Over the years, as I have watched my brothers and male friends get married, I have observed how that institution changes them. Men who once enjoyed frequenting bars and “cruising chicks” focused on developing strong relationships with their wives. In short, marriage transformed these men. It seemed that their wives’ feminine qualities helped tame their masculine impulses.
One of the objections I have raised to calling same-sex unions “marriage” is that I see a different dynamic in such unions as I do in opposite sex relationships. To be sure, I have witnessed numerous gay couples settle into the same patterns as their straight peers. While it seems more common for lesbians to adapt to the responsibilities of relationship, such unions have also had a transformative effect on many gay men as well — even without a woman’s presence.
If we’re to be serious about marriage, we must recognize its transformative power. By meeting the obligations of this ancient institution, including (and especially) fidelity to our partner, it serves to bring out qualities in us that had long lain dormant — as well as deepen, make more intimate, our connection to our spouse.
One of the reasons, I have referred to Andrew Sullivans’s 1989 essay, “Here Comes the Groom” as “one of the few serious pieces on gay marriage” is that in that short piece (short for the topic at hand), he outlines the responsibilities of that marriage “places . . . upon gays” and references the social benefits of marriage.
But, given some of Andrew’s comments in the past year on fidelity and circumcision, I have begun to wonder if he’s serious about marriage. In a post last May, he held that an “Momogamy (sic) is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don’t mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable.” (Via Ann Althouse via Instapundit.) Yes, monogamy is hard for men. As we enter into marriage, we must recognize that and, as I wrote when first commenting on Andrew’s remarks, “must strive, do everything in our power to live up to the monogamous ideal.” At the time, I wasn’t quite sure “what to make of Andrew’s remarks.”
Looking back on them, I wonder at Andrew’s failure to make clear that monogamy is an essential aspect of marriage. If he were really serious about marriage, I believe, he would stress that while monogamy is difficult, the very institution exists to discourage infidelity. And those who marry must bear that in mind not merely at the moment of their betrothal, but also for as long as the union lasts.
It’s not merely Andrew’s apparent tolerance for infidelity that has made me question his commitment to marriage. As The Malcontent‘s Matt noted last summer, Andrew became obsessed with circumcision which he called Male Genital Mutilation.” Andrew’s grievance is that circumcision “lessens sensitivity and therefore sexual pleasure.”
This focus on increasing the physical sensation of sexuality seems odd for one so keen to promote gay marriage. And this has not been the only time Andrew has written about his sex life. In marriage, sex more than anything becomes a pleasurable way of expressing intimacy. (At least that’s what some of my friends in monogamous relationships have told me.) The physicality of it becomes part of the emotional connection. And thus, the lessened sensitivity of an uncircumcised penis matters little. For the emotional connection alone intensifies the sexual act.
In his writings — and media appearances — Andrew Sullivan has made many compelling arguments in favor of gay marriage. Indeed, I believe that his 1989 essay has, in many ways, come to define the current debate on gay marriage — and in a good way. But, marriage is about more than a clever argument. And Andrew’s comments in the past year have caused me to question his commitment to his own expressed ideas on this his “pet” issue.
Marriage is an ancient institution with certain responsibilities, responsibilities which, I believe, benefit those who accept them. Those who support gay marriage need make clear that while it is not always easy to meet the institution’s obligations, they must strive, do all they can, to do so. And should note as well that in marriage, the pleasure of sexuality is enhanced not by certain physical stimuli, but by the emotional connection between the two individuals.
-B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
Outstanding post. Simply outstanding.
Dan,
This is what should be used as the blueprint the gay community presents as why society should accept gay marriage.
btw, what happened to Andrew – if only he had kept on writing like that!!!
Marriage does tame / transform men. And that is part of why it’s good, both societally and personally.
And many gay men don’t want to be tamed / transformed. Many want to remain wild sexual animals (some even calling themselves “pigs”), free to indulge whenever.
I suspect that Andrew is one for whom the taming / transformation sounded good in theory – in 1989 – but eighteen years later, we know he just couldn’t bring himself to live it out.
