No, they’re not. Any “church or whatever socially authoritative institution you want to look at” is free to solemnize anything they want and call it a marriage. What they don’t have control over and are not subject to is what the government defines as legal marriage.
Perhaps we want to fix our culture how it is now, and stop the dynamism of the past. Perhaps there is special significance to marriage. Perhaps there are social benefits.
I offer you the inverse question: why should marriage be forced to change just because other traditions in the past have? Do we make social policy decisions based on frequency of occurrence of related events ?
If the term marriage has a meaning that makes it worth “protecting” from gays then it has a meaning that makes it worth gays wanting to have it.
And?
I have no problem recognizing that the word marriage has had a change in meaning, based on the fact that homosexual unions have been extraordinarily rare in history and have never been a standard legal phenomenon in any society.
I have no problem recognizing that marriage was recognized, pretty much exclusively, as a situation that addresses child rearing in earlier times. However, with the wide use of chemical contraceptives and the growing availability of IVF and other practices that permit pregnancies without sexual coupling, society had already changed its views regarding what marriage meant even before the issue of same sex marriage arose. The notion of couples marrying with no intention to have children or couples who were unable to conceive their own children finding ways, (even beyond adoption), to have and raise children were already established in society before the same sex marriage became a serious concern.
If someone want marriage to not be “watered down,” they need to get a time machine and prevent the creation of the Pill and IVF. Those changes to marriage are fifty and thirty years old and trying to jam a current meaning for marriage into an earlier definition of marriage is already a lost cause.
Because gay people are entitled to the same rights and equal treatment that straight people are entitled to.
And perhaps my turkey sandwich can sing the Star Spangled Banner. If I want it to open the World Series, people are gonna ask for evidence.
Likewise: if you want us to take your proposal seriously, you’re gonna need to offer specifics. What social benefits adhere to preventing my friends from getting married? Please be specific.
“Just because”? It shouldn’t. That’s not offered as a reason for change. It’s offered to rebut the idea that tradition is, by itself, a reason to prevent change. Why should marriage be forced to change? Because the traditional laws surrounding marriage were discriminatory with concrete harmful consequences for many people.
I agree, the church is not a policymaker anymore. The government is. I think this point is where the argument against gay marriage is defeated.
Read Left Hand of Dorkness’ post above (the one about the family with two kids) to see the damage than can be done under the guise of fixing in place society.
There is historical documented abuse when people don’t have protections, such as the protections of marriage. Having those protections in place harms no one. Not a single existing marriage is harmed by extending the umbrella to include any two consenting adults. I think society should never be fixed in place and continue to evolve to be more protective of the individual than less so.
Thank goodness there weren’t people making the argument you’re making when woman had no vote or ability to own property etc. I have benefited from the evolution of society in thousands of ways, why should I be stingy to others who need society to evolve a bit further?
Marriage became irredeemable “watered down” when divorce lost its social stigma and became legally easy.
Your response ignores the second part of my question: forced to change just because other traditions in the past have?
Oh, okay. Thread solved, then. I don’t care what the churches do, just that citizens get equal treatment under the law.
Uh, it’ snot “just because”. It’s because of documented harm this tradition has caused. The burden of proof is on the argument of why it should stay the same “just because”, when changing harms nothing and staying the same harms many people.
Millions of people want this to occur. What’s your answer to why they shouldn’t?
I’m sure you have some evidence to support your case of continued progressivism. And I respect that. But your position also seems to be supported by opinion and dare I say emotion from the last paragraph.
A woman stands before you; please explain to the court why a man can marry her, but another woman can’t. You wish to forbid them from getting a “marriage”, saying they can get a “civil union” which is, for all practical intents and purposes, identical: it grants the same benefits and drawbacks and ramifications and et cetera – but you want that word to be off-limits to those people; name your rational basis.
I can tell you why a ten-year-old should be banned from marrying her. I can’t tell you why a black guy should be banned from marrying her. You want to ban a woman? You’d better have a good enough reason, or the court better strike down that law.
What is kind of amusing about this question is that I have heard (from Dan Savage, and I never bothered to verify his accuracy though I have no reason to doubt it) that gays fought for civil unions for years. The movement began in the seventies IIRC, but the same folks that are fighting against same sex marriage now basically crushed the movement however they could. This led to the movement and legal fight for marriage equality that we now. In summary, the civil union ship has sailed, and the christening was done by anti-same sex marriage fundamentalists. So, in a way, they made their bed and are now sleeping in it.
Someone made the argument that almost all traditions in the past have changed over time, so why not religion. I countered that policy shouldn’t change for that reason alone on one social issue because it has changed on other social issues. Your response to this point argues on the basis of harm, not “policy peer pressure”
“Dare you say emotion?” Like that’s a bad thing? Of course this has an emotional component- when people are discriminated against and judged as being less worthy of the rights the majority has it should make people outraged. People should stand from the rooftops and shout to be heard with passion and determination.
Cold, calculating discrimination is far more frightening.
Who is trying to change religion? Religions will change or stay the same as their adherents push for. They can do what they want. The government is not in the religion business and never was intended to be.
I’m not sure you’re in a position to use “emotion” as an argument point, if you’re going to describe marriage as being forced to change. “Marriage” is not a person or physical object - it can’t be “forced” to do anything.
IMfez, step back and think about this for a minute. Do you really, genuinely, believe anyone is asking for this change just because they’re bored with the current state of marriage, that they think it’s time for a change? Do you think these same people are gonna say, “Yeah, birth certificates have been for humans long enough, let’s make them be for house plants now, just so we can mix things up”? Do you think anyone is arguing, “Private property is so twentieth century, let’s make ownership rotate annually according to lottery”? Do we have people saying, “I’m tired of the private ballot, change the laws so all your votes are cast via weather balloon”?
You’re arguing against an insane straw man. NOBODY IS SAYING MARRIAGE SHOULD CHANGE MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.
It’s a good challenge. I’m sure I could find some study that shows children grow up healthier – health defined by modern social conventions – when raised by a man and woman. Funding for the study may be provided by far-right organizations.
I think a stronger point would run back to social policy. I don’t think you’d argue that woman should be able to marry a washing machine. There’s no legal harm, but there may be social harm. I’m sorry, I don’t have the studies on hand to back this point up.