on civil ceremonies
It appears that even in conservative circles, equality for gay people is the new black. Suddenly the notion of civil ceremonies or the formal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships has a broader support base than it once did. Comments in one of our threads have turned to this point. Don’t have time right now to put up a detailed post, but feel free to have the conversation.
October 30th, 2006 at 11:44 am
What about adoption?
October 30th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Marriage - considered as a legally sanctioned union of one man and one woman - plays a vital role in preserving the common good and promoting the welfare of children. In virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage provides order and meaning to adult sexual relationships and, more fundamentally, furnishes the ideal context for the bearing and rearing of the young. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society such as our own, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. Marriage is also an important source of social, human, and financial capital for children, especially for children growing up in poor, disadvantaged communities who do not have ready access to other sources of such capital. Thus, from the point of view of spouses, children, society, and the polity, marriage advances the public interest.
source… http://www.princetonprinciples.org/contents.html
October 30th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
What about adoption?
Adoption of what - new ideas?
October 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
‘Marriage is also an important source of social, human, and financial capital for children, especially for children growing up in poor, disadvantaged communities who do not have ready access to other sources of such capital. Thus, from the point of view of spouses, children, society, and the polity, marriage advances the public interest.’
Have we therefore lost our ‘reason/purpose/ for marriage? Singles, young, old, native, migrant etc can exist in most western countries fairly comfortably without requiring another to provide ’such capital’
It’s nice when it happens, but not necessary, perhaps?
For example, I love being married. Best job in the world! And, neither of us intend to separate (I mean, who would separate from me… it’s unthinkable!)
However, I must concede that if death/separation were to occur, as much as we wouldn’t like it, neither of us would be destitute or destined for the social scrapheap, regardless of friends/family who could/would support us. Society has enough in place to ensure that we would be ok, and our kids would be ok.
We no longer have the need to procreate (desire maybe, but not need). This is evidenced by Peter giving fistfuls of cash for babies - socially (and perhaps emotionally), we don’t need kids to make our family complete!
Financially, we live in a far more equal society where men & women can get jobs based on their capacity, not their gender (well, we’re nearly there…)
Is this why there are far more groups, both pro-change & conservative (typically ‘change resistant’) who are prepared to play with the boundaries of marriage? Is it simply that other institutions have replaced the building blocks that marriage used to provide for a society?
October 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
“Marriage - considered as a legally sanctioned union of one man and one woman - plays a vital role in preserving the common good and promoting the welfare of children. In virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage provides order and meaning to adult sexual relationships and, more fundamentally, furnishes the ideal context for the bearing and rearing of the young.”
Some colleagues and I have just been discussing domestic violence in the countries we have worked in - countries which are more conservative than Australia in the sense that gay sex is illegal…this idea that the institution of marriage provides order and meaning to adult sexual relationships is a complete crock. Marriage SHOULD provide order and meaning, but the reality is that it DOESN’T. This is related to the point I was trying to make about Christians who say that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage…the fact is that marriage doesn’t have any inherent power, it’s not an independent entity…marriage has the power that we give it, if we choose to respect our commitments to one another then yes, it CAN achieve these things…but it has no power in and of itself.
“In virtually every known human society”…there is also domestic violence, adultery, and in many there is also polygamy. Refer statement above…I’ve been to quite a few countries where gay sex is illegal, but polygamy is not. The statement “in virtually every known human society” attempts to “naturalise” the heterosexual marriage, and to assert that homosexual marriage is “not normal”. Well, perhaps it’s not “normal”, but the reality is there are a lot of things that exist in “every known human society”, and that doesn’t make them “right” or “good”.
“The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society such as our own, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. Marriage is also an important source of social, human, and financial capital for children, especially for children growing up in poor, disadvantaged communities who do not have ready access to other sources of such capital. Thus, from the point of view of spouses, children, society, and the polity, marriage advances the public interest.”
Gotta love those liberal arguments used to support preventing gay marriage! If you’re gonna use liberal arguments, use them consistently - if we’re going to say that family belongs in the private sphere, then that applies to gay people as well. It’s illogical to argue on the one hand that the family is an important institution because it limits the size of the state, and then on the other advocate the intervention of the state to limit the definition of family.
Children growing up in poor countries often live in more communal societies, therefore have far more access to social capital than do many children in developed countries.
Please note that I have immense respect for the institution of marriage, and to be honest, I’m not actually sure what I think of the debate about gay marriage. I do, however, know an emotive and illogical argument when I see it!
October 30th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
The day that people stopped being able to use the argument that “Gay marraieg would devalue the institution of matrimony” was the day that Britney Spears got married in Las Vegas.
October 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
It’s not just love that holds together normal marriages - economic dependency and the arrival of children also bring play a big part. Now I know that some marriages fall apart once the children have left home, but this is a minority. In my experience, and from also observing other marriages, it is the role of children, and to a lesser extent the economic haven it can provide to at least one partner, that can make a marriage worthwhile and meaningful.