Does that invalidate the case he made in 1989? No. But it does undermine his credibility as a gay-marriage advocate. Those straights who are good-hearted but skeptical need to see gay men who are actually willing to be limited, tamed and transformed by the prospect of marriage – i.e., willing to de-emphasize sex.
BTW: Monogamy doesn’t have to be hard for men. Monogamy is hard for men who operate, to begin with, in a mental and moral framework that SAYS it should be hard, they secretly should be able to indulge themselves sexually at any time, etc.
Men have the ability to go on hunger strikes and starve themselves, if they want; that means they can permanently stop any other bodily-driven behavior they may want to. See here: http://rational.org/
Now, I know some just won’t want to hear any of that. Let the flames commence.
I agree that the focus on circumcision is quixotic, but while I completely agree that sexuality flows from emotional ties and commitment, I don’t really see a conlfict between erotic pleasure (and a desire for enhanced erotic pleasure) and committed relationships or marriage. So I guess I don’t see his admittedly strange focus on the circumcision issue as undermining his stance on marriage at all.
Now, I do disagree with what Sullivan said about monogamy. While I agree with him that many men (straight and gay) struggle with realizing monogamy, the fact of that struggle is no basis at all for suggesting a relaxation of the expectations and standards for married life and committed relationships. I’m a stickler on monogamy. To me, it provides the critical basis for committed relationships, and it isn’t optional. That doesn’t mean that when people make mistakes that they should be automatically trashed and disposed of … but the standard shouldn’t be changed simply because people struggle to meet or sometimes fail to do so.
I totally agree with you. Me and mine have been together for ten years. I have been tempted at times as I’m sure he has but i know when i made a committment i forsore to forsake all others. Unfortunately running around like a two bit slut is the excepted and expected norm by most gays in my experience, Yeah we all have a crazy period but growing up and settling down is not stressed in our community. MOst gays it appears want the right to marry but not the respponsibilities and duties that come with it.
Excellent posting, GPW, especially as a follow-up to the posting on the necessity of a discussion about gay marriage that was posted earlier in the week. This is the sort of rational argument in favor of gay marriage that we need to see more of. Thanks for posting it.
Just because something is hard doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.
And I think what a person thinks of marriage has a lot to do with their view of monogamy.
If a person views marriage as the door to government goodies, or a way to access various civil benefits given to married couples, the issue of monogamy probably isn’t that important. They are after marriage for the name and legal stuff.
If a person views marriage as an institution-one that is designed to emphasize commitment to each other before God (or some other spiritual significance), which is expressed through monogomy and perseverance, then they want the institution and what it means for the relationship.
I think somewhere in the debate these two purposes get confused, while they do often come together, they aren’t the same thing.
The reality is that my husband and I expect monogamy from each other, and I can’t think of a person off hand that doesn’t have that expectation from marriage (although there are some among hetersexuals that don’t expect it, or are willing to put up with it for some other benefit the marriage provides them).
Humans aren’t perfect, and some people are going to struggle more than others, but I think that commitment and the expectation of monogamy is a huge part of the institution of marriage. Heterosexuals don’t always meet this standard, but the vast majority of them desire and expect it, when they marry.
GPW, I have to disagree with you on this very first part.
Over the years, as I have watched my brothers and male friends get married, I have observed how that institution changes them. Men who once enjoyed frequenting bars and “cruising chicks” focused on developing strong relationships with their wives. In short, marriage transformed these men. It seemed that their wives’ feminine qualities helped tame their masculine impulses.
I don’t think it is fairly said that the institution of marriage is what changes, tames or transforms men.
What I think is fairly said is that marriage is merely the outgrowth of a promise already made to channel one’s romantic and sexual desires exclusively towards one person — and the willingness to carry out that promise and all that it entails until “death do us part”. In exchange for that promise, society grants benefits that enhance said promise, such as a one-stop process for health and financial powers of attorney and legal recognition of the children that would likely be produced.
