Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked a piece which gets at the real problem of gay marriage perhaps better than anything I’ve read in the past few weeks. In his post, Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman?, Stuart Schneiderman writes “about experiments in Germany and the United Kingdom where men were treated with a nasal spray containing the hormone oxytocin . . . a hormone that men and women possess, but that women possess in larger quantities”:
According to the article, it triggers labor pains, helps mothers to bond with their babies, and produces enhanced sensitivity and empathy.
The article fails to mention that when a woman has a sexual experience her body produces extra oxytocin, thereby drawing her closer to her lover. Researchers call oxytocin the “cuddle hormone.”
Oxytocin is one of the primary reasons why women who make a habit of hooking up cannot detach their emotions from their sexual experience as easily as men can.
Emphasis added.
And this difference why making the case for lesbian marriage is a heck of a lot easier than making the case for gay marriage, given that women more readily make an emotional commitment to their relationships than men do. And seem to more innately understand the link between sexual fidelity and emotional commitment. That said, our culture is replete with stories of women “taming” men, where the Lothario becomes a Romeo under the influence of a woman.
Marriage serves to resolve the natural tension between the sexes.
Now, this is not to say that we should not consider gay marriage because of the absence of sex difference between the partners, but instead that we should address that absence in our conversations on gay marriage. And, in our personal lives, find means to incorporate the qualities contained in that tension in our relationships.
Considering the divorce rates now a days, I don’t see how effective that hormone is anymore.
Women and men are also a lot more in each others lives than they were in the past, there is no longer a separate sphere of society for a men and women. I think men are tamed in general because men have many more female influences in their daily lives than they used too. It would be unheard for a man and woman to be friends in past eras but now its the norm.
There are other masculine qualities which tie men together in permanent, monogamous bonds:
honor
loyalty
devotion
integrity
honesty
Men don’t need to be “tamed” to be monogamous. Men need to be honorable, loyal, mature men.
May I ask what you have in mind? How you would address it?
I think I’ve addressed it, more or less, in my many comments on gay marriage, so I’ll spare people – at least for now 😉 i.e., at least in the absence of something to key off of.
More rationalization of homophobia and sexism. Whatevs.
Hey, look! Mr. “Obama is a movement, you guys better get on board”-tenor is back! Where ya been, Houndie? And how is that Obama working out for ya?
Houndenenor, please explain why this is a “rationalization of homophobia and sexism”. Thanks.
One more question – And if it is truly a question of “Whatevs” for you, then why would you bother to comment? I don’t get it. Thanks and kisses!
What’s really funny about you and yours, Houndentenor, is that you really don’t recognize how much your knee-jerk reactions are hurting your public image.
Just as your shrieking “racist” every time Obama was criticized left you supporting some really boneheaded decisions, your yelling “homophobe” every time someone points out the obvious — men and women are different, same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are made up of different components — makes it pretty obvious that you’ve subverted any sort of fact and common sense to ideology.
Furthermore, Houdentenor, your Obama Party and your fellow liberals lost any ability to scream “sexist” at anyone following your treatment of Sarah Palin.
Uh………. who cares? What difference does it make? If you think that some hormone means that the case for lesbian marriage is easier made than gay marriage, you really don’t understand the issues involved here. Let me clue you in; it isn’t about who has what hormone and which person has such and such genitalia. There are differences between the sexes… duh? You need a study singling out the effects of one hormone to recognize that? And then you need to shoehorn that study into some social issue that has nothing to do with the core of the issues?
Sigh… with gays like these, the conservative movement isn’t going to get any better on these kinds of social issues.
The naturally-occurring differences between the sexes merely mean that it is generally EASIER for women to look for commitment and men to be cautious about making it.
In every relationship, a valuable role is played both by the party urging commitment and the one who is more cautious. I think that in same-sex relationships, this is merely something both parties need to be aware of.
Men are not “jerks” for being cautious. There would have been a lot more miserable marriages than there have been if they had not. And a great many happy marriages would never have happened if the women had not wanted commitment strongly enough to persist in moving things along.
Somebody has to be the gas pedal, and somebody has to be the brake. In each marriage between partners of the same sex, one person should probably take one role, and the partner the other. This is usually settled according to which one is inclined to be which way.
