The Earth-Shattering Importance of Same-Sex Marriage
September 13, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
Or, spending years and years debating silly public policy issues that affect around 1% of the population:
“The number of same-sex couples surged 32.6% between 2001 and 2006…In 2006, same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada.”
Is there a point to this post?
Great, so let’s leave the debate on SSM behind us since it doesn’t matter, right?
There are even fewer polygamists. Should we wait til they represent 10%? What’s the threshold for significant badness as opposed to the kind that can be ignored?
Dude, I agree - I’m still stunned that post-9/11 (and I mean *immediately* post-9/11) anyone was giving this any thought at all.
I can’t believe liberals didn’t say, “Screw it, there’s bigger issues, civil unions are fine.”
I can’t believe conservatives didn’t say, “Screw it, there’s bigger issues, gay marriages are fine.”
Bigger fish to fry.
People who debate this issue are time-wasting morons. Osama Bin Laden’s still evading capture, separatism isn’t dead, health care still needs a massive shake-up - nuff said. Don’t sweat the small stuff, and that’s what gay marriage is.
This BRILLIANT little bit of statistical analysis is due in full to how the data was collected by Statistics Canada during the census, and does not represent an increase in same-sex relationships.
Wouldn’t expect anything less from you, though, Aaron.
I think that the term “different-sex relationship” is pretty damn funny.
Yeah, it didn’t affect hardly anyone at all…except now they want to teach the gay agenda in schools and there is talk of legalizing polygamy.
Didn’t affect hardly anyone at all.
It could be that the rise in global temperature may, in fact, be directly in proportion to the rise of gayness.
Or is it the other way around…?
Either way it’s hot, hot, HOT!
Amazing how Aaron’s post here has managed to piss off opponents and proponents of SSM alike—not easily done. :-)
I agree that SSM is a rather sorry point of debate because it so abjectly stupid; makes better material for comedy. In the real world, where men are men and women are women, marriage will always be heterosexual because by definition that is what marriage means as a substantively unique human relationship. Same-sex marriage will always be “same-sex marriage.” Sexual desire, or “orientation” as the SSM purists cry, has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of marriage.
It remains to be said that the SSM “debate” was only ever been about destroying the institution of marriage by turning it into arbitrary nonsense, under Canadian law, confounding its popular understanding. And I might add that any civil society should be wary of such boldfaced degradations of common sense, that is should it hope to remain “civil” in the long term.
The utter of lack of common sense might explain to Jason Bo Green why SSM became such a hotly debated issue; to the neglect of much more important matters. If our country had more common sense, proponents of SSM would have been laughed off the stage, applause all around for such fantastic comedy.
My oh my, we might have said, those fellas were certainly serious about believing their own lies. Brilliant! We might have said. Instead, taking ourselves too seriously, we chose to believe those lies too.
Absurdity, when seen for its absurdity, makes great comedy.
Interestingly, it was primarily the opponents of same sex marriage who predicted a wave of gave weddings in the light of legislation: those same folks are now triumphantly brandishing the NON-surge (i.e., their error) as though it proved something.
“Yeah, it didn’t affect hardly anyone at all…except now they want to teach the gay agenda in schools…”
Like St. Vincent’s?
In the real world, where men are men and women are women, marriage will always be heterosexual because by definition that is what marriage means as a substantively unique human relationship.
In your world, perhaps, George, not in mine. I submit that my world is just as real as yours. Civil marriage is a legal entity, and as such has a legal definition. By definition, that now includes homosexual couples. Q.E.D.
You don’t want to consider same-sex marriages ‘real’? Fine, you don’t have to. But the government of Canada does.
Of course “civil marriage” is a valid “legal entity,” one that now includes two distinct and unequal—except for the arbitrary qualifier of two persons—types of human relationship.
Same-sex marriage will never—and can never—be the unique human relationship between a man and a woman that is traditional marriage. That much is obvious!
Maybe it is time to consider doing away with civil marriage altogether. Take the nuclear option to this nonsense.
George, your argument seems a a little circuitous. You seem to be saying:
a) I (and others) define “marriage” as (insert critical characteristics).
b) Any institution NOT conforming with my criteria is not a “marriage”, because it doesn’t confirm with my criteria.
As Abattoir noted, that works fine for the set , defined in (a) above. However, it only works for the set .
I am perfectly free to insert whatever criteria I deem appropriate into that definition. You are perfectly free to ignore them.
What actually counts is, of course, what the law says. Sadly, the law disagrees with you.
You guys would live well under tyranny because you seem to think reality is defined by legality. It is not.
