In his reply to my post, for which I thank him, Robert George fairly notes that many of the family radicals who signed "Beyond Marriage" favor SSM. Of course they do. But so do nearly all left-wing and queer-theory academics and activists, which is what these folks are. (With the exception of Chai Feldblum and a few others, they have not played prominent roles in the same-sex marriage fight. I mean, Cornel West? Gimme a break.) The important distinction is that SSM is only part of what these folks favor, and the rest is what they really care about. As the title of their manifesto proclaims, they are looking beyond same-sex marriage: they favor SSM, not as an end in itself, but as a way-station toward a post-marriage society in which all concepts of family enjoy equal status and marriage is irrelevant.
There's no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay-rights movement (not the gay marriage movement; there's a difference). I worry about their influence, as I do about that of socialized-medicine advocates and anti-globalists and gender-abolishers and other members of the ultra-egalitarian left, but I don't think they'll prevail, even within the gay universe, most of which is neither radical nor "queer."
There's a legitimate argument here about whether the culture will interpret gay marriage as "anything goes" or as "marriage goes." Actually, some of both may happen, but I expect the dominant vector to be reaffirmation of marriage's privileged status as the family structure of choice. Parents asking their gay kids, "So, you guys going to get married?", plus the longstanding social preference for the unique commitment of marriage (as expressed, for example, in corporate benefits reserved for married couples), plus the fact that most marrying gay couples marry precisely because they see marriage as a unique commitment - all these, I expect, will lead the culture to read SSM as a return to the values of marriage, not a further flight from them. The wind brings positive straws from Massachusetts, where a number of employers are revoking domestic-partner benefits now that SSM is legal.
In any case, it's hardly fair to saddle homosexuals with the burden of exclusion from marriage in hopes of preventing heterosexual folly. If straights insist on trashing marriage, it's not gays' job to stop them. Question: how many American heterosexuals would give up their own marriages to (maybe) forfend polygamy? Who would even consider asking them to do so? I'm often saddened by otherwise compassionate conservatives' willingness to think of gay people, in the SSM debate, as pawns to be manipulated for some larger social good. They must forgive us for declining to think of ourselves that way.
Regarding polygamy...OK, let me see if I get this. Polygamy destabilizes societies, is inconsistent with liberal democracy, shows pronounced inegalitarian and misogynistic tendencies, is frivolous by comparison to SSM, has no logical connection to SSM, and indeed is logically antithetical to the principle of SSM properly understood (everyone should have the opportunity to marry)...these are not principled arguments? Whereas "one man plus one woman makes baby" is not just a principled barrier to polygamy, it is the only principled barrier?
The problem, which is immediately obvious, is that "one man plus one woman makes baby" is no kind of barrier to polygamy, either logical or practical. Logically, man-plus-woman-makes-baby is a biological fact, but one-plus-one-makes-marriage in no way follows from it. Men are perfectly happy to marry all the women they can make babies with, as they have been wont to do since the dawn of history. Given that most human cultures have been polygamous (and quite a few still are), and that presumably all of these cultures have been well aware that heterosexual couples make babies, it seems self-evident that the man-woman-baby argument has little or no deterrent effect on polygamy.
A point of honest disagreement with George is this: in my opinion, the reasons to oppose polygamy are instrumental, not metaphysical, and all the stronger for that. And they are the same reasons for favoring gay marriage. Society and (generally) individuals are better off when everyone can marry and most people do.
That disagreement aside, I wish George would reconsider his strategy of pooh-poohing all the arguments against polygamy (and polyamory) that don't also militate against SSM - which is to say, virtually all the arguments against polygamy. Surely we could agree that this strategy does monogamy no favors. As SSM and gay partnerships gain acceptance, conservatives will be stuck with their own arguments that any change to the boundaries of marriage entails every change. It will be harder for the public, sensible though it is, to hold the line with conservatives insisting there is no line to hold. Sometimes I wonder if, like Col. Nicholson in "Bridge on the River Kwai," slippery-slope conservatives are forgetting what they're supposed to be defending. (Hint: not polygamy.)
As for polyamory, if by that George means group marriage, it might be different in some ways from polygamy, but it's analytically similar: frivolous, logically antithetical to SSM, and, to judge by the last several thousand years of experience, likely to devolve in the vast majority cases into polygamy. As for fending off formal recognition of non-marital polyamory (e.g., group cohabitation benefits), gay marriage is the surest method of preventing that.
In any case, it's well to remember that all this polygamy/polyamory talk amounts to changing the subject. Gay people are asking only for what straight people currently have: the opportunity to marry someone we choose (not anyone or everyone we choose). When straights get the right to marry two people, their mother, a dog, or a toaster, gay people will want the same opportunity. But not before.
64 Comments for “Not So Fast, Mr. George (2)”
posted by Ron on
Thank you for posting that.
posted by ETJB on
“There’s no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay-rights movement.”
HA!
“I do about that of socialized-medicine advocates.”
Yeah, the horror of people being able to go to a doctor when they are sick.
“and anti-globalists”
Yeah, the horror of people questioning exploitation.
“and gender-abolishers”
Yeah, the horror of the idea that woman are actually human beings.
posted by Fitz on
From the New York Blade "Marriage is a fundamental human freedom desired by almost everyone, and they pretty much hope it will be conjugal, whether or not they might choose other family arrangements at other stages in their lives. Opening up marriage to gay couples is liberation enough for most of us, at least for now."
This quote highlights why it is not fair to categorize anti-ss”m” arguments as “slippery-slope”. SS”M” represents the culmination of an argument against traditional natural families. Rarely (if at all) does one find people on the cultural left arguing against illegitimacy, divorce, chosen single motherhood or “FOR” a standard of “conjugality” and two person child raising norms. To the contrary, despite futile efforts to paint this statement as somehow “fringe” (just look at the status of the signatories) Such a view is by far the norm. While strategically ss “m” advocates won’t argue for polymory ect, philosophically they are incapable of refuting such arrangements. Furthermore, as a practical matter they do not refute the validity of “multiple family forms” nor are they capable of mounting a defense of “two person unions” 1. The line between ss “m” and “a variety of family forms” is much harder to defend than the argument for traditional marriage versus ss”m”. The reasons for this are multiple and manifest.’ (This is by no means an exhaustive list) #1.Only Traditional marriage provides a child with his own natural mother & father under the same roof. Once one severs this line the “two” person configuration becomes arbitrary having no biological basis. Indeed, the cleaving to a “two person standard” has its origins and resonance in traditional male female pairs that alone can produce children. #2. Once a line (especially one as old as marriage) has been separated from its historical meaning, other lines become politically and philosophically much more tenable. Severing marriage from its normative cultural roots instills in the public mind that it is now elastic and susceptible to further manipulation. #3. A lot has been written on this blog about how “other family forms” could benefit from some of the legal protections awarded to marriage. (including ss “m”) . No doubt they can. Allow me a hypothetical to demonstrate the danger. Illegitimacy is legion among the underclass. Single mothers could easily combine incomes and household expenses, child care burdens and mutual support emotionally and economically. These non-traditional family forms would promote a host of goods and are arguably just as entitled to government benefits as traditional marriage and indeed ss”m”. However, to be promoting combining households for single mothers is necessarily NOT promoting marriage. Indeed, if such an arrangement comes to be seen as just as valid (or even valid enough) it can obtain normative and acceptable status. One fast reaches the point were government, culture and society is promoting any number of options at the expense of traditional marriage. The problem the cultural left has is it cannot grasp basic morality. Culture is like an ecosystem. Each cultural cue reverberates and sends messages. No sooner would someone rearrange the kinship system of an isolated desert tribe and not expect a level of pandemonium to result. You cannot dissect the frog, but it back together in a more “optimal” configuration and expect it to just hop away! Get real, have some respect for tradition, and stop thinking of only yourselves.
posted by Randy on
Gee, Fitz. I hope you tell us your opinions about homosexuality. I’m a gay man, and I really don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality. Is it natural or unnatural? When I’m having sex, I THINK the parts fit, but I’m not sure, can you enlighten me? A gay couple I know are named Adam and Steve. Did God create them or not? I’m worried about my soul. Will God hate me unless I repent this lifestyle? I don’t have any diseases yet, but at age 45, how much longer can I expect to live while practicing this lifestyle?
There’s soooo much I don’t know, Fitz. Please — I’m looking for guidance here.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ETJB, your characterizations of Jon’s comments are absurd caricatures. He did not express opposition to people having access to health care, defend exploitation, or deny that women are human beings. Indeed, to the queer theorists, the notion that people are “men” or “women” is hopelessly out of date and (to quote one leftist blogger’s characterization of my own recent column) indicative of “shame and misunderstanding.” Questioning the basic decency of anyone who opposes programs that you favor is exactly the sort of tactic that the left decries when coming from Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. Try addressing Jon’s actual arguments and spare us the snide, hollow posturing.
Fitz, your insistence on putting the “m” in scare quotes is only a distraction. Your suggestion that SSM advocates are part of the “cultural left” deliberately ignores the political divide within the gay movement that has existed for more than 50 years, as I mentioned in my own recent article published on IGF. A principal purpose of IGF is to offer non-leftist viewpoints on gay-related issues. The signatories to the Beyond Marriage document are from the left side of the spectrum, and there is no evidence that most gay people agree with them.
The accusation that SSM advocates are only thinking of ourselves is an old anti-gay slander, which in this case not only overlooks the fact that we are simply seeking legal equality — it ignores the essentially conservative nature of any couple’s desire to seal their mutual commitment legally. Such a commitment serves the public welfare in ways detailed by Jon in his book, Gay Marriage. As to the historical meaning of marriage, your characterization is ahistorical. The anti-gay right’s monolithic view of marriage bears no more resemblance to the institution as it has existed in most times and places than Protestant fudamentalism does to the religious views of the founding fathers. If any change to civil marriage as a legal institution entails making every conceivable change, then it’s already too late. The advent of no-fault divorce and women’s right to abortion and contraception cannot be blamed on gay people.