That doesn’t mean that childless couples necessarily have less meaningful marriages. And it doesn’t mean that gay couples cannot have a meaningful relationship.
But does it mean that these latter arrangments may be less stable?
October 31st, 2006 at 10:48 am
Sanders…what about commitment and determination?? So far you’ve only got love, economic dependency and children in your list!
This is why I am wary of arguments that portray marriage as if it’s an independent entity…our marriage is what we make of it, if we think that it can survive on its own, without commitment, determination and a lot of hard work, we are destined for trouble…
October 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Of course, throw those ones into the mix too, Bec. Commitment and determination.
I would have thought that the real purpose of marriage is all about family and the relationship and experience that comes from that.
Any form of marriage in which children cannot be a natural outcome, seems to be artificial and pales into insignificance in comparison.
So, I wouldn’t oppose civil unions or even “marriage” between any couple, but if the above condition does not hold then it is really irrelevant. Who cares?
October 31st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Women really should konw their place!
October 31st, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Sanders, you say “Any form of marriage in which children cannot be a natural outcome, seems to be artificial and pales into insignificance in comparison.”
I really strongly disagree with this - and I say this as a woman who’s mother says her children are her greatest achievement, and as a woman who hopes to have children herself one day! I think marriage offers stability to the broader community - we have all seen the impact that a divorce can have on friends, not just children. I see marriage as an opportunity to be committed to one person, to being committed to a unique relationship, to being committed to working through our differences, supporting and sustaining one another. I hope that my partner and I can offer a “safe space” to people, that we can be community-builders - those things would be damaged if we ever broke up. Dan and Phil do not have kids, but in my very limited knowledge of them, they are fantastic community builders, and if they ever broke up, the effects of that would be felt by many.
These things apply to gay couples also.
So, you asked, “who cares?” I would say many people do. My partner and I would not need to have children for a break up to have horrendous consequences for our parents, our siblings, our friendships, our communities…
October 31st, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Sanders, by your logic older people (where women are past menopause) would not be getting married. Couples who get married already knowing that one of them is infertile, would not constitute marriage. Our kids have grown up, our marriage isn’t “perfect”, by your logic we would just walk away from 30 years of commitment and look for greener pastures. For some of us absolute commitment is the only paradigm in which we give ourselves sexually. And I know people whose love, irrespective of whether they have children, is a growing, whole of life experience. Stable marriages not only avoid the many traumas of divorce, they sow qualities like commitment and loyalty and fidelity and integrity (eg keeping your promises) back into a community. they witness to the fact that love is so much more than desire and doing what feels good right now.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
that’s beautiful blestpickle…
October 31st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
If children, and the extended family, is the primary reason for marriage, then by my logic it is marriages formed for this purpose that should be given the most support including by the taxation system. That doesn’t mean I object to any couple marrying - that was not part of the logic. I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose. What reasonable objection can be made?
Kids leaving home means the end of marriage? That doesn’t follow either. That could mean your input and experience could be invaluable in the growing extended family.
October 31st, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Sanders
“I am not really overjoyed by the idea of the state (or other people) controlling the private choice of citizens to any reasonable, peaceful lifestyle they so choose.”
they don’t .. but they are also not compelled to give any union legal sanction
October 31st, 2006 at 2:49 pm
good comment blestpickle
October 31st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
The real purpose of marriage is so that the church and state can control relationships - it is so the underlings - hoi poloi don’t get above themselves and think that they have complete self determination. It’s about power and control and who gets to say who’s in and who’s out. It;s about maintaingin a system that thrives on division and having an us and a them.
Except that by virtue of the fact that gays can not have the same legitmacie given to their relationships as heteros they lose out on superannuation, spousal benefits in health plans, life insurance etc - all of which is provided by the legitimisation of hetero mariage through legal sanction of the state - despite you claiming they aren’t compelled to do so. If they aren’t compelled to do so for one but then go ahead and do so then they should do so for all.
It’s about natural justice - not religion and not morals. And if the institution of marriage si so powerful for good it can only benefit gay couples and should therefore be allowed to them.
I say let gays get married - why should straights be the only ones to suffer!
October 31st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Are you sure that control aspect is really the case, Greg? I would like to think my own choice of marriage partner was not controlled by the state either by social convention or otherwise. Sure, the state has an interest in marriage because it is the accepted norm for producing future generations, and must therefore be supported in order to ensure the survival of the state itself. Why should the state have an interest in other forms of union, whether they receive an imprimatur of marriage or not? I would suggest the only reason that the state is concerned about other forms is because they may demand tax breaks but offer no benefit to the state in return.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pm
and therefore it is about control - controlling who gets the wealth. I realise that my theory is a bit conspiratorial - but hey - I don;t think thay really landed on the moon and I’m sure I saw JFK, Maralyn and Elvis down at the local pixi-foto booth getting wealthy off the smiles of babies!