In the real world, same-sex marriage will always be same-sex marriage. How could it be otherwise? The overwhelmingly historical and presently obvious sexual fact of marriage, that it is between men and women, does not change simply because the law changes.
What’s new in Canada is that civil marriage now includes two distinct types of human relationship, marriage and same-sex marriage; for particularly good reason, I might add.
My last sentence in comment 14 should end: “… for NO particularly good reason, I might add.
“In the real world, same-sex marriage will always be same-sex marriage. How could it be otherwise? ”
Yes. Just as Granny Smith apples will always be Granny Smith apples. You can define the set of “apple” to exclude green things if you want to, but, as you say, in reality, a Granny Smith apple remains an apple.
‘The overwhelmingly historical and presently obvious sexual fact of marriage, that it is between men and women, does not change simply because the law changes.”
That’s “marriage” as defined by you, of course. I’m talking about “marriage” as defined by law, common parlance, and some religions.
What?
Comparing marriage and same-sex marriage, as the old saying goes, is like comparing apples and oranges. Same-sex marriage is not even another type of apple. How could it be, except for the completely arbitrary qualifier of two persons?
Your comment (16) is embarrassingly counterintuitive and internally inconsistent!
On one hand, you say same-sex marriage is DISTINCT from marriage as “a unique kind of apple,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. On the other hand, you say marriage can’t really be defined anyway, except for how each person, the law, common parlance, and some religions define it.
Wake up! Go get another cup of coffee! I’m not saying anything beyond what is obviously true: marriage and same-sex marriage are distinct types of human relationship.
Believe it or not, there are some admirable intellectuals, some who are also homosexuals, who see the relevance of this point, namely, Lee Harris. Check out:
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....-marriage/
And this:
http://www.hoover.org/publicat.....32146.html
I’ll try to make it clearer.
Here are two definitions.
a) Marriage is the legally sanctioned, monogamous union for life between two adults.
b) Marriage is the legally sanctioned, monogamous union for life between a man and a woman.
Your view is that (a) isn’t a “marriage”, because your definition is (b). I understand that, and you’re perfectly free to use the word “marriage” is any sense you want. And of course, if one uses your definition, than (a) and (b) are completely different things, as you say.
I’m simply saying that I, the Government of Canada, several churches, and a lot of other folks aren’t using your definition, so your decision that marriage must be “between a man and woman” is simply your discretionary gloss.
Your reading of my view is not correct.
I do not disagree that (a) is a “marriage” to the extent that in Canada civil marriage now includes “same-sex marriage.” But (a) is an arbitrary definition of marriage, and, I’m inclined to think, not liable to last over the long term. There is nothing altogether unique about “two person” unions once you no longer believe the sex of those persons matters.
In reality, “same-sex marriage” is a fundamentally different type of human relationship from marriage between a man and a woman, and no law can change that obvious fact.
The notion that the qualifier of two persons somehow establishes a significant basis for equivalency between SSM and marriage between a man and a woman, is absurd. As feminists have long argued, women are unique beings relative to men (and vice versa), so obviously any relationship between persons of the same-sex cannot be equivalent to that between persons of the opposite sex. Men are men and women are women. Only a man and a women can actually have sex and produce children. Only a man can be a father. Only a woman can be a mother.
And that, my friend, brings us back to my point about SSM being good comedy for those of sufficient common sense. What remains problematic about SSM becoming legal in Canada is simply that common sense did not prevail. Rather, those who did win out were earnest second-reality losers who often don’t realize the absurdity of which they speak.
It does not take much insight to see that such attacks on common sense are ultimately attacks on civil society because they attack any basic appreciation for living in the real and common world. Keep it up and you will find yourself living in a fertile breeding ground for ideogical and dogmatic utopian fantasies!
[...] the spirit of my running dialogue with my esteemed fellow, Dalton, here, I’m hoping to wrangle a few more into the conversation. More importantly, Aaron [...]
I’m afraid you’re simply restating the same point, albeit eloquently. Your argument is summarized in the statement:
“In reality, “same-sex marriage†is a fundamentally different type of human relationship from marriage between a man and a woman, and no law can change that obvious fact.”
And I agree.
Marriage between a man and a woman shares both similarities and differences with same sex marriages…the commitment to monogamy, the commitment to a lifetime of mutual love and support, sickness and health, and so on.
They are also qualitatively different. However, the law, some churches, many Canadians, and myself don’t view those qualitative differences as barrier invalidating one or another category from being defined as a “marriage”. You do, and that’s fine. It doesn’t much matter.