What gay marriage advocates are seeking is the right to take more responsibility, not less. Allowing us to seal our relationships legally will make society more stable, not less.
posted by kittynboi on
“”have some respect for tradition,””
No. Why don’t you get out of church and get secularized.
posted by Fitz on
Randy
“Gee, Fitz. I hope you tell us your opinions about homosexuality. I’m a gay man, and I really don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality.”
I have not endorsed any theological arguments concerning homosexuality. Does it satiate your ego to think of all opponents of ss ?m? as religious and therefore bigoted? I am addressing your proposed advocacy for redefining marriage. Is their something about this question that makes you seek to obviate around it?
Richard J. Rosendall
?Fitz, your insistence on putting the “m” in scare quotes is only a distraction.?
Its important to me to maintain the integrity of language. If you cant define it you cant defend it. This is precisely a battle for the cultural and legal definition of a institution. You may find it distracting but it is indeed necessary to maintain the very distinctions that go to the heart of the debate.
?Your suggestion that SSM advocates are part of the “cultural left” deliberately ignores the political divide within the gay movement that has existed for more than 50 years,
One is reminded of the supposed political divide within the feminist movement regarding pornography. While the sexual liberationists fought the neo-Victorians, pornography became a multi-billion dollar industry ingrained throughout our common culture.
?as I mentioned in my own recent article published on IGF. A principal purpose of IGF is to offer non-leftist viewpoints on gay-related issues.?
Strikingly however IGF doesn?t seem to offer the viewpoint the marriage is too important and fragile an institution to be callously used as a vehicle for gay inclusion.
?The signatories to the Beyond Marriage document are from the left side of the spectrum, and there is no evidence that most gay people agree with them. ?
Nor is there any evidence that they appose (much less vigorously) their philosophical approach. There is much evidence however that the gay community does not (and has not) actively endorsed either intellectually or politically efforts to address high rates of divorce, illegitimacy, Fatherless ness , promiscuity, the degradation of marriage as an institution and general sexual libertinism.
Claims to a new found respect for the importance of monogamy are met by
#1. Suspicion
#2. Profound doubt that problems like the above can be adequately addressed under an androgynized conception of marriage separated from any necessary connection to child bearing.
?The advent of no-fault divorce and women’s right to abortion and contraception cannot be blamed on gay people.?
Of coarse not. But it can be generally subscribed to the cultural left.
?What gay marriage advocates are seeking is the right to take more responsibility, not less. Allowing us to seal our relationships legally will make society more stable, not less.?
I disagree. I believe it will make it less stable. (for reasons maintained in my previous post and others ? points you have yet to confront)
posted by Randy on
When you talk in generalities (the cultural left thinks this or says that), you invite accusations of bigotry. There are plenty on the cultural left who are in fact working hard to address the issues of illegitimacy, teenagers having babies, AIDS, and so on. Your dismissal that none on the left address these issues shows a shocking lack of involvement in the issues and an ignorance of what is really going on.
As for addressing the degredation of marriage — whatever that is — it is gays who want to join in. Why would gay people want to degrade the very institution that they seek to be a member of? Oh right — because gays just want to destroy marriage for everyone, right?
Furthermore, there are in fact many on the cultural right who favor same sex marriage, including many mainstream churchs such as reform and conservative judaism, and many mainstream protestant churches. David Brooks, a right winger, came out in favor of gay marriage, and a host of others, in fact.
As far as your other arguments, traditional marriage does provide for the same father and mother raising the child. And your argument is an excellent argument to prohibit any person from giving up their child for adoption, and to prohibit any person from adopting those children. Nor does it address the circumstances when one parent is dead, or divorced. Oh, unless of course you want to outlaw divorce in all cases, just so that \\’traditional\\’ marriage is protected.
The only argument that you DIDN\\’T make is to prohibit divorce under any circumstances. That would help you achieve your goals of preserving marriage far better than just keeping gays out of the instutition.
But then, when we bring up people like Newt Gingrinch and Ronald Reagan, those wonderful cultural icons of the right, who have availed themselves to divorce (thereby, of course, severing the link between marriage and the children) you can blame them for the sorry state of marriage that you think exists.
posted by Randy on
Ultimately, of course, the proof is in the pudding. The Netherlands and Belgium have had gay marriage (and they don’t use quotes) for several years now, and Canada has had it for about two. Guess what? Things are going just as they had been. There is no evidence that gay marriage influenced marriage trends, divorce, abortion, or out of wedlock births to any degree.
Which is exactly our argument, the left and right who agree with SSM. Allowing gays to marry isn’t going to change anything.
Wait! That’s not true. What it WILL do is make legitimate all the children who are currently children of gay parents. In other words, those children will officially have two parents instead of one. Which, of course, is exactly what you have argued is so necessary to raising children
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
“I disagree. I believe it will make it less stable. (for reasons maintained in my previous post and others ? points you have yet to confront) “
I read your statement and I didn’t see where you addressed the idea that gay couples entering committed relationships destablize society as a whole. There was that bit about single mothers joining together to rasie children…but such a relationship doesn’t rise to the level of a “committed relationship.” It is more of a partnership (and, in fact, I’m not sure that it isn’t a good idea…but that’s a different discussion).
A committed relationship goes beyond “raising the children.” (There are heterosexuals that stay together for the children & seperate once they’ve moved out). A summation of my thoughts is that a committed relationship that is recognized by people around the couple encourage civic & social participation while exclusion fosters antagonism.
I fail to see where the destablizing influnce appears…outside of the boogy-man “Slippery-Slope.”
posted by Randy on
Fitz:No sooner would someone rearrange the kinship system of an isolated desert tribe and not expect a level of pandemonium to result.
Interesting. Now, out in Morocco, polygamy is actually quite prevalent. The former king was rumored to have three wives (he died in 1999, I believe). The current king is trying to change that — he is promoting women’s rights and literacy, and even encouraging women to enter religious school so that they could teach islam to the masses, which had been prohibted previously. According to Fitz, this tampering with the social norms should result in pandemonium. In fact, it has been embraced and accepted with not much incident.
On the other hand, the countries mentioned before, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, and soon Spain, are embracing gay marriage, and no pandemonium has resulted from that either. (In Spain, about 80% of the population clear majority favor gay marriage, and in the other countries, opposition to it has dried up completely) How can that be, I wonder?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
new found respect for the importance of monogamy
Considering the massive rates of divorce and even more dramatic rates of infidelity typical amongst married heterosexuals, I would argue that the standard heterosexual conceit of “understanding the importance of monogamy in public while fucking around as standard practice” is hardly better than the so-called “justified skepticism” of gay monogamy.
Further, there’s little evidence that monogamous relationships are less likely to be found in gay communities, because there’s been no significant good-faith study on the sexual patterns of gay men in long-term relationships. To date, the quantitative evidence suggests that in areas where gay relationships are legally recognized, the divorce rates are lower than heterosexual ones. And, of course, virtually everyone with a significant interaction with out gay people knows gay (and lesbian) couples who have lasted for decades.
So essentially, you’re demanding that gay people bend over backwards to disprove a common fallacy believed by people who don’t practice the monogamy they so publicly declare. Seems a bit unreasonable to me.
Then again, you and your sort are the ones who got the government into our bedrooms and the majoritarian/idiotarian regime deeply embedded into our personal lives. Personally, I’ll be damned before I explain how monogamous and deserving of respect I am to some “monogamous married” heterosexual like my soon-to-be-ex-brother-in-law — who is quite homophobic, convinced I’m promiscuous (when I’m not), and who is facing divorce from my sister after admitting to affairs with at least 10 different women (and knocking up another woman after separating my sister).
Frankly, he’s at least as typical in the “sanctity of marriage” crowd as the supposed urban homosexual — yet the silence from the religious right wing (and control-freak statists such as yourself) is deafening. That’s probably because you all are closer to him than you want anyone to realize.
posted by Randy on
NE Liber:
Those people aren’t asking that gay people disprove a common fallacy. They simply doesn’t care: The bottomline is that they are against gay marriage, pure and simple. The reasons come later. That’s why the ‘reasons’ are based on theory, assumptions, lack of any reasoning and so on.
I would respect their opinions more if they were honest and just said that they just don’t like the idea of gays marrying.
posted by Randy on
NE Liber:
Those people aren\\’t asking that gay people disprove a common fallacy. They simply doesn\\’t care: The bottomline is that they are against gay marriage, pure and simple. The reasons come later. That\\’s why the \\’reasons\\’ are based on theory, assumptions, lack of any reasoning and so on.
I would respect their opinions more if they were honest and just said that they just don\\’t like the idea of gays marrying.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Those people aren\\’t asking that gay people disprove a common fallacy. They simply doesn\\’t care
Of course, it\\’s their right not to marry gays in their own organizations.
The sad reality is that most of the \\”rights of marriage\\” were once rights which every American citizen had and could take for granted with anyone — not just a spouse.
However, we\\’ve allowed the state to steadily erode our liberties, add new taxes, and generally take away power over our own lives from us. We\\’ve even allowed the government to define, regulate and control our own intimate relationships with consenting adults, and allowed a discussion over our freedom to sponsor immigrants, bequeath assets without punitive taxes, or designate a medical decision-makers to evolve into a \\”debate\\” over the \\”definition of marriage\\” — rather than simply assert the rights of all sovereign individuals over their own bodies and property.
We\\’re a much poorer society for it too. Even when gays get the right to \\”legally marry,\\” a large portion of society will remain oppressed by the heavy hand of the state. It will be a hollow victory for liberty.
posted by Fitz on
“Considering the massive rates of divorce and even more dramatic rates of infidelity typical amongst married heterosexuals, I would argue that the standard heterosexual conceit of “understanding the importance of monogamy in public while fucking around as standard practice” is hardly better than the so-called “justified skepticism” of gay monogamy.”
This is what is called a false dichotomy, the world is not divided into two camps, one gay – one straight. Under this reasoning straight people started most of the wars, or commit most crimes ect? I can understand your feeling of alienation from such a permissive society. The truth however is that just because some people (or even many) don?t live up to a standard- doesn?t make that standard not worthy of preservation.
