Admittedly this is something of a sardonic post, since I don’t think anybody actively wants to bar them from marriage. But it’s been my experience that often the problem with a concept can be identified by turning it around to “face the other way,” so to speak.
So – two of the most common arguments used against SSM are that it somehow destroys what marriage means and damages the fabric of society.
Well, marriage is, at rock bottom, the socially-approved union of two people who love each other and wish to commit themselves to each other, permitting them to make such a commitment with lifelong intent. The conservative evangelical Christians add to this concept several other items, such as intent to procreate and intent to regularize their sexual desires in the view of a God who frowns on sex outside marriage. In other words, every ceC marriage is something of a shotgun wedding, with the Heavenly Father holding the shotgun.
Fundamental to the fabric of American society is a willingness to protect one’s own rights by being willing to guarantee them to others – a freedom to do as one lists, within the bounds of laws aimed at protecting individuals from the hurtful acts of other individuals, being key to American ideas of liberty. To permit ceC couples to marry and inculcate their views on their offspring is to enable them to spread the idea that legality is defined by God’s moral code, and not by those guarantees of freedom by the American peopel to each other.
Therefore, one can utilize the anti-SSM arguments to justify prohibiting conservative evangelical Christians from marrying.
Granted this proposition is somewhat less than serious, it’s a case of argument reversal, which I believe to be a valid way of examining the validity of arguments. If the shoe is on the other foot, does it pinch? is a valid question to raise in such contexts, IMHO.
Sardonic or not, Polycarp, I think you’ve hit the bull’s-eye as to the illogic of arguing that same-sex marriage must be prevented because it threatens traditional marriage (I’ve spouted about this elsewhere and will spare you the prose; I’ll say merely that I have no idea by what strange force this would be accomplished and I don’t think anyone else does either).
Essentially you’re saying that for an argument to be valid it must hold true even if the opposing parties were to switch positions (there’s a Latin phrase for this but I’ve forgotten it). And of course same-sex marriages have demonstrably more to fear from the traditionalists, who are self-avowedly seeking to prevent and destroy SSMs through legislation, litigation and economic means (say, the boycott of Disney over offering insurance benefits to same-sex couples). I’m not sure that this test would itself be valid in every instance, but it has a Rawlsian-justice flavor that I like.
I’m all for you, but I think that logic and fairness aren’t going to persuade anyone who isn’t already open-minded enough to reach the same conclusions anyway. One would infer that superstition and paranoia evince a capacity for such abstract thought, but experience tells me this is not necessarily so.
Happy New Year, Polycarp. I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, whether I agreed or not. Here’s to a 2005 full of whatever it is we want it to be full of.
That, however, is exactly the argument the anti-SSM crowd uses: the moral justification is that “they” will be “destroying marriage”.
And come to think of it, ceC want to destroy marriage, based on their non-state-sanctioned marriages, their many instances of wedded hypocrisy, and ironically enough their opposition to SSM, which would DENY the recognition of marriage to many.
It’s a pretty equivalent argument at its root. I don’t think many ceC are all that concerned with only denying marriage based on action.
Actually, since you and I’ve both seen promiscuity among the reasons used to deny same-sex marriage, you might want to throw in the high divorce rates in the so-called Bible Belt. For that matter, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act has been married three times. I think a parallel could be made here; it could hardly be less tenuous than some of the arguments made against same-sex marriage.
There should be a three-strikes marriage law. Anyone who has been divorced three or more times is a habitual destroyer of the sanctity of marriage, and should never be allowed to marry again.
Sorry – I see your point, but how about if we interpose the word Legally at the beginning of my definition.
Marriage is, or can be, much, much more than what I defined it as – but what people can bring to the table beyond the basics is not the stuff of definition – I set forth a minimalist definition that covers two atheists, two Hindus, two twentysomething secular individuals who don’t think much about the religions they were born in, two committed Catholics, two Southern Baptists, two Jews, or one from any category of the above and one from any other.
As probably need not be pointed out to someone who’s been around as long as you have, an unsupported opinion has no business in Great Debates. I’m willing to believe that my OP is in error – if you care to prove it, logically or evidentially, to me. What you’re “pretty sure” of, as regards my thinking, has no validity to anyone but yourself – including those who might agree with your line of thought, if you bothered to say it.
No need. I think you’ve made a difficult argument for yourself to support. Rather unusual for you and I don’t think it is a coincidence that your OP was posted on New Years Eve.
Like?
I can’t see how that changes anything significantly wrt to your argument . As I said before, The definition still seems to more aptly pertain to civil union which I know doesn’t help your case.
Don’t forget the muslims !
Of course it is a minamalist definition to exclude stuff that is contrary to your agenda.
Marriage originally was a contract between a man and any woman or women he could support. That’s been whittled down somewhat to a definition like yours except between a man and a woman. The most recent change to marriage is that the woman no longer must swear to obey the man. ( one wonders if this change never occured how that would affect the gay marriage debate). That is basically where our society is right now. Your argument is based on the next change to the definition as you postulated.
Think about it. If your marriage definition and argument holds, conservative evangelical Christians by their own logic should not be allowed to marry. Is it any wonder then that they want an amendment to the constitution protecting the current definition.
If find it amusing, and quite sad, that Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation yet fundamentalists are screaming about how gay marriages will break down families. The highest rates of divorce in the nation are from red states!
Perhaps they should take the beam out of their own eyes, before they try to remove the specks from others.
Why three? Last time I checked, when you get married, you promise not to part until death. If you’ve broken that even once, who’s to say you won’t do it again? I admit it seems harsh, but I could go for a one-strike marriage law. It would, of course, apply to SSM as well. It would be interesting to see a nationwide divorce rate among gay couples.
Perhaps those denominations which deny the sanctity of marriage rites to others should themselves be denied the privilege. They would then have a choice of joining a less judgmental fellowship of Christians, abstaining from sexual relations, or “living in sin.”
I’m reasonably certain that these devoted Christians are practicing the Golden Rule. And if they are doing unto others as they would have others do unto them, then we must assume that they truly want some restraints imposed upon their ability to marry.
Blalron, since these people do not use logic, using it on them is just as fruitless. I mean, come on, they believe that god hates gays, yet he created them! Well that sounds real smart. Jack and Jill can engage in some good ole butt sex, but if Jack and Jim do the same, they’re going to hell. Without even a shred of consistency or logic, debating SSM with a fundie is utterly pointless.
Blalron, the same study that showed this also demonstrated that the rate of cohabitation in the Northeast, including Massachusetts, was far greater. We know too, from other studies, that the average cohabitation is only two years, and the divorce rate among people who cohabitate before marriage is a good bit more.
This isn’t a strong marriage indicator either, to say the least.
It seems it would be wise not to ascribe more virtue to Massachusetts than to the “red” states. I happen to think the institution of marriage is a troubled one, and I’ve not been anywhere in America that would indicate to me that a particular locality has beaten this problem.
I’m calling bullshit on that one. I’ll definitely need a cite before I believe that people who have never lived together before marrying are “a good bit” more likely to stay married.
I mean, since divorce rates are substantially higher in Bible Belt states, and we wouldn’t want kids having to endure the eomtional damage of growing up in broken homes, I think it’s only reasonable that we Norplant them all!