A lot of human relationships can be characterized by fidelity, which is about the only similarity you cite as a potential commonality between same-sex marriage and marriage. In all other respects, they are vastly different, as I’ve stated above.
SSM was ushered into Canada by the courts who said that denying it was undue discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But, as is obvious, sexual orientation (for those who have one) has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, nor equality rights, if you are dealing with fundamentally different types of human relationship.
I explain why it matters in the subsequent thread:
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....l-society/
“A lot of human relationships can be characterized by fidelity.”
Which other human relationships would you say are characterized by a lifetime commitment by two adults and to love and a monogamous sexual relationship, George?
Same-sex marriages can’t be consummated, so any “sexual relationship” doesn’t factor into its definition. Sex is a specific act, requiring the anatomy of a man and that of a woman, and they can’t actually do it; rather only cuddle and get their rocks off, or worse.
Two friends can be committed to each other for life, as might a child for their parent or a parent for their child. And what’s so significant about two anyway? Why not form a collective of love and lifetime commitment?
Any equivalence is arbitrary.
Did you read about the old Italian mother who cut her 61 year old son off of his allowance because he stays out too late:
http://www.reuters.com/article.....7220070802
Sorry, George: you’re simply adding another layer of personal criteria.
How so?
has it ever occurred to you to calculate what percentage of the population is aborted? yet, i bet you consider that issue worth debating.
George,
You appear to be incapable accepting the argument that two men or two women are capable of loving each other in the romantic sense of the word, that they are capable of committing to love, honour, and cherish each other as much as a heterosexual couple. You also claimed they are incapable of sex; I would submit that you are using a limited definition of ’sex’, compared to that used by most other people.
So long as you cannot or will not agree with this basic tenet, this conversation is pointless. From your perspective, SSM is an oxymoron. For others, it is fully equivalent to heterosexual marriage, legally, morally, and ethically.
Again, I wonder why you guys even bother with these two on this topic.
Abattoir,
I have never argued that two persons of the same sex cannot experience romantic love for each other. Clearly, that is not the case.
That said, to experience erotic longing for someone of the the same sex is a fundamentally different type of erotic longing than that for someone of the opposite sex. This is obvious enough, specifically because they are of the same sex rather than the opposite.
I have consistently argued that sex matters! The different physiological experiences of reality that sex entails, sex being a biological fact of nature, establish it as significant to human relationships between and across the sexes. Whether you recognize the importance of sex or not is irrelevant because it is a biological fact of nature: men and women approach this common world from differing physiological experiences of reality.
I don’t know how any reasonable person can argue with this point! Men and women are obviously different, which is, I think, a very good thing. And to the extent that sex is a biological fact of human nature, clearly gender is not entirely relative. As a conventional distillation of sex roles from this natural world where men and women are fundamentally different biologically, gender rolls are clearly, to some extent, a reaction to a consciousness of one’s sex, coming to this world as other persons of your sex do, figuring out how to best behave in this world as either a man or a woman. Gender roles, because they are conventions, or a breed of traditional understanding, like all traditions, help one find their way.
NOW, as for “limited” definitions of sex, obviously knowing the definition of anything limits that something, or some act, to specific qualities and conditions. When it comes to sex, this is abundantly clear in any junior high sex education class, or any national geographic special on the wonders of the animal kingdom for that matter. Sex is a specific act that requires the anatomy of one man and one woman, and, in “normal” circumstances, can lead to the procreation of the human species. While the realm of “sexual relations” abounds with variant possibilities, the actual act of having sex can only be shared between a man and a woman.
I would submit that to actually love someone of the same sex is to treat them like someone of the same sex; not degrade them as third-gendered weirdo. If you are a man, that would mean to treat the person you claim to “love” as a man, and not to treat them as something akin to how you would treat a woman; “something akin” because he’s not a woman. And history provides some good examples of how other peoples have understood this point and taken it seriously. For instance, certain ancient Hellenes armies were built from pairs of lovers; the thinking being that such an army would be utterly fierce if each soldier were fighting along side his lover.
Every person experiences some degree of longing for persons of the same sex AND persons of the opposite sex. This is obvious! If you are a man and you walk into a men’s clothing store, you don’t see attractive women modelling the clothing; no long legs and only a buttoned up shirt. :-) Rather, you see attractive men, men that most other men will find attractive, modelling the clothing so as to inspire men to purchase it.
In more significant relational terms, it works much the same way. Men love men because they are fellow men, not women. And it is well-known through human history that men, especially when no women are around, may or may not satisfy each other sexually. But that still isn’t “sex” because sex a requires women.