If the legal act of marriage is truly what transformed men, there would be no divorces as a result of infidelity. Furthermore, there are far too many stories of women (or men) who futilely thought that marriage would “calm their spouse down”, only to find out that a ring on the finger did nothing to engender faithfulness in action.
I think it is important to stress that, because so much of gay leftist rhetoric is that gays will behave ourselves if you give us marriage. Straight people have far more experience in the matter and know full well that marriage has nothing to do with making one faithful, nor is it required to be monogamous.
Strict monogamy? So CERTAINLY you can’t be a fan of Rudy Giuliani then…. He and Donna know discretion…you can bet on that.
Monogamy is not and has never been the “essential” aspect of marriage. Especially considering that for the majority of the history of marriage polygamy has been the norm.
You can have a perfectly monogamous marriage that is also a perfectly miserable failure as a marriage.
The traditional essential aspect of marriage has not been whether both parties can keep it in their pants. It has been the blessing of God upon the promise, the commitment that is made when the “two become one-flesh”.
I’m sorry to disillusion you Dan, but you are sounding more like a teenage girl from the 50’s that thinks that Marriage is this magic wand thats going to just make everything perfect in her life. Its like you are more in love with the idea of getting married than in actually being married. Are you going to marry the captain of the football team and then retire, like the Joni Mitchell song? With a bouffant hair-do to match?
If you are married Dan, and you or your partner stray, that does not end the marriage on the spot. Does “What God has put together, let no man put asunder.” ring a bell? If your partner is unfaithful, and you decide to leave him then you are also being unfaithful. To him, and to the promise you made, in the presence of God, before your family and friends, for better or for worse, till death do you part. It is that promise you have made, that sacred commitment to one another, that is the foundation of a marriage. If you don’t understand this, (and a lot of people don’t), then don’t get married.
I don’t know how many long-term gay couples you know, but listen, I had two friends, I’ll call them Mark and Steve to protect their privacy. I watched as one, then both of them became sick with AIDS in the late 80’s. I watched the tender care that they gave to each other in their last days. Were they sexually monogamous? By mutual agreement, no. Were they utterly, completely devoted to one another? Absolutely. I remember being in such utter awe around them of just how much they loved each other. They could turn the simplest of actions, like one asking the other if they wanted some coffee in the morning into just the most loving and caring gesture you had ever seen.
You would be damn lucky to know the kind of love that they shared Dan. You have no business getting your nose in a twitch and looking down upon their kind of marriage because it didn’t adhere to your particular flavor of sexual mores. They had a “serious” marriage Dan, more serious than I think you can comprehend at this point. Go back to the drawing board and think again.
Gryph, there is a reason for sexual monogamy in relationships, and I can explain it very simply; had your two friends done so, they likely would not have died of AIDS.
Why?
Because if you are only sleeping with one person, you can only get what that one person has, and if the two of you are not sleeping with anyone else, the likelihood of new sexually-transmitted diseases entering that relationship is zero.
Furthermore, polygamy did not mean you slept with everyone under the sun; what it meant is that one man would have several wives, but he would not sleep with anyone who wasn’t his wife, and the wives would not sleep with anyone other than him.
There is a reason for exclusivity in relationships, and you ignore that fact at your peril. A few thousand years has taught humankind several things, and one of them is that people who sleep around get sick and die faster. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that society values exclusivity, regardless of the numbers of individuals involved, and that our cultural mores and relationship structures reflect that.
Or, to put NDT’s “argument” a bit more succinctly:
Gays don’t deserve marriage. And vice versa.
I guess Sully likes a little cheese with his sex.
Of course not, vaara; no one “deserves” marriage. Not even heterosexuals.
Marriage is a privilege, and as such, it can be extended with perfect right to whomever voters choose to give it.
But for some reason, voters don’t seem to feel it necessary to give legal privileges and benefits to people who want them, but quite obviously don’t want to take on the responsibility and expectations of having them. Especially when, as the innumerable unmarried heterosexual couples in our world demonstrate, one can live quite happily and healthily without.
