Marriage-equality opponents frequently claim that marriage has been heterosexual sinceâ¦well, since FOREVER, and that it is arrogant and foolish to tinker with such a pervasive human institution.
Whatever its logical shortcomings, the "always and everywhere" argument is rhetorically effective. Even gay-rights advocates concede that marriage equality seemed unthinkable just a decade or two ago. Imagine how novel it appears to those who, unlike us, have no direct stake in the issue.
It's tempting to respond that lots of things that seemed unthinkable a few decades ago-iPhones, Facebook, Sarah Palin-are, for better or worse, now familiar. But the reluctance to tinker with marriage is deep-seated. The "always and everywhere" argument demands a response that is not only logically sound but also rhetorically compelling.
Several responses are worth pondering. I've given them each names for convenience:
(1) False premise: The claim that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual suffers from what should be a fatal flaw: it is simply not true. Same-sex marriages have been documented in a number of cultures, notably some African and Pacific Island cultures.
Marriage-equality opponents retort that these marriages are not quite the same as modern same-sex marriages, since they typically involve a kind of gender transformation of one of the partners. But this response is a red herring. Sure, homosexual marriages in these cultures look different from ours in various respects-but so do their heterosexual marriages. More important, it is doubtful that opponents would abandon their objection to contemporary same-sex marriages as long as one partner agreed to be the "wife" and the other the "husband."
The real problem with the "false premise" response is rhetorical: The response depends on anthropological data unfamiliar to most people, and it appeals to "exotic" cultures whose practices most Americans find irrelevant.
(2) Heteronormativity: Rhetorical considerations would also weigh against using words like "heteronormativity" when responding to people's basic fears about marriage. But it's nonetheless true that the "always and everywhere" argument begs the question against those who argue-quite rightly-that the heterosexual majority tends to oppress the homosexual minority always and everywhere. Because of that oppression, recorded history often ignores or erases our lives and commitments.
Keep in mind that just a few decades ago, gays and lesbians were still considered mentally ill in much of the West; even today, gays are stoned to death in parts of the world. Against that backdrop, it's not surprising that same-sex marriage seems newfangled. The marriage-equality movement owes as much to an improved understanding of sexuality as it does to changing views about marriage.
(3) Not mandatory: Even granting the (false) premise that marriage has been heterosexual "always and everywhere," so what? No one is proposing that same-sex marriage be made mandatory. Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist "always and everywhere" for those who seek it, even while society recognizes that it's not appropriate for everyone. The opponents' argument seems to play on the irrational notion that giving marriage to gays somehow means taking it away from straights.
(4) Non-sequitur: Let's concede to marriage-equality opponents that history and tradition are important, and that we should be cautious about changes to major social institutions. Yet even if (contrary to fact) marriage were heterosexual "always and everywhere," it does not follow that marriage cannot expand and evolve. One should never confuse a reasonable caution with a stubborn complacency.
Increasingly, that complacency is more than stubborn-it's unconscionable. Marriage-equality opponents can no longer ignore the fact that we fall in love, just like they do; that our relationships have positive effects in our lives and the lives of those around us, and that we reasonably seek to protect and nurture these relationships. If not marriage for us, then what?
Ultimately, the problem with the "always and everywhere" argument is that each new same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it. Whatever happened in the past, we have marriage equality now-in a small but growing number of places. These same-sex marriages are by and large bearing good fruit. If ignoring tradition is "arrogant and foolish," ignoring the evidence unfolding before us is exponentially so.
5 Comments for “‘Always and Everywhere’?”
posted by Nika on
For centuries, marriage was “always and everywhere” a property transaction, often polygamous, in which women were traded for goods. Arguments based on tradition refuse to acknowledge the polygamous (and sexist) origin of “traditional” marriage (see Abraham himself).
Thankfully, marriage evolved from that, and continues to evolve!
posted by Jerry Mickle on
Nika, references Abraham in the comment on marriage, and it reminded me how surprised I was when reading part of the Bible concerning Abraham that he and Sarah were half brother and sister. Unless the copy of the book I have is vastly in error, they had the same father, different mothers.
Imagine, God approves of incest.
posted by TS on
Those are all good logical disarmaments of “always and everywhere”. But part of the problem, I think, is that the rhetorical strength of the argument conveys weaknesses or hazards of logic.
