Amazon.com Widgets

 

Devra Torres

Some Arguments Against Gay Marriage, and Why They Won’t Work

Dec. 22 at 9:11am

What is it about our understanding of matrimony that makes the arguments for "marriage equality" seem so plausible to so many?

If we, as a society, still believed marriage was essentially about lifelong fidelity and children, and somebody proposed that a same-sex relationship be regarded as one sort of marriage, it would seem implausible, even unthinkable.  After all, such unions are inevitably infertile and notoriously impermanent and non-exclusive.

But we've already downgraded "traditional" marriage to a (usually) long-term relationship between two people who “have feelings for each other.” 

Children are an optional accessory which may be acquired the old-fashioned way or by any number of alternative methods.

In this context, calling same-sex unions “marriage” doesn’t seem so implausible at all.  Like anybody else, people who experience same-sex attraction may have feelings of attachment, may or may not wish to commit to lifelong fidelity, and may or may not desire children. 

Long before “gay marriage” entered anybody’s lexicon, the understanding of matrimony had been revolutionized as to fidelity and procreation.

First, fidelity: Divorce, especially the no-fault kind, was mainstreamed long ago.  People began implicitly or explicitly vowing to stay together “as long as we both shall love.”  Permanent fidelity became an aspiration, not an essential.  It was never dumped outright, just downgraded to an “ideal.” 

I think the vast majority of brides and grooms on their wedding day do hope and even expect to stay married for life.  But they don’t really make an unconditional commitment to do so, and they know that such a commitment would never stand up in court.  A marriage contract is the least legally binding of agreements.

Second, as to children, a vague sense that marriage isn’t complete without them does remain.  Spouses who can’t or don’t wish to have any report being pressured and prodded to do so,  But viewing the begetting and education of offspring as essential to marriage was kicked out of the mainstream long, long ago.   

The idea had been that children--the visible, incarnate expression of a couple's love--should enjoy a stable home and be raised by two people committed to each other (see first point) and to them. 

Of course it didn’t always work out that way: death and separation sometimes intervened, though the sheer quantity of breakups and ensuing radical instability is something very new. 

Still, the common understanding was that children are one of the two things that marriage is for

(Much might be said, of course, about the respective weight of the unitive and procreative dimensions of marriage.  I don’t propose to address the evolution of Catholic teaching on whether procreation is the “primary” end; rather, I’m noting the disappearance in the wider culture of the idea that marriage is essentially ordered to procreation at all.)

When you've come to see matrimony as an institution essentially about neither fidelity nor procreation, you’re liable to be at a loss when presented with the case for “marriage equality.”  Opponents of calling same-sex unions “marriage” talk about the dangers of “redefining” marriage.  But that redefinition already happened decades ago: if it hadn’t, this further step would never have gained traction.

We’ve redefined procreation, too.  Proponents of traditional marriage point out that same-sex couples cannot beget children.  But the prevalence of infertility, IVF, artificial insemination, surrogacy, and blended families with stepchildren and half-siblings has clouded the issue. Begetting a child is seen as just one way of acquiring the legal title of parent to a person with whom you may or may not have any biological connection.  "Privileging" biological procreation is seen as denigrating families constituted in other ways.

Even these permutations of procreation are something of a moot point, though.  Since children, however conceived, are already viewed as an optional accessory of marriage, what sense does it make to say that two men can’t get married just because they can’t procreate with one another?  What does that have to do with anything?

Proponents of traditional marriage often point out the very high incidence of gay promiscuity.  Uncontested statistics about its extent are hard to come by, but no one disputes that monogamy is the exception, not the rule.      

Whatever the scale of the difference, “traditional” marriage is no longer viewed as being essentially about fidelity.  So what sense does it make to say that, because their average number of "partners" is higher, gay people can’t marry each other?

They argue that they’re as qualified as anyone else to enter into a long-term relationship with someone they have feelings for, and they have a point.  What they propose is not so much a redefinition of marriage as a next logical step.


 

Sapperdepitjes

Matrimony stems from latin "matris munus", the mother's or maternity's function, service, office, duty, chore, berth, post, appointment, place, vocation, show, bounty (Google translate): an institution of natural law, to assure the attachment of the father to his offspring's mother, so that they together would feed, clothe, shelter, protect and educate this offspring, which needs two decades to reach adulthood...

Should we invent a new word for the traditional concept of mariage, with lifelong fidelity and open to conceive children "the old fashioned way", to differentiate it from the modern redefined interpretation? Would the ideologues of this world have any objections?

#1 - Dec. 22 at 12:46pm | quote

 

Katie van Schaijik

Sapperdepitjes, Dec. 22 at 1:46pm

Should we invent a new word for the traditional concept of mariage, with lifelong fidelity and open to conceive children "the old fashioned way", to differentiate it from the modern redefined interpretation? Would the ideologues of this world have any objections?

Yes, I think they would.  Because, underneath, their aim is the abolition of marriage.

It's the differentiation they find offensive.

#2 - Dec. 22 at 1:01pm | quote

 

Katie van Schaijik

Devra, I agree that there's been a progression.  I think it started before no-fault divorce, with birth control.  It's the defiance of the "given" and natural in preference for the "willed."

I agree that the decades-long erosion of the marriage culture has brought us to this terrible point, when (for instance) teenagers raised in solid Catholic families can't see anything wrong with "gay marriage."

But I also think the legalization of SSM a much worse evil than no fault divorce.  There's at least a case to be made that it's not for the government, but for the couple to sustain their vows.  

But to use the force of law to declare that there is no difference between marriage and SS liaisons is so direct an assault on God, on natural law and on the nature of man, that it's hard to see recovering.

#3 - Dec. 22 at 1:07pm | quote

 

Sapperdepitjes

Katie van Schaijik, Dec. 22 at 2:01pm

Sapperdepitjes, Dec. 22 at 1:46pm

Should we invent a new word for the traditional concept of mariage, with lifelong fidelity and open to conceive children "the old fashioned way", to differentiate it from the modern redefined interpretation? Would the ideologues of this world have any objections?

Yes, I think they would.  Because, underneath, their aim is the abolition of marriage.

It's the differentiation they find offensive.

 That reminds me of the French counterrevolutionary "Responsabilité, Différence, Paternité"...

#4 - Dec. 22 at 5:32pm | quote

Devra Torres

There have been attempts (in the American South, I believe) to create a two-tier system, so that people who want to enter a "covenant marriage" involving real commitment can do so and those who wish to choose a breakable, civil contract can, too.  George Weigel has recently suggested that the Church get out of the civil marriage business altogether.  Matthew Schmitz discusses that and canon lawyer Ed Peters' response here.  I'm not sure how that would work.

I was certainly not attempting to minimize the gravity of disregarding gender in marriage--not saying that "gay marriage" is a lesser evil than no-fault divorce or any other stage of the slippery slope.  I meant that we lose the power to convince if we call relationships eviscerated of permanence, fidelity, and fruitfulness "marriage" but then try to draw the line at two men or two women "marrying." 

#5 - Dec. 23 at 11:13pm | quote

 

To comment, please sign in or register first. (It's free and easy, and helps us prevent spam.)

 

Stay informed

Reading circles

Lectures

Latest comments

  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: bookworm1116
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Samwise
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Samwise
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Samwise
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Searching for community
  • By: Samwise

Latest active posts