The real irony for me is that the best rationale for gay marriage vanished the minute that gays decided to ally with people who denigrate and try to get rid of marriage. It is that much harder to convince straight people of the necessity of gay marriage when there are gay leftists out there sneering and calling marriage repressive and outdated.
Very Good Stuff: both this post and comments, and also the post from about a week ago.
I wonder which is the real marriage? The service at the church standing before God? Or the ceremony at the courthouse standing before the judge?
By whose authority does the preacher/priest/magistrate say the magic words “by the power invested in me I now pronounce you…”
Individuals cannot get married on their own, otherwise its just two people shacking up. Marriage needs someone else–the person who conducts the ceremony. Rather than see the debate be about if it should be one man+one woman, I would prefer to see people’s opinion on what is the nature of that authority that joins two people together. Does this power come from the state? from some higher power? from the people?
Having given your post great thought, I think you should just propose to Andrew and get it over with.
Gryph’s answer illustrates the attitudes of gay activists toward marriage: they demand the benefits, they demand the title, but they’re going to redefine the institution to suit our prerogatives. i.e. they’ll take the legal conveniences, but monogamy and commitment are for squares.
I remember reading a Harvey Feirstein interview in Playboy, many years ago, where he said “Saying I can only have sex with one person for the rest of my life is like saying I can only eat dinner with one person for the rest of my life.” First of all, note to self, refuse any and all dinner invitations from Harvey Feirstein. Second, note how his comment reduces what should be an act of intimacy to the status of a mere biological function. Anyone who denies that this is a prevailing attitude among the gay community is fooling themselves. AOL made billions off gays looking for hook-ups in chat rooms.
Taking a step back, I blame heteros for bringing marrage to this point. The heteros debased marriage through quickie divorce and when they abandoned the ideal of chastity before and monogamy after. If these were still part of the marriage package, gays wouldn’t be interested. In short, the moral standards of common street trash became the norm for heterosexuals, especially in Hollywood and among the blue-state elites. And, as Gryph and sean demonstrate, most gays are not interested in having moral standards better than common street trash.
Maybe Andrew is for a traditional marriage where the husband can come home to the wife after a good time somewhere else. Monogamy is the goal, not the reality in most marriages.
doesn’t take much to eat your own, does it?
Although I agree with you that this is a positive effect of monogamy, I don’t think this is the reason it is associated with marriage currently.
I think it’s a part of marriage for an emotional/psychological reason. In my personal view (I know others will disagree), sex is an expression of emotional bond and commitment, it is, in fact, the ultimate physical expression of love between two people. The idea of monogamy is to match up the emotional commitment represented in marriage (current-day marriage as understood and practiced in this culture, not whatever historical marital practice we can conjure up to claim that the current understanding of marriage is inadequate) with the physical expression of it, and since the emotional commitment is exclusive, so is the sexual. It follows perfectly from the idea that marriage is an exclusive commitment between two people.
Now of course I’m well aware that *some* straight people have “open marriages”, but we all know that this is very, very rare indeed. Much more common are affairs, but the fact that they are affairs merely underscores how normative monogamy is for straight marriages. If we’re serious about wanting “marital rights”, we have to be serious about what “marriage” is, and not come into it with the mores that some parts of the gay culture have developed in a context in which marriage was simply not an option that was on the table.
Dan, interesting post. Wow, the GayLeftBorgTypes are a sensitive lot, eh? Play those “We Revoke Your GayCard” real fast GLBTs.
For me, the bigger question ought to be: “Why should we care what Sullivan offers as opinion on moral issues of today?”
The man has zero moral authority –his authority, like a Hollywood starlet, stems from his notorious celebrity and that is never, ever a basis for moral authority. Asking Sullivan for an opinion on what matters in marriage is like asking MichaelJackson for moral direction on how to raise children. Zero moral authority.
Just like with religion, we’ve got cafeteria moralists on marriage –an acceptable marriage mix isn’t: “I’ll take two cups of para-monogamy, a cup of internet porn and two helpings of club twinks, please. Oh, and I really, really like love my partner.”