I’m a natural “brake.” I take marriage far too seriously to rush into things. I’d rather be happy in a couple than miserable alone, but I’d rather be happy alone than miserable in a couple. And I’m always hearing “you act like a MAN!” because I don’t believe in U-Hauls on a second date.
Men have contributed fifty percent to the human race, so that’s really not the insult they mean it to be.
Lori, agreed on all points. Two men or two women can find ways to compensate for the lack of traditional or “obvious” heterosexual roles. Because so can 1 man + 1 woman, e.g., if the straight couple doesn’t like the roles and want to mix things up.
I think an implication of that is that biology, while it is a real and important influence, is not destiny. For example, even if men on average are less emotional about sex, they are not destined to cheat. Cheating is always a choice and 2 men can compensate for their “pig” tendencies by methods such as self-control, pre-arranged rules, etc.
My two Spiritual C-bills…
Men are hard wired to cheat, we are built to be able to impregnate multiple partners to increase the odds of survivability of our gene code.
Women are hard coded to be nurtures and caregivers. It’s not surprising that Athena is seen as the goddess of wisdom and defensive war.
That said, we are blessed by the divine to be more than our physiology dictates. We just have to be more than animals.
Now, this is not to say that we should not consider gay marriage because of the absence of sex difference between the partners, but instead that we should address that absence in our conversations on gay marriage.
The only conservation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to same-sex couples, and that they are suffering as a result.
Silly Lloyd…
“The only conservation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to polyamourous groups”
“The only conservation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to incestous relationships”
“The only conservation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to single folks”
See what I mean?
The conversation is, does the definiation of government recognized and licensed marriage need to be expanded to include a different form? Would a seperate institution (‘fred’) be a better solution?
I’m dealing with the reprecussions of not having the legal protections in place with the passing of my partner. I’m also dealing with her mistake of assuming her family were decent human beings. (well one of them seems to be). Guess what? I’m dealing. Or to put it another way, “Life’s tough, get a helmet.”
It’s not a matter of ‘being denied benefits’ Governments can define the contracts they recognize. The country recognizes that you may enter into a marriage with one (1) person of your choice (at a time!), subject to all the rules and regulations of the state you’re married in, and have that contract recognized by the government.
My husband & I have been in a monogamous married relationship for 14 years.
This is the worst post I’ve seen on this blog so far. smh.
Why are they spraying men with a female hormone released during orgasm?
Yeah, yeah……..oxytocin………the “cuddle” drug. Putting a child in a borderline caretaker environment, ie. two sadomasochistic females, is psychologically harmful to children.
#15 Congratulations on your relationship James. Not being able to sustain a marriage nearly as long, I admire you both.
#16, why were they doing it? Well you need to come up with something to get those government grants 😉
So what Lloyd is saying is this:
– Denial of marriage benefits because of a grouping’s composition causes suffering.
– Since government should never allow anyone to suffer, government should not limit marriage in any respect based on the composition of the group desiring it.
Now, Lloyd’s point can be restated.
And remember, Lloyd, you have stated that denial of marriage always causes suffering and depriving of benefits and that, under “equal protection”, no one can be deprived of benefits or made to suffer.
How does
“The only conversation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to same-sex couples”
compare to
“The only conversation needed is that over a thousand legal benefits of marriage are denied to [relationship proved to be of no harm]”
?
Incestuous relationships do harm. Polygamous marriages are rife with harm (maybe someone can construct an egalitarian one, but most are predicated on women being inferior and subordinate to their husbands).
If single people want the benefits of marriage, they can…. get married. Find someone.
I remember on another blog an opponent of same-sex marriage said, “well, what if I don’t find something, why can’t I leave my possessions to myself.” Hard to collect on the inheritance, really.
The_Livewire’s comment only makes sense if we assume that same-sex relationships are malign. I don’t buy that. I hope most people here don’t.
“If single people want to get married… they can find someone.”
But then they’d not be single.
John D, the point of my reply is that Lloyd’s argument is that it’s unfair to deny marriage to people because they don’t get the ‘benefits’. Using that argument, then each of my sentences are valid.
(And marriage can be harmful. It does lead to the death of two single people, to use the old joke).
If you’d read the rest of my post, you might have caught that.