In general terms, I’m making the case that there is such a thing a “manliness” and “womanliness,” that they are, to some degree, a distillation of the virtues we generally perceive to be within the grasp of men and women due to the strengths accruing to their physiological experiences (i.e. men have more testosterone and muscle mass so they are naturally more aggressive).
Here’s something for you to think about: Harvey Mansfield says that Margaret Thatcher was a manly woman. I’m inclined to agree, and she was still married to Dennis Thatcher, a man.
To take issue with the nonsense that is same-sex marriage, as I have done, is to not really say anything about the morality or immorality of homosexuality.
Just thought I’d pop back in and see if there was anything new. Nope. George, however, you restate it, you’re simply reiterating ever longer versions of the same point:
a) George has criteria that he uses to define “marriage”:
b) Those criteria exclude same sex marriage.
Abattoir, it’s simply a tautology. You can’t really argue against a closed loop like that.
Tautology is my new favourite word of the day! Although I prefer it in the form of an adjective. George’s arguments are tautological.
Thanks Dalton.
Dalton, there is experience before there is logic. It is well-known that infants and children who do not get human interaction, loving concern and communication, remain stunted, lacking the intellectual essence of being human.
My arguments are contingent, not tautological. I have addressed the definition of marriage. I have recognized that SSM is legally valid in Canada. I have argued that marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamentally different type of human relationship from SSM, CONTINGENT on sex.
It is possible to challenge my arguments, but a successful challenge requires tackling me on the contingency: sex. Since none of you have been able to do so, it suggests that the “two-person” definition is utterly arbitrary by comparison.
I should add that contingency is where the rubber meets the road, where logos meets reality.
George,
Don’t confuse our being ‘unable’ to challenge your arguments, with recognizing that it is an exercise in futility. We have fundamentally opposing viewpoints, and there is no point in continuing further.
Most of use would recognize that SSM is different from traditional marriage. That is given. However, we have no problem with extending societal recognition of marriage to include those in a same-sex relationship.
Your base argument boils down to ‘SSM is not the same as traditional marriage’. Since marriage = traditional marriage, and SSM != traditional marriage, therefore SSM != marriage. This is a tautological argument, to borrow a phrase from my associates. :)
In my opinion, SSM is fully equivalent to traditional marriage, if not equal to it in the mathematical sense of the word, and fully deserving of the societal respect conferred on the term. You may disagree, but it is merely a definition of a term in the end.
I’m not sure what you’re asking me to challenge, though.
We’ve agreed that a marriage between a woman and a man is in some respects qualitatively difference than a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and some in some respects the same.
You chose to unilaterally declare that the differences represent screen or exclusion criteria, and that’s fine. I simply don’t see any value (or, in some cases, any validity) in these conditional layers, except that they enable you to assert that there’s a special kind of marriage that is the exclusive realm of heterosexual couples.
But with or without the adjective, most folks now accept the notion that a loving, lifelong commitment by two adults, entered into in good faith, accepting monogamy and mutual fidelity, sickness and health, and all that good stuff, is marriage.
I’ve been married (to a woman - same one, even) for twenty one years now. The quality or nature of my marriage wasn’t changed, cheapened, or demeaned one iota by the recognition of gay marriage. I hope the gay couples are as happy as we are, and I wish them well.
Then the question remains, why not three person unions, four, etc.?
I have taken the definition of marriage, as is commonly understood around the world, and made the case for why that type of human relationship is unique. I have not, myself, defined marriage. That was already done.
How is SSM fully equivalent to marriage between a man and woman?
Definitions matter because they are how we bear witness to, and from which understand our participation in, the real and common world.
Life ain’t as relatively amoral as you would prefer it to be; rather to be human is to BE moral, to make choices to do one thing or another and live with the consequences, for better or worse. Living WELL requires a better than worse appreciation for reality, which requires reasonably good definitions for one to find their way in the world.
SSM is not a reasonably good definition of marriage because it is a totally arbitrary “two-person” union.
If you wish your arguments to be anything but tautological, you must, at some point, tackle this contingent obstruction to your own fanciful delusions about the equality of SSM with marriage between a man and a woman.
So I ask again:
1.) If marriage is two-person unions, why not three person unions, four, etc.?
2.) How is SSM fully equivalent to marriage between a man and woman?
I’m afraid you have run up against the real world.
Dalton, I appreciate your interesting replies.
I don’t wish same-sex couples any unhappiness. But they are deluding themselves with a fantastic lie if they think what they have is equivalent to being with someone of the opposite sex.