That’s a lust-centered relationship and it’s not simply a matter of socially repugnant mores or relativism run rampant but with partner approval. Cafeteria moralists have no authority… isn’t that what the radical Left proved by pillorying former moralist Bill Bennet? Isn’t that what Left leaning spokesmen like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart do each day by pointing out supposed hypocrisy on the Right or what MikeyRogers tried to do with GOP Capitol Hill staffers?
All the tear soaked Kleenex in the world won’t make a lust-centered gay marriage seem normal –fictional hospital room drama or no. And we need to face it, the reason why gay marriage is such a big deal for the GayLeftBorgTypes is because they want societal approval… “Just say you love us”. They crave the validation.
Sullivan isn’t a moral authority. He’s just a good judge of where to scope out bareback sex for anonymous hookups… as his history proves. He’s another Brit-accented pseudo intellectual prancing about in search of an open mike. And GP give him far more credit than his celebrity ought to allow.
What’s next? Course notes from Mel Gibson about sobriety and driving? Taking lessons in ethics from Queen NancyP? Military strategy from CindyZeroSheehan? Political reform classes from John Murtha? Advancing democracy in 3rd world nations from Putin?
If you want to write about the value of monogamy as standard for conduct in committed relationships, you can do that without reference to Sullivan-the-corrupt.
I’ll pass on commenting on Sullivan’s perfectly psychotic circumcision obsession. Get the boy some penile skin stretching weights or a plastic surgeon. Or for greater utility, a licensed therapist and 10 free visits.
#21 – Matt’s “GLBTs” are what Ayn Rand called “looters of the spirit”. They want the moral authority, status and prestige of marriage… without having to earn it. Without having to first embody or “be” marriage, in their souls and behavior.
True GLBT equality is a good thing to want, so they say they want it – but they really just want equality for their personal street-trash morals.
Only an observation; not saying all gay marriage advocates are like that. Some have character, especially some of the lesbians. And all too many straights “equal” Matt’s GLBTs in their lack of character.
Matt, your comments about Sullivan today are on point. But did you read his article (that Dan linked to) from 1989. That was an entirely different man. In that article he raises some interesting issues.
The new Sullivan doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and does more harm than good to the discussion.
Taking a step back, I blame heteros for bringing marrage to this point. The heteros debased marriage through quickie divorce and when they abandoned the ideal of chastity before and monogamy after.
I think this is legitimate blame in the general (saying so, because my husband and I haven’t abandoned the ideal of chastity or monogamy-and I think the worst thing that happened to the institution of marriage was the quicky divorce), and I don’t think heterosexuals have done a great job of upholding the instution themselves, although I don’t think this means the instutions goals should be tossed out.
I like the instution, and I like the idea of commitment and fidelity to one partner-and while the government provides me with a whole slew of benefits that make being married easier, if the government withdrew all those benefits tommorrow I wouldn’t feel less married or less committed.
Just come out and say it already: gays shouldn’t be permitted to marry. Gays should be excluded from the civil institution of marriage because they enjoy pleasure and sex and have a healthy and realistic view of how relationships work. Society needs to protect the culture’s pristine notions/fantasies of marriage (no matter if they don’t match up with reality) and can not tolerate treating gays as civic equals, so it must draw the line at allowing gays, who have crafted all sorts of relationships absent societal support through the institution of marriage, to enter into civil marriages. Gays are dirty street trash and should be abandoned to their ghettos where they can die alone, on their own. And Andrew Sullivan is a trashy slut who wishes he has a foreskin so that he could save money on lube and if he were silenced then conservatives would find out where the true voice of gay conservatism really is. Back to the ghettos, people.
#14. “It is that much harder to convince straight people of the necessity of gay marriage when there are gay leftists out there sneering and calling marriage repressive and outdated.” That’s funny. With all those feminists out there calling marriage repressive and outdated, they don’t seem to exclude the necessity of marriage for women… (Seriously, the nonsense!)
just me, I revere the institution of traditional marriage as well. And what I think comes off from gay activist attempts to hijack marriage is a kind of greedy boomer narcissism; they aren’t interested in investing in an institution that is greater and more important than individual wants by conforming their behavior to the requirements of that institution. Instead, they want access to perceived benefits (greed), but they want marriage to change to conform to their wants (narcissism) by discarding requirements for monogamy and commitment. I note that heterosexuals went through this same process of remaking marriage into a meaningless “pinata of benefits without responsibilities” in the sixties and seventies, and gay activists are just finishing the work.
