely personal and not universal throughout society.

 

[Rau]

It doesn’t matter what marriage was defined as in the past. What matters is that you can’t hide behind “oh, well tradition says this and has never changed, so you can’t change it.” Tradition has changed, just as women’s place in society has changed. And if people want to push the change to include same-sex couples, then that is their right to associate in that way.

Marriage is not for many people about binding children to their biological parents. Have you not heard of adoption? Or DINKs (dual income no kids)? Your meanings are completely personal and not universal throughout society.

That marriage is sexual, and that the sexes are complementary, ought to give a hint as to the nature of “marriage”.

Two men wishing to form a single household are free to do so. Should they believe their circumstance warrants State endorsement and support, they should make that case, rather than asserting they are eligible for marriage.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

That marriage is sexual, and that the sexes are complementary, ought to give a hint as to the nature of “marriage”.

Two men wishing to form a single household are free to do so. Should they believe their circumstance warrants State endorsement and support, they should make that case, rather than asserting they are eligible for marriage.

That would hardly be possible considering the fact that the vast majority of amendments to state constitutions outlawed not only marriage for same sex couples, but also any recognition of any type of civil union or domestic partnership. Gay people had no choice but to fight for gay marriage. How could they fight for access to an institution that didn’t even exist, and had been pre-emptively outlawed by those who did not want to see gay couples granted any legal rights. The Catholic Church supported these amendments that basically closed the door to any legal recognition.

 

[Rau]

That would hardly be possible considering the fact that the vast majority of amendments to state constitutions outlawed not only marriage for same sex couples, but also any recognition of any type of civil union or domestic partnership. Gay people had no choice but to fight for gay marriage. How could they fight for access to an institution that didn’t even exist, and had been pre-emptively outlawed by those who did not want to see gay couples granted any legal rights. The Catholic Church supported these amendments that basically closed the door to any legal recognition.

Your comments may be US-Specific.

Civil Unions were also understood to be sexual unions, wherein lies their flaw. They sought to be marriage-equivalents!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It doesn’t matter what marriage was defined as in the past. What matters is that you can’t hide behind “oh, well tradition says this and has never changed, so you can’t change it.” Tradition has changed, just as women’s place in society has changed. And if people want to push the change to include same-sex couples, then that is their right to associate in that way.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality. If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question.

So too with the definition of marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Gay people had no choice but to fight for gay marriage.

Actually gay people could have very easily introduced and supported legislation that would have granted all marital rights and benefits to those in civil unions.

But that is not the reason gay activists want the institution of marriage to be redefined is it?

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Nowhere did I mean to imply that I was in favor of gay sex; I’m not. Nor am I necessarily for gay marriage, I’m not. But get real and see that the gay agenda has a powerful force backing it. Same-sex marriage will become an acceptable norm worldwide.

You are right in saying there is a powerful force behind the gay rights agenda: it is the devil. We invoke the name of Jesus and the devil will flee. We don’t acquiesce and try to ‘minimize’ the devil’s effects on the human race. Sexual sin is wrong and proclaiming it as such is what we are all called to do, including you. You are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe that one concession is all the devil is looking for and then the problem will just disappear. This type of reasoning is what allowed evil to flourish when it has been perpetrated on the world in the past. We love all people and we pray for their eternal salvation. We cannot encourage behaviors that violate the dignity of the human person.

 

[Rohzek]

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality. If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question.

So too with the definition of marriage.

You have a very warped conception of what the state is. The state is an idea, not a concrete entity. Once you lose the 19th and early 20th century trappings of Weberian thinking, then none of what you just said will make much sense at all.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You have a very warped conception of what the state is. The state is an idea, not a concrete entity. Once you lose the 19th and early 20th century trappings of Weberian thinking, then none of what you just said will make much sense at all.

Now that is an interesting concept. Today being “Tax Day” in the U.S.A… I ask myself why am I writing a check to an “IDEA”?

Will an “idea” put me in jail if I don’t write a check?

I think I will stick with Max Weber…you can stay with Marx.

 

[Rohzek]

Now that is an interesting concept. Today being “Tax Day” in the U.S.A… I ask myself why am I writing a check to an “IDEA”?

Will an “idea” put me in jail if I don’t write a check?

I think I will stick with Max Weber…you can stay with Marx.

Well, actually Marx was quite vague as to whether or not the state was a concrete entity, although certain portions could certainly be read that way. Most Marxists actually do read Marx that way. So I find it ironic you label me a Marxist.

Actually, I am more in line with Philip Abrams, who wrote a wonderful article titled “Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State (1977).” His main targets for criticism were, in fact, the Marxists. The abstract reads:

“The state is not the reality which stands behind the mask of political practice. It is itself the mask which prevents our seeing political practice as it is. There is a state-system: a palpable nexus of practice and institutional structure centered in government and more or less extensive, unified and dominant in any given society. There is, too, a state-idea, projected, purveyed and variously believed in different societies at different times. We are only making difficulties for ourselves in supposing that we have also to study the state - an entity, agen,t function or relation over and above the state-system and the state-idea. The state comes into being as a stucturation within political practice: it starts its life as an implicit construct; it is then reified - as the res publica, the public reification, no less - and acquires an over symbolic identity progressively divorced from practice as an illusory account of practice. The ideological function is extended to a point where conservatives and radicals alike believe that their practice is not directed at each other but at the state; the world of illusion prevails. The task of the sociologist is to demystify; and in this context that means attending to the senses in which the state does not exist rather than to those in which it does.” - Journal of Historical Sociology 1, no. 1 (March 1988): 58-89.

As for your tax example, no you are not writing a check to an idea. You are writing a check to a group of people far away (depending on your location) who would use force to punish you if you did not. Those group of people adhere to a certain conception or idea as to how society can or should function. They demand that you submit them cash, but not your ideas. The same goes with marriage. When the government states that it will now given equal status to same-sex couples, they are not demanding you yourself change your ideas. Rather, they are simply stating that their contract of association will be given the same tax benefit.

You might have a problem with the moral arguments that the activists put forward that demand that gay marriage be equally moral. You don’t have to accept those. But those arguments are not inextricably linked to recognizing their legal contracts.

 

[nodito]

As for your tax example, no you are not writing a check to an idea. You are writing a check to a group of people far away (depending on your location) who would use force to punish you if you did not. Those group of people adhere to a certain conception or idea as to how society can or should function.

I would call that group the state.