?Ultimately, of course, the proof is in the pudding. The Netherlands and Belgium have had gay marriage (and they don’t use quotes) for several years now, and Canada has had it for about two. Guess what? Things are going just as they had been. There is no evidence that gay marriage influenced marriage trends, divorce, abortion, or out of wedlock births to any degree.
Which is exactly our argument, the left and right who agree with SSM. Allowing gays to marry isn’t going to change anything. ?
I?m afraid you have not done much research into this ?pudding? European demographers know perfectly well that marriage in Scandinavia is in deep trouble. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life.
European demographers know perfectly well that marriage in Scandinavia is in deep trouble. British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life.
?there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country.?
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
posted by Audrey on
Fitz, do you attend Montclair State University? My sister goes there.
posted by Randy on
Fitz: First, Denmark does not allow same sex marriage. So all the troubles of marriage that you cite are due entirely to heteros. Gays have nothing to do with it. In fact, your quote on its face has everything to do with Scandinavia. But gay marriage is limited so far to just Belgium, the Netherlands, Massachusetts and Canada. (and soon, Spain).
Second, Mickey Kaus has already gone over all this same territory already. At first, Kaus made the same argument (and he is against most forms of gay rights, especially gay marriage). Kaus argued that marriage and in wedlock births were decreasing in Belgium and the Netherlands, and that this was due to gay marriage. When researchers pointed out the obvious flaws in his research, he finally was forced to conclude that marriage was indeed in decline throughout all these countries (including Scandinavia) but that this was due to long term trends in those societies that predate any discussion of same sex marriage, meaning from before 1990.
Kaus eventually was forced to modify his stance that gay marriage at best MIGHT have some impact, but he couldn’t tell what.
So yes, there are indeed problems with out of wedlock births, people cohabitating without marriage and so on. But these trends began pre-1990 and increased steadily in BOTH places that eventually allowed SSM as well as places that have not. In fact, these trends can be seen in almost all western european countries. Since that is the ‘control’ issue, any sane researcher would have to state that SSM played at best a peripheral role in these trends.
In other words, if your theories are correct, then these downward trends would exist only in the places were SSM exists, when in fact they exist throughout all of Europe.
And that’s the best evidence that you have to offer. But your theories do not withstand logic or evidence.
posted by dalea on
Fitz says: Once a line (especially one as old as marriage) has been separated from its historical meaning.
As far as I can tell, the historic ‘meaning’ of marriage is that woman got peddled, for cash or other valuables, to whomever her father picked. She had no say in the matter. Historically and traditionally, marriage is an economic transaction.
Now this has begun to wear away at traditional marriage. Good thing too IMHO. It used to be people stayed in horrible situations, suffered, made the lives of all around them miserable, messed up their kids, and so on. Now they can divorce and get on with their lives.
Why is this undesirable? I personally feel and think that almost all divorces are a ‘really good thing’. A total positive event in social life. I also tend to have the same reaction on abortions, based on personal experience. Sad, difficult, but necessary.
My suspicion here is that what we are hearing is a plea to restore straight men to an unearned position of dominance in personal life. Since they can no longer lord it over everyone by force of law, the appeal is made to ‘custom’ with dire predictions of what will happen.
Fritz’s comments strike me as patriarchal bilge, a close cousin to Marxist moonshine. All the Skandinavian and Dutch studies show is that women are not convinced that a man full time is a needed addition to their lives. And that as a group, straight guys are not very responsible. Lovable as they are, many straight men are just not worth a long term commitment.
Several years ago the Economist had an article on how men are becoming obsolete. They pointed to an array of man substitutes now available to women. Which had the effect of driving demand down for men. Interesting concept.
posted by On Lawn on
Dalea: Historically and traditionally, marriage is an economic transaction.
The culture and protocols of marriage have been much too diverse to be so characterized. There have been men sold back and forth (some even recorded in the bible among polygamous women), and marriage for love is by far the earliest and most consistent dimension.
Now this has begun to wear away at traditional marriage.
If by “traditional” you are building on your construction of female subjection, I don’t see how that is futhered here. I believe Rauch is going to great lengths to develop a logical thesis of same-sex marriage, where tangents such as your own are distractions to the main discussion.
Perhaps the logical thesis, then, of marriage is gender-completeness or equal gender representation. Just as the logical thesis of same-sex marriage seems to be to mirror that as close as possible without the gender complete requirement.
How then is patriarchy served with the thesis equal gender representation, vs gender neutral? It isn’t as far as I can tell. This smells more like a hunt for bogey-men.
Randy: First, Denmark does not allow same sex marriage. So all the troubles of marriage that you cite are due entirely to heteros.
There is a real problem with language here, and part of it is the poor construction of the language in this debate so far. What you would call “same-sex marriage” is not same-sex marriage at all, if you mean the Massachusetts variety. It is marriage that does not care if the combination is same-sex or not. Putting a sole targeted group of people as the title for the institution itself is, if you think about it, contrary to the purpose of the legislation that enacts same-sex marriage.
What Denmark has is more like what we’d expect from a title like that. It is a system designed for same-sex couples almost exclusively.
What Kaus’s and Kurtz’s arguments show is that the replacing marriage with a welfare status of recognizing couples for benefits does not support marriage. It definately seems that it undermines marriage as we see marriage becoming increasingly irrelevant in those states. Kurtz is first to point out that neutering marriage for the sake of homosexual couples is only one such way to do this. I don’t find it suprising then that Kaus doesn’t make a direct correlation either between homosexual couples. It is secondary, but not seperable. In many ways this is more along the lines of Northeastern Libertarian’s viewpoint than Rauch’s chosen thesis.
But the streangth of the association of Denmark and same-sex marriage is that the connection was not Kurtz’s or Kaus’s origionally, but Andrew Sullivan’s. At least just as long as Sullivan thought there was some traction in the numbers.
Randy: The Netherlands and Belgium have had gay marriage (and they don’t use quotes) for several years now, and Canada has had it for about two. Guess what? Things are going just as they had been. There is no evidence that gay marriage influenced marriage trends, divorce, abortion, or out of wedlock births to any degree.
In two years? That is questionable, its just too early to tell. But what we do see is a push towards polygamy (as seen in Canada’s two government reports on the matter) and an increased push towards pedophilia in the Netherland’s. That didn’t take long at all.
But while Rauch is perfectly capable of dissassociating them from his views and reasons, they don’t seem to be. And they are more than happy to explicitely borrow from the same logic to achieve their ends that those such as Rauch employ for their own. I agree Rauch should continue to make the distinction between his commentary and theirs, and hope he continues to do so.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Marriage is on severe decline in Russia, and Russia’s population is in steeper decline than the population in Scandinavia. Ditto for Italy.
Using Fitz’s logic, same-sex marriage in Scandinavia is actually helping them forestall the sort of catastrophic population collapse being seen in anti-gay countries like Italy and Russia.
Oops.
posted by Fitz on
“As far as I can tell, the historic ‘meaning’ of marriage is that woman got peddled, for cash or other valuables, to whomever her father picked. She had no say in the matter. Historically and traditionally, marriage is an economic transaction.”
This comment reveals two dispositions common to supporters of ss ?m?.
1. a predisposition to belittle and subvert marriage as an institution.
2. A profound ignorance of elemental history on the subject. (Stemming from an immersion in feminist faux history)
Just as today, a young woman?s parents were interested in marriage partners for their daughters that had a level of wealth capable of supporting a family. Far from ?peddling? their daughters off, this was mere concern for their well being. Furthermore, a women was not considered a good prospect herself unless she had at least some kind of ?dowry? (i.e. ? material possessions and money that could be used to establish a household)
All this makes perfect sense and is not manifestly distinguishable from the way it works today. A lover is one thing, but when looking for a permanent mate people tend to consider long term material issue?s in the equation.
?to whomever her father picked. She had no say in the matter.?
This is facially inaccurate. The history of marriage in Christian Europe is based on a theology that requires free assent by both parties in marriage. No marriage is valid if based on coercion or threat. To this very day, women in India will convert to Christianity to avoid being forced into an arranged marriage with an undesirable mate. The Western understanding of marriage is predicated on mutual assent of the parties for a valid covenant.
“Historically and traditionally, marriage is an economic transaction.”
Troupes such as this are usually accompanied by some version of ?women being the property of men? ? again a charade. A wife cannot be sold to another like a mule or killed like a slave. It takes 40 years of ?gender studies? rhetoric to create a false history so degrading the institution that its redefinition as seen as irrelevant to its purpose.
“My suspicion here is that what we are hearing is a plea to restore straight men to an unearned position of dominance in personal life. Since they can no longer lord it over everyone by force of law, the appeal is made to ‘custom’ with dire predictions of what will happen.
Fritz’s comments strike me as patriarchal bilge”
All the talk of ?patriarchy?, ?restoration of dominance? and ?lording over? reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought. Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.
This is precisely the mind set so prevalent on the left that drives critics like Robert George and myself to dismiss any feigned concern over the institution of marriage as a whole; as just so much convenient rhetoric.
posted by Fitz on
“Marriage is on severe decline in Russia, and Russia’s population is in steeper decline than the population in Scandinavia. Ditto for Italy.”
But I never mentioned population declines – I mentioned rates of marriage.
Oops
posted by Andrew on
Uhhh…..did you miss the part where he said “[m]arriage is on severe decline in Russia,” Fitz? I mean, come on. You even quoted it.
posted by Randy on
I always laugh when people throw out terms like “traditional marriage” and they no idea what it means. If you really must do so, than at least do a cursory amount of studying on the topic. There are plenty of resources if you google marriage, and noted authors.
Traditional marriage, whatever that means, certainly had nothing to do with love. And I mean nothing! Actually, in the early middle ages, it was actually a sin to love your spouse. Why? Because real love was reserved for God alone, and to love your spouse was considered a distraction from the true love. But certainly, throughout history, marriage was a convenience for both parties, and more importantly, both families. Since the financial and social situation of the family would hinge on a proper marriage, no family would allow any one to marry for such a foolish reason as love.