If, on the one hand, one says that if one’s partner is unfaithful one can forgive and try to heal the wound, that’s one thing. But, going into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity… that brings us back to common street trash.
“But, going into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity… that brings us back to common street trash.”
I would say that going into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity is fine if both people want that, but it isn’t the norm for a marital relationship. If gay people give the straight world the impression that this is what we generally want (ie, legal benefits, but “open” marriages), we’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone that we are serious about marriage.
Well said, Novaseeker in #27, very well said.
I would say that going into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity is fine if both people want that, but it isn’t the norm for a marital relationship.
And while I don’t have studies, the few heterosexual relationships I have seen or am aware of going into marriage without that expectation have all ended in divorce. While some people fail, I just don’t think a relationship gets stronger, when the two people involved aren’t focused on each other and their relationship-and sex is a huge part of the relationship.
And what I think comes off from gay activist attempts to hijack marriage is a kind of greedy boomer narcissism; they aren’t interested in investing in an institution that is greater and more important than individual wants by conforming their behavior to the requirements of that institution. Instead, they want access to perceived benefits (greed), but they want marriage to change to conform to their wants (narcissism) by discarding requirements for monogamy and commitment.
I think this is dead on. I also think part of the problem for gays is so much of the debate is focused on the civil benefits of marriage and the unfairness. I do think there is an unfairness-but that unfairness can be granted through civil unions, there has to be something more that makes people want marriage. I for one would like to see more of the debate focused on the meaning of marriage and why gays and society would benefit from what the instution means for a relationship.
If you asked me why I got married and stay that way, the benefits the government provides isn’t even close to the top of my list.
I would say that going into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity is fine if both people want that,
Sorry to disagree, GPW, but I still think it’s sleazy.
“I for one would like to see more of the debate focused on the meaning of marriage and why gays and society would benefit from what the instution means for a relationship.”
Yes, it’s desperately needed. My own guess as to why it has *not* been articulated more is that while many LGBT people can unify under the idea of rights, when you start talking about the “content” of marriage, fissures emerge left and right, and there is no unified voice. Still, we need to articulate our ideas about marriage that move beyond the rights/fairness discourse.
“If you asked me why I got married and stay that way, the benefits the government provides isn’t even close to the top of my list.”
Of course. That’s a key problem currently. When gay people explain the case for gay marriage in terms of rights and benefits, it’s like they’re speaking a different language than straight people are. It’s understandable, because that is the legal language that is relevant, but marriage is a legal/social/political institution, and we can’t just address it in legal terms as we have been. We have to address why we value marriage in terms that match why the straight world does (ie, in terms of an expressed, intended lifelong monogamous commitment).
“Sorry to disagree, GPW, but I still think it’s sleazy.”
It is sleazy, but people are free to be sleazy. My point is that this kind of relationship is not a marital one, generally speaking.
It is sleazy, but people are free to be sleazy.
I would have phrased it as, “I would say that if two people choose to go into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity, it’s not the place of the law to stop them.” When you said it was “fine,” I thought it implied approval.
V, in #30, please note where I was agreeing with Novaseeker in #27 — that if “gay people give the straight world the impression” that we want open marriages, ”
we’ll have a very hard time convincing anyone that we are serious about marriage.”
At the same time, while I don’t think it’s a good idea to enter into a relationship with no expectation of fidelity, it’s not for me to decide how others define their unions. In my view, a relationship not premised on monogamy is not marriage.
It’s nice that most of the men you know who get married are somehow cured of bad habits by their wives. Many of the men I know still cheat, and drink, and do what they want, and their wives either put up with it or they just get divorced and remarried. That’s part of why the divorce rate’s so high.
