Gay marriage

[Bobby Digital]

I posted this in response to another topic, but that topic seems to be dying, so I'm creating a new one, because I spent a while on this and I want to discuss this issue. This was in response to "BOSSMAN" but it's not really directed at him.

I realize this is a touchy subject; I want to answer your question "Why would two gay people marrying effect your marriage or the institution of marriage?" by articulating the conservative argument against gay marriage in a form that is rarely presented on these boards--elements of this argument surface from time to time here, but I've never seen the case itself stated in it's entirety. I don't necessarily agree with it to the extent that conservatives do; after I articulate it I will indicate the extent to which I agree with it's concerns, so please take that to be my stance rather than what follows here:

Genuine conservatives value social institutions that are benificial to society. They believe that marriage is such an institution. Furthermore, they believe that the original function of marriage for a man and a woman to dedicate themselves to concieving and raising children. They further assert that the original purpose of marriage law--that is, the state's recognition and sanctioning of a marriage--was to encourage this process. They see healthy society as built on a foundation of this marriage and family system, and they see gay marriage as a threat to this social arrangement--but why?

To understand why, you have to see gay marriage in the context of a larger objection that they hold towards the way that society's perception of the value of sexual relations has changed in recent years. What they object to is the growing idea that sex itself is primarily about pleasure and not about creating children. With this comes the notion that marriage is about LOVE rather than FAMILY. In other words, marriage is now recognized as a commitment between two adults as an expression of their love for each other, rather than as an expression of their dedication to create and raise a family. Certainly, the existence of love is necessary for a good and effective marriage; what is being objected to here is the collective loss of the second sense of marriage, which is, according to the conservative argument, the main reason marriage exists as a state sanctioned institution in the first place. Now, every argument FOR gay marriage naturally hinges on the idea that certain homosexual couples love each other and thus deserve the same state sactioned acceptance of that love, and all the rights that come with it, as heterosexual couples. Thus the case for gay marriage presupposes love as the foundation and purpose of marriage, and by doing so undermines society's perception of the real purpose of marriage--the dedication to raising children. Thus the arguments for gay marriage constantly reinforce an idea that conservatives believe is destructive to society: that sexual relationships are about love and pleasure, rather than creating a family.

Conservatives see the degredation of marriage as at the heart of many social problems, which is probably why liberals have a hard time understanding the seriousness that conservatives place on this issue. For liberals tend to see social problems as stemming from existing, broad power structures more than from individual, systemic causes. I think that this is one of the main reasons that liberals and conservatives tend to disagree on so much--but this is another issue for another time.

Now for my take on all of this: I think that the conservative concerns about the social consequences of gay marriage are real and should be taken into account, but at the same time I think that fairness demands that the requests of homosexuals for a state sanctioned recognition of their partnership (with all the rights that come with it) should be met. How this is accomplished legally is not something I am familiar with so I'll leave those details for others. I only ask that they do three things to appease the conservatives:
(1) Express your understanding of the fact that heterosexual marriage is a different thing with a different purpose, and that you understand and respect that purpose.
(2) Stop calling it marriage. Ask for "civil unions," or whatever, but please don't call it marriage. The name of something has a lot to do with how a society perceives that thing, and by calling something else by that name you may change the nature of the thing itself--you may not believe this but at least respect it. It is a trivial point for you and of great importance to many others.
(3) Stop making the argument that people oppose gay marriage out of bigotry. This may be true in some cases, or for all I know most cases, but it is an unfair claim to place on those who do not oppose gay marriage for that reason. If you continue to see this as the sole reason for the opposition to gay marriage, then the issue will never be resolved.

For those homosexuals who want gay marriage to exist for the purpose of adopting and raising their own children, obviously everything that is said above does not apply so well, and this must be discussed seperately.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. File this under: "Oh please"!

>>(2) Stop calling it marriage. Ask for "civil unions," or whatever, but please don't call it marriage. The name of something has a lot to do with how a society perceives that thing, and by calling something else by that name you may change the nature of the thing itself--you may not believe this but at least respect it. It is a trivial point for you and of great importance to many others.<<


So we can't call it a 'marriage', huh? Shall we also step to back of the bus?

[Moderator]

2. Locking.

From the DU rules:
Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member.

I'm going to lock this now. Please feel free to repost in compliance with DU rules.