Nope. Traditioanal marriage was something arranged or at least agreed upon by two families to the betterment, socially or financial of both families. If you wanted love, you simply had a mistress. In this way, you could have your cake and eat it too — you married for the stability, and you have your love interest on the side. Is that what Fitz and others are advocating for?
Divorce, under these circumstances, was not only not allowed, it was not desired. If you divorced your wife, you probably would lose her dowry, which might be income-producing land. A divorced wife would be shunned from her husband’s social set. So there were powerful economic and societal pressures not to divorce. And why bother? you didn’t marry for love anyway, and you had your real love interest on the side, so divorce was not much needed. This created powerfully stable families, of course. So perhaps if you want to lower the divorce rate, we could go back to such a situation.
Marrying for love wasn’t even a notion until the late 18th century. Even the novels of Jane Austen concerned women looking not for love, but for husbands. (Note the difference). If they could be happy as well, that was a definate plus, but the future of the woman’s family would depend on her marrying well, whether she liked it or not.
It wasn’t until the 1920s that the notion arose that people should marry primarily for love, which is the situation we still have today. If you marry for love, then it’s a simple logical notion that one should get divorced when no longer in love. Hence a dramatic rise in the divorce rate in the 20th century. That, coupled with the fact that men and women no longer HAVE to get married to survive financially, means more people marrying for love, and later in life, and getting divorced.
So — what does this all mean? First, that gay people had nothing to do with this. Second, if marriage is about love, then there is no reason to deny gay people access to the same institution. Third, trends in europe that we see now are the culmination of long term trends dating from the 1920s and are not likely to be reserved any time soon, regardless of whether you add gays to the mix or not.
But please, let’s put to rest this notion that traditional marraige is just what existed in your lifetime — it’s something much more complicated.
posted by Randy on
Now Fitz is saying that because we bring up this past notion of economic necessity of marriage, we are somehow demeaning the institution. How he sees that, I just don’t know.
My mother, when she was widowed, knew plenty of other widowed or divorced women who wanted to get married simply for the economic security it would afford — as long as the man didn’t beat them, they were okay with marrying him. And that’s today!
Does it demean marriage to note this obvious truth? Nope — it just shows that many people have various reason for getting married. There is no “one” reason for marriage. For some, it’s to have kids, for other’s, it for true love, for others it’s the social standing. Ask any divorce lawyer or counslor, and you will find that there are as many reasons for getting married as there are people on the planet.
If marriage can hold all these different reasons for getting married, then it can certainly hold two men or two women.
And the facts are — there is no evidence anywhere that gay marriage harms other people’s marriages
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I mentioned rates of marriage.
Rates of marriage are, in and of themselves, an indicator of nothing. The conditions which government-sanctioned “marriage” is supposed to stop are most acute in the European countries where same-sex marriage is banned, and least of a problem in countries where same-sex marriage is legal.
I’m afraid you’ve completely undermined your case.
posted by On Lawn on
Such an absolute statement built on vague misunderstanding. Are you sure, Randy, that you wanted to present that as an argument?
If so, then I’m unsure of why or how you’ve dismissed the large body of evidence of marriage for love in both lore and law. How many arranged marriages do you find in fairy tales? Even the earliest rabbinical sources (which are probably the earliest religious/government regulations I know of on the matter) mention that courtship is required of anyone looking to marry.
That is an interesting take on “love”. The kind of love I’m familiar with in marriage does not conflict with parental acceptance, or marriage vows. Nor does it appear to be Fitz’s. So when you say, “Is that what Fitz and others are advocating for?” the question is dishonest on the face of it.
I’m not sure your thesis here is supported by the general body of current research. Even Rauch is quick to point out how the rate of marriage in Massachusetts for same-sex couples is meaningful for society, if not for the institution itself. So much so that he celebrates the removal of DP’s from the list of corporate benefits in the above article. I presume that is because such a carrot and stick will encourage more marriage participation. If he has another take I’d be interested in hearing it.
Please present your data on Russia and Italy.
I’m afraid you’ve completely undermined your case.
Actually, it looks like you were already undermined by Rauch, or perhaps you undermined Rauch depending on how you look at it.
Rauch wishes marriage to be a way for government to enforce/encourage monogamy among homosexuals. A sort of romantic police operation, if you will. You seem to wish neutering marriage to be a way to keep government out of the bedroom. When you two figure a resolution on this matter, just let me know.
posted by Randy on
Well, Lawn, yes, I stand by my statement that traditional marriage had nothing to do with love. Now, of course, some people DID no doubt actually love the person they married. They may have even fallen in love before marriage, and it may have been an ideal. But marriage for most of human history was specifically not ABOUT love, in the sense that it was an element required to marry. Sure Henry VIII married a number of times for love, but few people believed that any king would actually be in love with his queen. More important was what could the wife bring to the marriage — it could be a skill, good political connections, a dowry, or whatever. Even Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was arranged by his parents to establish an alliance with the important Spanish court.
For most of human history if a person had a choice between marrying his or her love, or a person who would benefit themselves and their families, they would in most instances choose that later. In that sense, love was not a consideration at all.
As for your puzzlement about love within a marriage, you missed my point. In an arranged marriage, or marriage in which the alliance was most important, loving your spouse was simply not an issue. As long as you got along well enough, that seemed to suffice. Courtship was always an important part of any marriage, of course. However, I can court a woman because she has a large dowry, even though I love another person.
There are plenty of historical records of a person NOT marrying his or her love, but marrying another for their betterment, and keeping the love on the side.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Marriage was originally a transfer of female property (women were considered property, not full citizens) from a father to a husband. That’s where a lot of the old traditions of marriage come from — asking a woman’s family for her hand in marriage, for instance. The idea was that women are property to be transferred from dad to new hubby — and usually without her consent/choosing.
Anyone who views marriage as a contract between equals, and “one man, one woman for life” is “radically redefining marriage from its traditional meaning as existed for thousands of years.” Don’t wait for them to realise this though.
posted by Randy on
Look — for all of you who are so troubled about the state of marriage, I say it’s time to get perspective. People fret that marriage is in trouble because it’s debased, held in low regard and so blame liberals, gays, welfare, whatever.
But I disagree: The reason marriage is in a troubled state is precisely because we hold it in such HIGH regard.
Throughout most of human history, marriage simply wasn’t held up as this ideal state between man and woman. No one would be so foolish as to think eternal bliss would arise from the happiest day for women. That is at best a Victorian notion.
In the past, you got married because you had to. Life was short and difficult, and a partner helped you along. That’s why when your spouse died, you married again soon after, often within weeks or months. No one could survive without it, but no one had romantic notions about it.
Only recently has our culture held marriage as this blissful state of romance between two people. Only recently have women had the economic power to refuse to marry a man just because he was a good provider — they wanted to love the man as well. We all believe this is a GOOD step in the right direction, right? So now, we are at a point where we think that marriage should be between me and my ‘soulmate’, a best friend, great lover and romantic interest, all rolled into one, and one that lasts for 30 or 40 years.
Is it any wonder then that people get disappointed when they find out the person they married is not the ideal? Or the romance wears off? people get old, cranky, set in their ways. Sometimes hardships put a strain on the marriage. And because we think we deserve romantic love, we seek separation when we don’t get it.
In other words, we have put marriage on such a pedestal that few unions can live up to such a standard. And then we wonder why there is divorce. If you ask most women who have children out of wedlock ‘would they marry the father?’ Many laugh at you — to marry that particular guy would be ridiculous.
I’m not saying all this is good, nor am I saying there are no alternatives. But perhaps if our culture didn’t romanticize marriage so much, more people might be willing to enter into it and stay in it.
posted by Bobby on
“Throughout most of human history, marriage simply wasn’t held up as this ideal state between man and woman.”
—I disagree, marriage was used by Kings to create alliances between countries, by farmers to get rich when marrying their daughters, by sons to create offspring… It was a matter of status. In today’s military, you need a wife to meet with other military wives and generals to speak well off you so you can get promoted. In the corporate world, a wife can impress a client or a boss.
Like it or not, marriage has defined men and women for centuries. Even today, it’s a badge of honor. Look at the fancy women bragging about their big rocks, the men with their wedding bands, the family pictures, baby showers. Getting married is like getting a very expensive Mercedes that you can bring into the office and show it to everyone.
Maybe that’s why gays are so pissed of, we are denied that honor.
Still, marriage is so far from my mind right now. I still don’t know if I want to get married in a boat, at the grand canyon, with a”The 3 Amigos” motiff and every guest dressed like a mexican bandido, i don’t know if I want to break the glass, or shoot the glass… What song to play at my weding, Marilyn Manson or Frank Sinatra?
Should I marry a man that’s taller than me? Shorter than me? Whiter? Darker? Blonde or brunette? Maybe asian? Greek? With curly or straight hair? Moderately hairy? Hairless? With pink or brown nipples?
So many fucking decisions.
posted by Xeno on
What’s wrong about ‘socialized medicine’? *confused*
I’m sorry I just couldn’t read the rest. Queer theorists and Ivy League professors bore me to death.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What\\’s wrong about \\’socialized medicine\\’?
An easier-to-answer question, given how short and succint the answer would be, is \\”what\\’s right about socialized medicine?\\”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
marriage was used by Kings to create alliances between countries, by farmers to get rich when marrying their daughters, by sons to create offspring… It was a matter of status.
It was no such thing. It was a transfer of “property” (in the form of women). “Status” came from the fact that many wives meant one owned more “property” — much like the guy with the five-car garage has more “status” than someone who parks his Hyundai on the street outside his small apartment.
Should I marry a man that’s taller than me? Shorter than me? Whiter? Darker? Blonde or brunette? Maybe asian? Greek? With curly or straight hair? Moderately hairy? Hairless? With pink or brown nipples?
So many fucking decisions.
Why worry about such details? Just enjoy life and keep your options open. Eventually you’ll meet someone for whom there’s bilateral attraction and you’ll be amazed at how easily you slide into a routine, and marriage will be something that’s second nature rather than something where you’re looking to order a car with all the various custom options.