I think, Carl, that gays like yourself project your own faults onto heterosexuals as a means of tearing them down out of jealousy and envy.
Carl maybe that is an aspect of the company you keep.
While I won’t say I don’t know any heterosexuals that have cheated, the vast majority of heterosexual couples I know, do not cheat on each other-the percentage of cheaters is much smaller than the percentage of non cheaters.
GAY MARRIAGE
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as they’re used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not settle for gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second-class citizenship, after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well. Civil unions should not satisfy us. Unions are not equal to marriage. It may just seem like a semantical argument to many and not worth fighting over however, if it is indeed just an issue of semantics, why then is there a reluctance to allow the use of the word marriage? Marriage is the only word that truly implies the same value as it does for heterosexual couples. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized, as happened during the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the ancient Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people and these superstitions had a tremendous impact on biblical scripture. If therefore ancient scripture cannot influence our modern day decisions since there are so many biblical laws in ancient scripture that we don’t recognize in modern society because they go against our modern laws that are put in place to maintain order and lawfulness of it’s people. There are biblical teachings that would make murder legal within the family unit under certain circumstances according to the book of Leviticus. Would it be feasible for our modern day society to allow such archaic biblical scriptures to supersede modern law? Would it be a civilized society if the government went into our bedrooms to make sure that man and wife were not having intercourse during the wife’s menses? I know this may sound silly but it is written in the book of Leviticus. This biblical law if broken could mean that the couple could be stoned to death. Does that punishment or even the lack of privacy in ones own bedroom now seem reasonable to our modern culture? Does it seem like a civilized society would allow parents to kill their children if they disobey them? We now have civil laws that prevent a society from the practice of certain biblical laws that would now seem barbaric in modern society. Is it therefore right to pick and choose which laws are convenient to follow and which aren’t especially when they are in the same paragraph as the laws against homosexuality. The biblical law forbidding homosexuality is neither underlined or in larger font. Therefore would it seem that it was the only law that was always to be forbidden. Was it ever suggested? We all have to approach such ancient superciliousness carefully and we must be careful not to judge others love for one another. It is not our judgment to make.
Any true biblical scholar could show how many of the books within the bible dramatically contradict themselves on issues too numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe and follow. If they are Gods laws should they therefore take precedence over those of our modern laws? There are scriptures that unequivocally state that sexual relations are solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not be allowed to remain married if there are no offspring produced? Should sexual relations be allowed knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be pleasurable in order to create offspring if that were it’s only function. The mechanics of sexual intercourse would be all that is necessary to create offspring. It stands to reason that sexuality and sexual intercourse are pleasurable because it has a greater and more transcendent function than just procreation. Perhaps we need to reconsider that it is the transcendent function of sexuality that is meant to create a deeper emotional bond between married couples. The benefits of staying together and working out our marital differences with humor, generosity of spirit and the continual remembrance of the initial love that brought the two together. I believe this is what contributes to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the importance of the transcendent nature and power of self-evaluation and understanding of the inner landscape of our hearts and souls which bring us to a closer relationship with the mysterious power and nature of what and who God is.
When couples are able to work out their differences it creates a stronger spiritual connection that transcends sexuality because there are couples that perhaps through some physiological problem lose their ability to have intercourse but choose to stay together obviously not for the sake of producing more children but do so because their bond has transcended the physical attraction that originally brought them together. It now serves as the glue or bonding mechanism that holds couples together because of the strong spiritual connection they have created through the process of understanding, forgiveness and the accepting of differences that eventually seem trite as a result of the emotional maturity that develops as a result of the promise to stay together. All this aside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal but please don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay but certainly worth looking into in order to get the most for the value.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before women were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being most fair which is the main purpose of that document. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed and who would it harm?
The American people have rejected same-sex marriage almost every time the issue is put before them. Also marriage is considered by many people to have profound spiritual connections.
I think you should respect their view.
Families are the foundation of society and our society doesn’t need any more upheavals.
Take your civil union and be happy. You’re being disrespectful of people’s religious faith by trying to redefine for them what marriage is.