Everyone has heard absurd arguments that either seem logical on the surface or are understandable given what their situational proponents knew or believed. For example, Descartes’ ghost in the machine, Greek medicine with its focus on the humors, Xeno’s Hercules and the tortoise paradox, beliefs or thought from non-Western culture. Possibly even Western religious thought.
A strength of consulting tradition is that if you do have an intellectual hiccup, whether it lasts a day or several generations, you’re less likely to act on mistaken thinking because a warning light has been triggered by the unprecedentedness of the action. This is a major obstacle to hasty social transformation even if it turns out to be right and just, as I hope our particular one will.
posted by agressor on
Proposition 8. Enough already. As a gay man, you might be surprised to hear that I was not shocked that the outcome of Proposition 8 in California was upheld. Infact, I?m not so sure I would have voted any differently then the most conservative citizen of the United States of America who has little to no contact with a gay person.
The freedom and the right to get married comes down to one thing for the gay community: respect. My mother always told me; in order to get respect, you have to respect yourself first.
For many uninformed Americans, there is a stereotype for the gay community; sex, drugs, disease, and partying. Respect worthy? No, I dont think so. As a gay man, I am certainly aware that this stereotype is not necessarily true for the entire gay community. However, to most uninformed Americans, this is the only picture that is being painted over and over each year to remind them of how disgusting the gay community can be?. and I totally agree. It is disgusting.
The day I can go into a gay bar and not feel like I lost my virginity from every poking finger to my ass, or shower stalls in the middle of the club for men to publicly shower in and engage in sexual acts, or bathroom stalls that are solely for the purpose of sex, is the day that I might think gay marriage is possible.
One of the most important and influential factors to informing the uninformed about homosexuality is Gay Pride. Gay Pride for me is more like Gay Ashamed. Every year, in Chicago during the Gay Pride festival, I used to stay clear of anything north of Michigan Avenue. What I saw at Pride was shocking.
Stop using your dicks, and start using your voices.
If you want to be heard, keep your shirt on and your legs closed. Blow jobs in alleys, crude displays of public affection on every float, drunk gay guys making out with anyone who has a face ? I feel like I?m getting an STD just from thinking about it.
I think pride in oneself is a beautiful thing. But I dont see pride at Gay Pride events, I see sex. And if I see it, then America sees it too.
Gay awareness and pride is something that America needs. I think the original concept of Gay Pride was perhaps a beautiful and powerful thing, but it has become so diluted with sex that there is no pride left.
Personally, I am pissed off by the acts of the individuals who participate in such crude events. It?s embarrassing. And that stereotype? You created it yourself, darlings.
Don?t get me wrong, many straight individuals participate in disgusting acts as well; things like strip clubs, prostitution, etc etc? That is disgusting too, and certainly not respect worthy.
As Americans, we are free to do pretty much do anything. We are spoiled. Yes, the government is corrupt, but so is every other government on this planet. The point is simple?. if you wanna take off your shirt and rub your body in oil while making out with the guy next to you during a parade that is suppose to help the gay community out, you have that right. I am comfortable enough in my own skin to keep my shirt ON and let my voice be heard.
Unfortunately, many gays are not heard because we all know sex sells, and intellect does not.
Many Gay Americans are being stereotyped because of these public displays, and It needs to stop.
Think about any other minorities in American history that had to fight for their rights?. They had to overcome their stereotypes in some manor in order to obtain respect from an uninformed society.
Any gay, straight, bisexual, or trans gender person that is acting out will get us nowhere.
Come on guys, we are a minority. We already have had a bad rap, why do you keep on doing it?
Thanks to those like Tela Tequila, Gay Pride, and (many) Gay Bars and Saloons, gays will continue to live legally single.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Agressor, the gays seeking to get married aren’t the ones having sex in gay bars. Its wrong for you to want to punish these people for wrongdoings they haven’t committed.
As you note, many straights participate in disgusting acts, yet you hypocritically aren’t suggesting that all straights be denied the right to marry.
I’ve never seen anyone in a gay bar poking people in the ass, I’ve never seen showers or bathtubs in a gay bar, never seen sex, or drug use there. I think you get a “holier than thou” kick out of painting a picture that isn’t true for the most part.