Most people who are “looking” for a long time don’t understand that the long lists of characteristics they’ve written up for themselves of their “perfect mate” dramatically reduce the likelihood they’ll meet the right person. The reality is, after a few months together, you hardly notice what the other person looks like. Some shared values, I find, are one of the most important “non negotiables.”
posted by Fitz on
“Marriage was originally a transfer of female property (women were considered property, not full citizens) from a father to a husband. That’s where a lot of the old traditions of marriage come from — asking a woman’s family for her hand in marriage, for instance. The idea was that women are property to be transferred from dad to new hubby — and usually without her consent/choosing.”
The stark contrast of such analogies reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought. Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.
Any purview of the cultural left reveals gay activists comparing a gay/straight divide as the equivalent of spurious analogies to enslaved and subjugated African Americans. Another ongoing front reveals feminists comparing male/female relationships to subjugation and oppression recasting its essential nature as property exchanges with marriage itself being the height of a patriarchal and archaic power structure.
This is precisely the mind set so prevalent on the left that drives critics like me to dismiss any feigned concern over the institution of marriage as a whole; as just so much convenient rhetoric.
Enter into this Intellectual wasteland a handful of discordant voices maintaining the homosexuals wish to mainstream themselves into monogamy (Which is in tatters and under great strain since the sexual revolution)
Culminating in a resounding political defeat in both the courts and ballot box. Bringing us to the topic of this post Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships.
A honest statement singed by prominent intellectuals and activists revealing a cultural leftist mindset on the institution of marriage well within the mainstream of leftist thought and history.
On the advice of a few however, we are supposed to surrender our minds and believe that?
#1. A androgynized conception of marriage that is separated from any necessary connection to childbearing can successfully promote monogamy amongst the population at large
&
#2. That the bulk of the cultural left will pivot on a dime and start supporting a societal return to monogamy and sexual restraint while abandoning its own philosophical precepts so long in development and stridently maintained.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The stark contrast of such analogies reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought.
Actually, I’d suggest you steer clear of the amateur internet pop-psych and focus on the facts at hand, which support my position thoroughly.
Any purview of the cultural left reveals gay activists comparing a gay/straight divide as the equivalent of spurious analogies to enslaved and subjugated African Americans.
Blah blah blah. . . you’ll note I said nothing about any of this. And your tiresome platitudes about the “left” don’t apply to me, I’m a libertarian who is probably more “conservative” on a number of issues than you are.
Attempting to completely shift the discussion away from the facts (marriage historically was a transfer of female property from father to husband) to some solo circle-jerk treatise about the psychology of the left isn’t going to bolster your extremely weak argument.
Try again.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the bulk of the cultural left will pivot on a dime and start supporting a societal return to monogamy and sexual restraint
OK, I couldn’t resist this hilarious bit of fluff.
Quite fortunately, the Advocate released its sex survey results today amongst gay and lesbian men and women.
I suspect that “Fitz” conflates all gays — conservative, liberal, libertarian, centrist, socialist, anarchist, not caring — as part of this “evil cultural left” he keeps lambasting. But if you look at the actual survey results from real quantitative research, it shows a gay community which is not only rather sexually conservative, but a complete about-face from the burlesque caricature (born out of ignorance) which Fitz and his ilk present.
Some interesting facts:
* Almost 82% consider themselves married today or aspire to be married in the future (so much for the notion of gays as libertines not interested in commitment);
* Over 84% state they’d rather live without sex than without love — fewer than 16% chose sex over love as an option;
* The largest group of respondents reported that they’re in monogamous relationships, with the second-largest group reporting that no relationship rules apply since they’re single (“other”);
* The largest group of people report that they’ve had only between 2 and 5 sex partners in their entire lives (so much for the old “gays are so promiscuous” canard);
* Almost 2/3 report they’ve never visited a bathhouse, sex club, sex party, or other sex-related venue (so much for the old “gays prowl for sex and that’s all they want” canard);
* The largest group of people met their partners online, the second-largest group of people met their lifemates through a church, volunteer or community organization. Put together, those two categories represent the vast majority of venues for relationships.
You can read the full results here:
http://www.advocate.com/2006_sex_survey_results.asp
Facts are beautiful things when spouting off commentary about gay lives. Right-wing idiotarians like Fitz and left-wing self-appointed “leaders” like Paula Ettelbrick should consider the facts sometime when crafting their opinions and theories, it would make them far more credible (albeit far less amusing).
posted by On Lawn on
NE-L: Actually, I’d suggest you steer clear of the amateur internet pop-psych and focus on the facts at hand, which support my position thoroughly.
Actually, to be honest Mr. Libertarian, I’ve never seen someone so sure of their facts, yet so unwilling to show them. I’ve asked for corroboration of a number of your suppositions, and you’ve provided none.
Your ongoing conflicts over what marriage is presents many different viewpoints which you have dismissed more out of convienience than appeal to facts.
In short, you are coming across as a blow-hard. And it is because I wish the conversation to move forward, and to increase your ability to contribute that I call you on this.
Please re-read the conversation to present, key in to the various parts where people call your desperate bluffs. Then please submit what you consider to be your factual basis. I can see at least four such areas you’ve either dropped or simply upped the volume on your bluff meter instead of providing any evidence.
I suspect that “Fitz” conflates all gays — conservative, liberal, libertarian, centrist, socialist, anarchist, not caring — as part of this “evil cultural left” he keeps lambasting.
That wouldn’t be my take. You either haven’t read Rauch’s articles so far, or you have forgotten them. Your conflict with Rauch’s thesis is a previously mentioned topic, and you have much re-reading to do.
In fact, it seems your ambivolence on this matter of monogamy encouragement/enforcement would support Fitz’s very view that you are attemting to discredit.
posted by On Lawn on
Folks,
I’ve just re-read this thread. I have to say I’m having trouble getting a handle on just what the conversation is about. I can pick up on one predominate theme: the value and definition of traditional marriage
Some are actively de-valuing it and some are making honest attempts to understand the historic and anthropological basis of marriage. As I noted to NE-Libertarian, the facts have been few and far between on the matter. So help me get to the bottom of this. I have developed a poll so that I can better understand your positions:
1) Randy has forwarded the position that traditional marriage has nothing to do with love. My question then is, what song best describes love to you? My answer? Two sparrows in a hurricane.
2) The second question is, what is marriage more than DP’s to you? The ACLU, back in the days before neutering marriage was considered an option, defined and advocated DP’s. They defined them here, made available through the way-back machine since the ACLU has since deleted the page. Use that as a basis and describe what you find lacking in that legal construction that the government can use to see what marriage is more than a DP. I’m not talking about benefits, those are what the government and other entities give couples it recognizes as DP’s or married. I’m talking about it is, not what we do to it.
posted by Op Ed. on
Northeast: focus on the facts at hand, which support my position thoroughly. …marriage historically was a transfer of female property from father to husband
What facts at hand? All you\\’ve presented is a thesis based on the world as seen through your own myopic and narcistic lens. Feel free to provide even one fact to support your wild eyed assertion. Forget the fact that the bulk of human history uses matrilineal property descent. Forget church records of marriages between serfs, forbidden to hold property. Marriage is all about men passing property around.
Randy: Traditional marriage, whatever that means, certainly had nothing to do with love. And I mean nothing!…Marrying for love wasn\\’t even a notion until the late 18th century….It wasn\\’t until the 1920s that the notion arose that people should marry primarily for love,
That\\’s right folks, you heard it here. Shakespeare\\’s Romeo and Juliet wasn\\’t written until the late 18th century. The Brothers Grimm never wrote about princes falling in love to marry the damsel in distress and living \\”happily ever after.\\” Recently uncovered love letters between Roman soldiers and their spouses are all forgeries of the 1920s, as are Biblical and Quranic references to love and compassion between spouses. Christian analogies Between Christ\\’s love for the Church and a husband\\’s love for his wife are all fakery. The mountain of diaries and tales from Native America to Russia to ancient India and China of the love between a husband and his wife- all fakes produced merely to deceive the weak of intellect.
It\\’s all part of a master plot, brought to you by the same folks that faked the lunar landing, 9/11, and the holocaust, faked for the one purpose of hiding marriage\\’s One True Meaning: the subjugation of women and the oppression of homosexuals. OK, it\\’s Two True Meanings.
Randy: I stand by my statement that traditional marriage had nothing to do with love.
Oh, no doubt you do. Actually, it is not surprising that this same group claiming to be scared by quotes is also willing to believe en masse in Randy\\’s factually bereft hypothesis. Which now presents me with quite a dilemma: in describing this forum, should I put the \\”scare\\” quotes around \\”independent\\” or \\”thinkers?\\” Not that the \\”marriage is worthless, terrible, stupid and oppressive so give it to me\\” meme isn\\’t silly enough on its own.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
All you’ve presented is a thesis based on the world as seen through your own myopic and narcistic lens.
I haven’t presented a thesis, for one, as I’m not aiming for a PhD. Secondly, if you’re going to use words like “narcissistic,” I suggest you spell them correctly.
Thirdly, throwing out random words to react to a historically-proven argument isn’t an effective rejoinder in the slightest.
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet wasn’t written until the late 18th century. The Brothers Grimm never wrote about princes falling in love to marry the damsel in distress and living “happily ever after.” Recently uncovered love letters between Roman soldiers and their spouses are all forgeries of the 1920s, as are Biblical and Quranic references to love and compassion between spouses.
Are you seriously arguing that there were no writings or reflections on the love and compassion between same sex spouses? Because if you are, that would be a hilarious continuation of your lack of understanding of historical fact.
Given the hostility expressed towards same-sex relations in the medieval period which you seem to yearn for a return to, a surprising amount of homoerotic literature has survived and thrived. An even greater portion of the literature has been destroyed by various people who agreed with your theology/politics, including the Inquisition, and more recently, the Nazi book burnings. I bet you didn’t realize (or care to realize) that one of the most famous photographs of Nazi book burnings was the destruction of the largest gay literature library in the world in Berlin.
Even so, the cultural dialectic of gay and lesbian literature, if you were familiar with real history, is extensive and spans periods which eclipse the limited grade-school literary examples you’ve dug up.
Try Googling some of these some time, and learning a bit about them:
Sappho, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Saadi’s Bustan and Gulistan, Abu Nuwas.
There are few things which are more boring than someone who accuses another of being myopic and narcissistic, yet then is too narcissistic to consider that people who aren’t like him have existed for a long time, and too myopic to take a look at literature and history from a factual — rather than ideological — perspective.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Randy has forwarded the position that traditional marriage has nothing to do with love.
Traditional marriage is, as has been explained to you repeatedly, evolved into an institution based on love from a commercial transaction.
Incidentally, the “traditional marriage legal system” you’re supposedly trying to defend does not list or require “love” or evidence of love as a prerequisite to marriage being legitimate. Rather, it requires the marriage to be “consummated” — i.e. the physical act of sex.
There’s never been a legal basis in history, for those societies where government has gotten its regulatory mitts on personal relationships, which required love to exist in order for a marriage to exist. It usually involved either sex, property transfer (dowry), or a combination of the two.
Your “thesis” is weaker than O’Doul’s.
posted by On Lawn on
> Ne-L: There’s never been a legal basis in history, …
I don’t remember seeing a reference to legal basis in Randy’s remarks. The root of the discussion of historic meaning of marriage was put forth by Delea, who also made no mention of legality.
Both comments were about the reason people got married, to own or exchange property. This happens without government observation or regulation. Its also a statement that is easily shown false looking at the culture and lore of marriage through history. A historic record which has passed through societies devoid of personal property, and cultures that have no dowry. An untrue position, but that is, AFIACT, their position and your test for legal basis is post-hoc. Well it would have been if you could apply it consistently through the rest of your post.
> …mentioned for those societies where government has gotten its regulatory mitts on personal relationships,…
As far as I can tell, Delea and Randy both paint marriage as a commercial relationship. Randy specifically noted that any personal feelings are inconsequential. Whether his view is true or not, it appears in attempting your own illusion that you left your foot hanging out from under the curtain.
Also, by considering marriage as a way to have government get its regulatory mitts on marriage, are you saying that in your libertarian philosophy that government should get out of marriage entirely?
> … which required love to exist in order for a marriage to exist. …
I agree the government has no interest in testing for love in a relationship.
> … It usually involved either sex,…
So the government doesn’t test for love or romance. And if i am to believe you, the government does tests if people are having sex. What test might that be?
property transfer (dowry), or a combination of the two.
So what government test is there to establish a legal basis for dowry?
Your “thesis” is weaker than O’Doul’s.
So much pompous bluster, and so little though put in your posts.
posted by Randy on
Right. Throughout history, people only married for love.
Dowry’s? A mere fiction made up by lesbian feminists. Arranged marriages? Only godless commies would believe that.
Forget it, NE Lib: People today have no interest in actually reading history. Hell, you don’t even have to read about the history of marriage — just a good working knowledge of medieval England, for instance, will give you enough to know. Most people’s knowledge of history and tradition starts at about the time they were child and ends today — everything else is just a product of libruls. Such is the Fox Generation.
It’s fun having arguments with thoughtful, educated people, but it’s no fun with willfully ignorant ones. By the way, I learned a lot about the history of marriage from the heavily footnoted books of Stephanie Coontz, a noted scholar in the field. Her books are widely reviewed positively by leading reviewers. But the people who post here have no real interest in the truth of the matter.
posted by On Lawn on
> Randy: Right. Throughout history, people only married for love.
Thanks for the giggles. However,
I’m unaware of anyone saying traditional marriage had nothing to do with dowry’s. I’m unsure of just who you believe you’ve discredited with your attempt at sarcasm.
In disputing your stand that marriage had nothing to do with love, I said:
Fitz said:
Remember, you were the one who chose to make your argument an absolute statement built on vague misunderstanding. It reached even further than Delea’s already over-reaching statement.
People today have no interest in actually reading history.
Such as yourself, as the evidence disproving your absolute statement is elementary. It made me question your understanding of history immediately.
just a good working knowledge of medieval England, for instance, will give you enough to know
Thats probably evidence if just how narrow your understanding of history is, though even stripping down the scope that far doesn’t remove the evidence contrary to your position. Note Bobby’s post above.
By the way, I learned a lot about the history of marriage from the heavily footnoted books of Stephanie Coontz, a noted scholar in the field.
Again you show us the narrowness of the scope of your research. But beyond that we can surmise that your ignorance on the issue is not just your fault at least.
For isntance, Tom Sylvester is someone who is for allowing same sex couples to wed. But even he can’t stomach her attempts at misaligning marriage history for her own thinly veiled agenda.
But I can’t blame her either, as she might be the first to balk at just how far you tried to stretch her research.
In her research shows how little romantic freedom was in marriage, and says nothing about interpersonal expressions of love. In that same article she is careful to note that she speaks of social marriage policy, not individual expectation of love in a marriage:
She finishes off that paragraph with the note on romantic freedom:
In short, the only way your statement matches hers is if you take the additional leap that “love” means romantic freedom. If so then you are right, I’m not sure that an institution with such high expectation for monogamy can be considered to be primarily about romantic freedom.
But to conflate love with romantic freedom probably does more to underscore Fitz’s commentary about this conversation than convincing people you have a good understanding of what marriage is.
posted by On Lawn on
Sorry, the above link to Tom Sylvester’s comments was garbled and misdirected.
For Tom’s remarks go here.
posted by Op Ed. on
Northeast: I haven’t presented a thesis, for one, as I’m not aiming for a PhD.
Well, should you ever decide to go to school, you might want to look up “thesis” in the dictionaries they have there.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I didn’t think “Op Ed” or whoever is trolling the boards would respond to any of my points, and would just continue splashing poo against the wall to see if it would stick, and I wasn’t disappointed.
I do note that his constant and hysterical dislike of “romantic freedom” is telling. Most social conservatives don’t like freedom — they hate it as much as history or fact-based learning.
In the end, all they’re reduced to is blasting everyone who isn’t exactly like them as being unthinking, wicked, nasty, horrible people who have no redeeming value — which is why they’re losing most debates. They view government as the power to force other people to be as miserable as they are, and when most individuals see that, they run screaming the other direction.
Case closed. Next. 🙂
should you ever decide to go to school, you might want to look up “thesis” in the dictionaries they have there
Where I went to school, they knew how to spell “narcissist,” and they also know who Sappho, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Saadi’s Bustan and Gulistan, and Abu Nuwas were.
I’d say “try again,” but after seeing your style, I doubt we’re going to get much more than dictionary quotes, insults and ignoring of basic facts to advance some lunatic proposition about how the 98% of the world which doesn’t live the way you do is evil incarnate.
posted by Op Ed. on
Nitwit: I do note that his constant and hysterical dislike of “romantic freedom” is telling.
Never said a word about “romantic freedom.” If you ever decide to go to school, have them teach you how to read.
In the end, all they’re reduced to is blasting everyone who isn’t exactly like them…
I never said anything about “everyone who isn’t exactly like [me].” I blasted you as unthinking because of your half-witted, factless and easily disproven statements about marriage, not because you were or were not like me. Inventing all these strawmen to go after isn’t making you look any brighter, just so you know.
They view government as the power to force other people to be as miserable as they are…
Never said anything about the power of government, force, or being miserable.
Where I went to school…
You went to school? That’s a shocker. I’m guessing you rode the little bus.
…and ignoring of basic facts to advance some lunatic proposition about how the 98% of the world which doesn’t live the way you do is evil incarnate.
Seeing how I’m the only one who’s presented any “basic facts” to be ignored, that would make the above quote about yourself. In that case I’d say it’s a pretty accurate summing up of your entire position… probably on most topics, in fact.
posted by On Lawn on
Good ol’ NE-L. I’m not sure he’s really up with it at the moment. He seems to be addressing Op-Ed, but specifically references arguments I made. I’ll attempt to reply, but his presentation is so ambiguous that it is difficult to say.
I didn’t think “Op Ed” or whoever is trolling the boards would respond to any of my points
I’m not speaking for Op-Ed, but I’ve responded to all of them. Would you care to list points that you feel I did not reply to? I’d be happy to correct that error.
I do note that his constant and hysterical dislike of “romantic freedom” is telling.
The problem was equating love with romantic freedom, nothing against romantic freedom in and of itself. Is your problem just simple reading comprehension? Here it is again for you:
In the end, all they’re reduced to is blasting everyone who isn’t exactly like them as being unthinking, wicked, nasty, horrible people who have no redeeming value
Close, but not entirely. The trait of being “unthinking” is something that is not like me at all, and it has no redeeming value to the conversation. I’m just applying Occam’s razor here. Well, that and I’m not ascribing to your malice what is obviously a product of …
They view government as the power to force other people to be as miserable as they are
That was funny. Are you for expanding marriage to cover homosexual couples? Didn’t you say marriage was government mittens in personal affairs? Seems you are the one wanting to expand government to make everyone equally miserable.
Look, you are obviously getting punch drunk here and are swinging so wildly that you are hitting yourself. Just take a lesson from this that pompous blustering is no substitute for substance.
Learn, move on, do better. That is all.
they hate it as much as history or fact-based learning. … I doubt we’re going to get much more than dictionary quotes …
Wow, you really are getting punch drunk. You just beraded Op-Ed for presenting facts and for not having facts at the same time.
advance some lunatic proposition about how the 98% of the world which doesn’t live the way you do is evil incarnate.
Hmm, I didn’t see anyone calling anyone else evil.
Again, the first thing you should fix is your intellectual honesty.
posted by dalea on
Channeling Wm F Buckley are we?
My thoughts on marriage are informed by Graff’s What is Marriage For. Which you will probably dismiss as a popular book. Beyond that, my background is in economics. So, my own take on the subject is that looking at arguments for and against same sex marriage, my understanding is that traditionally marriage was an economic transaction. Women were bought and sold. This strikes me as clear from reading history also. But that is a pointless effort as Fitz will simply declare a scholar out of bounds because of ‘leftist’ affiliation.
Fitz says: ‘All the talk of ?patriarchy?, ?restoration of dominance? and ?lording over? reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought. Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.
This is precisely the mind set so prevalent on the left that drives critics like Robert George and myself to dismiss any feigned concern over the institution of marriage as a whole; as just so much convenient rhetoric. ‘
Which is neither here nor there, my mind set is beside the point. What I find myself hearing is some gasbag running on and on about how the posters here are:
A. uneducated
B. educated the wrong way
C. not capable of understanding complex thoughts.
D. not using ‘real authorities’ like the ones he uses
OK, who are you? That you should place yourself in the exalted company of ‘Robert George’ must mean that we are being condesended to by someone with grand credentials. So, tell us who you are and what makes you so credible. From your arguments, all I see is sophistry and evasion.
Please to remember, this is a board with strong libertarian leanings. And libertarianism originated from the left. Also, libertarians tend to focus on the contractual elements of human relationships. Leaving ‘true meanings’, ‘just prices’, ‘fair returns’ and so forth in the rubbish bin of history. Or more likely to snickering and ridicule.
We tend here to speak in the language of Mill, who also was not very concerned about ‘real’ meanings and all the rest of this pointless verbiage. Marriage is a contractural relationship. Over time the female partner has acquired more and more rights under the marital contract. I can remember when the law was changed so that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands. If you think forced sex within marriage is not an ‘oppresor/oppressed’ issue, then what is? It is not some ‘dialectic’ driving me but my own native ability to observe the world and draw conclusions.
On a personal note, when my partner was dying, I discovered the cold hard facts of a relationship without marriage. Which is why I advocate same sex marriage. As a contractual relationship.
Perhaps you could speak to the incredible suffering and misery lack of marriage brings to gay people. That would be a helpful start.
posted by dalea on
Went and read the meanderings of the Robert George person. Which appeared in ‘First Things’, an UltraMontanist publication. Why should anyone care about what such people think? And why Rauch takes this any more seriously than Westboro Baptist Church is beyond me.
George’s argument is that same sex marriage people have not shown a strong aversion to polygamy, polyandry, and other looming menaces.
Well, speaking strictly for me, it is because there is no reason to do so. In advocating SSM, that is all we are advocating. There is no logical reason for us to make others’ arguments for them. Those who favor polygamy and so forth are capable of speaking for themselves. This is entirely a red herring, a time waster.
The topic at hand is same sex marriage. Yea or nay? Dragging in all and sundry other forms of relationships is simply beside the point. ANSWER THE QUESTION!. Do not confuse the issue.
My own take is that George’s approach is morally and intellectually disgraceful. If he is concerned about these other issues, he should take it up with those who advocate them. Not with those who advocate SSM. The prestidigitation and flimflam on show with George is really unsettling. Is he incapable of addressing one issue without festooning all and sundry on it? The article is truly a garish christmas tree of thinking.
My own simile would be that speaking for SSM is a simple ballad, sung without accompniment. George presents it as AIDA, complete with elephant. Truly trashy.
My personal ideas on polygamy etc are these. I find relationships to be a personal matter, best left up to the people entering into them. The law should work to curtail obvious, provable defects. There should also be a fairly simple exit for those who so desire.
Beyond that, I really don’t care how many people enter into relationships. It is none of my business. And I have known a number of three person relationships that worked admirably for the partners and their children.
Polygamy and polyamatory do not ‘pick my pocket’, so I really just wish those in such relationships well. End of story.
Waiting for the Ultramontanists to harrange again.
posted by On Lawn on
Dalea,
Channeling Wm F Buckley are we? … My thoughts on marriage are informed by Graff’s … Fitz will simply declare a scholar out of bounds because of ‘leftist’ affiliation. … We tend here to speak in the language of Mill
Your commentary seems to be one of making yourself and others pawns of patron scholars and saints. Sure, if that is your thing. I’m no one’s pawn though.
But I will add this, for someone pleading for an open mind to others beliefs and feelings, you should not be so quick to dismiss George for religious affiliation. As I recall, he did not present a religious argument to Rauch.
Its simply a stone vs glass house thing.
Please to remember, this is a board with strong libertarian leanings. And libertarianism originated from the left.
This is questionable on many levels. Libertarianism since the seventies recognizes itself as a dimension of politics apart from the arbitrary right and left. Perhaps even three dimensions.
From your arguments, all I see is sophistry and evasion.
Feel free to provide some examples.
my understanding is that traditionally marriage was an economic transaction. Women were bought and sold. This strikes me as clear from reading history also.
I’ve heard physics explained as just a series of economic transactions, the currency being money. In fact, currency and current (as in fluid flow and electrical flow) are based on the same word. In a mindset that looks at everything as an exchange of something, whole universal theories of everything can be constructed.
I am not going to speak against that practice. However, if by “economic transaction” you are describing a commercial transaction then please provide your evidence for that statement. Surely if it is so clear, and so universal that the evidence should be readily available.
To put it succinctly, I am calling your bluff. (It wasn’t even a very good bluff attempt if you ask me).
I can remember when the law was changed so that women could refuse to have sex with their husbands.
I believe I know what you are getting at here, but lets call this bluff too just to make sure.
On a personal note, when my partner was dying, I discovered the cold hard facts of a relationship without marriage. Which is why I advocate same sex marriage. As a contractual relationship.
My condolances. I know what it is like to slowly loose touch with someone you love because of physical incapacity. You didn’t not say whether or not they survived, I hope that is the case.
However, if everything is a contract then certainly you didn’t need marriage. With adequate enforcement of the contract you and your partner wished to make, according to your own ideals of a relationship, you could have anything a marriage has. The question is, do you support abstraction of marriage to facilitate the freedom of two people to create their own contract? Or are you against such a freedom and wish to use the government to impose the heterosexual view of marriage on homosexuality (which is Rauch’s view IIRC)?
I believe that is a good place to begin in understanding your position. I have more I could say, but I’d rather build a foundation for the discussion first.
posted by dalea on
MIchael died. We had all the contracts, powers of attorney, on and on and they did no good. It is comparatively easy to suggest that all gay people need do is get these, and then there is no reason they should marry. But, as gay person after gay person has testified these substitutes do not have the force of marriage. They are easily evaded by those who are not sympathetic to gay people. When I told the doctor my wishes for a comatose man, he said ‘sue me’. Found out it would take at least 4 months to get a court date, and could not afford a lawyer.
The rights of a spouse are absolute. Which is why gay people seek this legal status. And many of us have run into the situation where all the marriage substitutes don’t work. Were you aware of this? Did it occur to you that we have reasons to advocate ssm besides overthrowing three milleniums of whatever? Please listen to the voices of gay people speaking on this subject. We have very profound reasons to seek marriage.
After Michael passed away there was something I felt called upon to do. The hospice workers were persuaded by their pastors and churches that it would be unchristian to care for a dying gay man. So, I was left to do all the work, with no training or skills, of taking care of him. This went on for 18 days. One person who did not know how to give a bed bath doing 24 hour care. When I went to file complaints about these licensed care givers, they were rejected because I was not a spouse or next of kin. This haunts me still 12 years later.
I have personally known many gay men who have been in my position. Have you heard our stories? Listened to our trials and tribulations? Can you see how George’s arguments make no dent in our resolve?
You have abstract arguments. We have experiences. Which strikes me as two very different starting places.
posted by dalea on
Examples of sophistry and evasion.
Mentioning schools of thought and how they apply here in understanding one’s fellow posters: ‘Your commentary seems to be one of making yourself and others pawns of patron scholars and saints. Sure, if that is your thing. I’m no one’s pawn though.’
I suspect you are trying to say something about how marriage requires a man and a woman, but I am not sure. What does androgyny have to do with ssm? This seems to be the old Buckley tactic of presenting another position in complex language to mystify the discussants. ‘A androgynized conception of marriage that is separated from any necessary connection to childbearing can successfully promote monogamy amongst the population at large’
On what gay people are looking for in ssm: ‘Enter into this Intellectual wasteland a handful of discordant voices maintaining the homosexuals wish to mainstream themselves into monogamy (Which is in tatters and under great strain since the sexual revolution)’
How did monogamy get into the topic? Why is it here? AFAIK we are talking about the needs gays have for full marriage. Not what shape that marriage should take. Strikes me as evasive.
On the way I look at things:’The stark contrast of such analogies reveals the profound oppressor/oppressed dialectic that drive this persons thought.’
This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Plus evades the idea that marriage has had in the past oppresive elements.
On marriage, or something, not really sure what this is about. ‘Viewing a institution such as marriage with it multiple variables and storied history through a crude reductionism that robs it of its texture and humanity.’
Looks like a word cloud to me, designed to throw people off the topic. Really evades the issues here.
posted by On Lawn on
Examples of sophistry and evasion. …
Your only example happened after your accusation. Very sloppy attempt. The other examples were from Fitz, and they don’t seem to fly either.
Also, I’m not sure how your example is one of evasion. You were the one who brought up the questions (well pre-emptive accusations) on my views on your scholars. I believe I addressed that specifically. To speak on that further, personally I don’t think who says an argument speaks much about an argument.
Sorry, your accusations won’t save you from keeping up your end of the conversation. I still expect you to substantiate those accusations, even if that wallows the debate into watching you flail about with increasingly useless and baseless accusations. Its just a pass-time of mine.
What does androgyny have to do with ssm?
Androgenous marriage could reference role-reversals of each gender, or it could just reference the fact that marriage has a dual gendered component. Which were you referencing in relation to a same-sex couple, or what quote were you referencing of mine?
This seems to be the old Buckley tactic of presenting another position in complex language to mystify the discussants.
Mystified? Try asprin 🙂
Could you, just for my sake, directly quote my words you are replying to? It is almost impossible to understand what you are referencing here.
How did monogamy get into the topic? Why is it here?
I believe the person who first brought up monogamy was a contributor to this discussion:
In fact it was the person who started this thread, Mr Rauch himself. IIRC, Rauch has stated before his view that manipulating the definition of marriage is a way to encourage monogamy in same-sex relationships. I believe that is an important plank in Rauch’s platform the impact increased monogamy among gays has an impact on social health and STD’s.
So I have to chuckle, you are obviously getting delirious also. So desperate are you to start impugning people (Fitz in this case) that you’ve wound up taking a swipe at your own general.
I tell you, if you were more interested in the debate than in making grand accusations you’d have saved yourself from this folley.
But then this seems to further support Fitz observation of dischord in the voices promoting nuetering the marriage definition for the sake of homosexuality.
This strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Plus evades the idea that marriage has had in the past oppresive elements.
A more thorough reading of Fitz commentary (some quoted by myself above) shows that he is not arguing marriage has not had oppressive elements. But that the overly-constrained construction of marriage history along the lines of oppressed and oppressor is not accurate.
But you said about that:
Looks like a word cloud to me, designed to throw people off the topic. Really evades the issues here.
I’ll give you my take. You seem to have constructed a house of cards. A delicate placement of sorted facts hand selected for the construction of an argument. When it is poited out that you missed various facts, views, and such, you claim its a distraction. You accuse others in order to enforce blinders on them. Thats what I’m seeing.
Now, if you have questions feel free to ask. I’m sure plenty are ready to help you with your confusion. But I wouldn’t be the one to blame someone else for your conflusion, because frankly, you can’t assume others are so narrow minded.
To put it very succinctly, your lack of comprehension and open-mind is not a evasion on someone else’s part.
MIchael died. We had all the contracts, powers of attorney, on and on and they did no good.
I’m sorry to hear that. But when you say they did no “good” I believe you are saying something more meaningful to the debate than those contracts didn’t keep him alive. What specifically did those contracts not do that you expected them to do?
But, as gay person after gay person has testified these substitutes do not have the force of marriage.
This, more than anything else, shows that marriage is more than a contract. You may not see what marriage is more, but you you seem to have discredited the opinion that marriage is just a contract. Well, more than a contract between two people.
And that is probably where the libertarian case of marriage really hits the fan. Marriage is a contract between more than two people. The two people enter the contract of their free will and choice, and others then contribute to it of their free will and choice. That means the government, hospitals, corporations, etc… What the thrust of Delea’s complaints seem to be is that there isn’t enough enforcement to make third parties contribute to the contract. Delea had contracts but they didn’t make anyone else do anything for them. It is saying that the third parties have too much liberty and free choice on the matter. I’m having real trouble justifying that as a libertarian ideal.
But I have news for you. Marriage does not grant absolute power, as you claim. I know this is true from my own experience. My wife has been in many varied medical emergencies, and my say was just as little as yours. In fact I couldn’t even access what medical treatment was happening to her, let alone have any say in it.
The hospitals chose to ignore that I was a husband. I’ll tell you the only thing they wouldn’t ignore was my wife signing a document that specifically names people who can have differing levels of access to her care. And she can put a gay lover there if she wants to. These days we make sure and get these documents signed first thing.
I have other news for you. They still have a choice even if you neutered marriage. They can choose to only recognize gender-complete arrangements, or not recognize marriage at all. Your choice to solve your problems with more government enforcement is fool-hardy.
And what really sickens me is all your commentary looks at is gay couples, not even all same-sex couples but homosexual couples. You can’t see beyond your own nose. I’m here to tell you that there are many couples just as in need as a homsexual couple.
Thats the point of the Beyond Marriage document which Rauch is against. Take it up with him. You two can be bigoted towards homosexuality all you want. You two can focus only on gays all you want. When people see a bigger picture, you and Rauch call it a distraction because all you care about are yourselves and homosexuals.
That truely sickens me.
posted by dalea on
The mask has come off. We now can see clearly the face of our opponents, this Fitz/ On Lawn.
The contracts did not allow Micheal’s designated agent to make decisions. This was per our discussions. I was not able to do what he had told me to do under circumstances.
I for one would like to know who this person is, and so forth.
The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
posted by Op Ed. on
dalea: The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
Then you are pushing for contracts, not marriage, which puts you in the Beyond Marriage crowd, not the “if only homosexuals would act like good little heterosexuals” crowd with Rauch.
This may surprise you, but contracts are available today. You can write a contract between a man and a woman today. Rauch calls that a “marriage alternative,” all of which are bad because they will cause the world to end. You can write a contract between two men, or between two women, or between siblings or a mother and a son. Heck, you can even write contracts between three people…or even four or five. And however these alternative groups offend Rauch’s morality, those contracts are just as enforceable as two party contracts or a contract between a man and a woman.
So contracts already exist, and people who can choose them today as an alternative to marriage. But most people don’t make this choice and that offends your sensibilities. So your “libertarian” solution is therefore to abolish marriage so people will have no choice but to behave the way you want and just make their marriage into a contract. While forcing others to conform to your sensibilities may match what you claim is the leftist take on libertarianism, the rest of us consider that to be simple totalitarianism.
posted by dalea on
Uhhh, my point previously was that having had the contracts, I found them to be unenforcable when time came to use them. Please pay more attention to the what we are talking about. And please quit making stuff up, like: ‘Then you are pushing for contracts, not marriage, which puts you in the Beyond Marriage crowd’
As stated, I regard marriage as a contract. And think gay people should have access to it on the same basis as everyone else.
posted by On Lawn on
my point previously was that having had the contracts, I found them to be unenforcable when time came to use them.
You’d have to state more of the circumstances, but it sounds like those contracts were not written well. Or perhaps more probable, you expected too much from them. Things not even marriage would deliver.
I stated this already, you ignored it. That supports my theory on your construction of your argument.
As stated, I regard marriage as a contract. And think gay people should have access to it on the same basis as everyone else.
As Op-Ed noted:
When you reconsile this divide with Rauch and let me know.
The mask has come off. We now can see clearly the face of our opponents, this Fitz/ On Lawn.
It seems your accusations are getting more obscure and vague as the discussion moves on. Fair enough, as all the accusations you’ve made explicit so far have been so easily discredited.
The contracts did not allow Micheal’s designated agent to make decisions. This was per our discussions. I was not able to do what he had told me to do under circumstances.
Neither did my marriage give me the power to make decisions. I’ve often wondered shy I need to be listed with each different medical establishment, but the fact remains no one contract does what you wish. At least not marriage. You are chasing an illusion.
If someone has a wish, as your partner did, it seems a living will is in order. I know I need one, even though I’m married.
The point of contracts from a libertarian perspective is that they are readily enforceable.
Such a plattitude, but one that doesn’t seem to support your argument. Contracts are enforcable, perhaps, between the parties signed onto the contract. Pretending your contracts are enforcable onto non-signatories is simply delusional, let alone contrary to libertarian principles.
posted by Jinna23 on
Hi, my name is Jinna, I’m pretty sweet girl looking for young man. You can read more about me
on the site, and also you can see my photos there.
[url=http://www.igotfree.com/datingi/]MEET ME HERE![/url]
MORE DATING LINKS:
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/]lesbian dating[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index3.html]dating personals[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index.html]free on line dating[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/index3.html]free dating websites[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index.html]100% free dating[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index2.html]icp dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/index2.html]free online dating sites[/url]
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/index2.html]dating online[/url]
[url=http://www.xmail.net/datingi/index2.html]free sex dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.macvillage.net/index3.html]dating serice[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/index3.html]online dating services[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/]dating servce[/url]
[url=http://www.megspace.com/entertainment/datingi/index3.html]dating direct[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/]gay dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/index3.html]insane clown posse dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.tbns.net/datingi/]herpes dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/index2.html]russian dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/index2.html]adult dating sites[/url]
[url=http://datingi.mrfreehost.com/index3.html]singles dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/]uk lottery dating holiday inn cheap flight[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/index3.html]bbw dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.t35.com/]dating site reviews[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/index2.html]free dating site[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/index2.html]ohio valley dating[/url]
[url=http://datingi.piranho.com/index3.html]online dating chat rooms[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/]the dating game[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/index3.html]uk map university hotel agency dating chat dell flight[/url]
[url=http://datingi.sphosting.com/]online dating reviews[/url]
[url=http://sitepalace.com/datingi/index2.html]free adult dating[/url]
[url=http://www.redrival.com/~datingi/index2.html]teen dating[/url]
2admin,moderators: If you dont want to see us anymore [url=http://unsubscribe.hub.io/]click here[/url]
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Neither did my marriage give me the power to make decisions. I’ve often wondered shy I need to be listed with each different medical establishment, but the fact remains no one contract does what you wish. At least not marriage. You are chasing an illusion.
That is incorrect. Your ignorance of the law doesn’t serve as an excuse.
Under state-defined “marriage,” spouses are the final arbiters of legal decisions for incapacitated spouses related to life-and-death decision-making. The requirements which hospitals make in listing spouses would result, at worst, in a delay in decision-making which could lead to successful civil litigation — however, the spouse’s right is sacrosanct under the law and protected by jurisprudence.
Such is NOT the case with individual contracts.
Now, it should be — in fact, anyone who an individual designates should be the person who makes the decision, and “marriage” would just be a private designation.
posted by On Lawn on
Under state-defined “marriage,” spouses are the final arbiters of legal decisions for incapacitated spouses related to life-and-death decision-making.
Problems in your reading comprehension do not amount to problems in the argument. The question was not in the existance of the power, but in the absolute application of it.
From Delea:
Such is NOT the case with individual contracts.
Which again shows marriage is more than a contract. You can’t have it both ways, do you want marriage to be just a contract or do you want marriage to be a way of making others give their services to your contract?
Now, it should be — in fact, anyone who an individual designates should be the person who makes the decision, and “marriage” would just be a private designation.
If all you want is marriage to be a contract, well you are in luck. Contracts exist that are perfectly private just as you wish.
Beyond that, if you want to make everyone’s marriage have no meaning other than being a contract then you are seperating from the rest of the marriage neuterists in that you are openly insist they promise no harm to the marriage institution whatsoever.