And I’m not arguing that they should want to get married to someone of the opposite sex. Lee Harris is one example of a homosexual who understands there is an important distinction here; that we would do well to better guard the common sense understanding of a traditional institution like marriage.
“I’m afraid you have run up against the real world.”
Heh. Well, actually, George…no.
A hundred years ago homosexuality was a criminal offense in most Western countries. Now it’s not. Twenty years ago there was no such thing as state-sanctioned same sex marriage. Now there is. Ten years ago no major Christian religion would even consider recognizing a same sex marriage. Now they are.
In terms of living in the real world, George, I think I’m a bit closer to it than you are. On this issue, anyway.
“1.) If marriage is two-person unions, why not three person unions, four, etc.?”
Well, some people DO define it that way, I suppose. I don’t, and very few Canadians do.
“2.) How is SSM fully equivalent to marriage between a man and woman?”
Nice try. I guess it depends on how you define the concept of “fully equivalent”. Since you’re simply using different words to advance that same old argument, I hope you forgive me if I repeat my same response:
“We’ve agreed that a marriage between a woman and a man is in some respects qualitatively difference than a marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and some in some respects the same. You chose to unilaterally declare that the differences represent screen or exclusion criteria.”
“But they are deluding themselves with a fantastic lie if they think what they have is equivalent to being with someone of the opposite sex.”
I guess it depends on what you mean by “equivalent”. Same sex couples appear to be capable of love, lifelong commitment to each other, monogamy and sexual fidelity, and so on. I understand that in your lexicon that’s not enough, and that being the case, I would strongly advise you against a gay marriage. However, it seems to be enough for them.
The lack of equivalence stems from the fact that men and women bring to their relationships the qualities of being men and women, the consciousness thereof. A relationship between a man and a women cannot be the same type of human relationship as that between two men, and neither of those equivalent to two women.
Bear with me. As I have previously stated, you can’t actually have sex with someone of the same-sex (because sex is a specific act between a man and a woman), so there is no such thing as a “consummated same-sex marriage.” Furthermore, fidelity can be attributed to many different types human relationships. Since it is also possible to pledge fidelity between more than two persons, one can reasonably expect polygamy to raise its head as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage.
In another sense, I would offer that to love someone of the same sex cannot possibly be the “same” as loving someone of the opposite sex. You really don’t know what it is “like” to be a member of the opposite sex, to experience what they experience being of that sex. And genuinely loving someone of the opposite sex takes that into consideration.
You said you are married to a woman; no doubt you know exactly what I’m talking about here. :-) They don’t say men are from Mars and women from Venus for no reason.
On the contrary, when you love someone of the same sex you necessarily have more in common because you share a common physiological ground from which to experience the world; either being both men or both women. And likewise, genuinely loving someone of the same sex takes this into consideration. If you love another man, you treat him like he is a man, not morph him into some third-gendered weirdo.
Finally, the definition of marriage as that between a man and a women is obviously unique once you consider procreation, especially because only men can be fathers and women mothers. The issue of gay adoption aside, it is perfectly reasonable to think that it is ideal to raise children in homes with both a father and a mother, exposing them to male role models and female role models. This is something that makes heterosexual marriage a fundamentally unique type of human relationship, and, arguably, better for raising children who will have to live in a world with both men and women.
Once all of this is considered, to patently ignore what is so obviously unique about marriage between a man and a women, pretending that SSM somehow measures up, is absurd to the point of comedic.
But this is no laughing matter for the movers and shakers of the gay rights movement! The high priesthood of that inner-worldly religion, by and large the perpetual victims of their own sexuality, take themselves very seriously. As STE exemplifies, they are very willing to deny that which is obvious until they are blue in the face; more than willing to bully everyone else into submission, to ignore common sense, affording them their own second-reality. Being a homosexual, for these types any way, is their religion, and enunciating same-sex marriage seems to be their jihad.
Just consider why STE wishes I would shut up. :-) Jihadists don’t like having central creeds turned on their head and shown to be absurd.
I hope that answers your question, Dalton. Anything new in here? Nope.
George, I’m afraid you really are just repeating yourself. Once again you’re stating: I, George, define “marriage” thus, and same sex marriage don’t qualify. That’s fine. You’ve established that you have a private definition, and you’re entitled to it. It just doesn’t have any bearing on what the rest of us think.
My “private” definition?
Shucks, that’s very silly.
Consider that no definition is “private” by virtue of being a definition, and there are better or worse definitions, but all are to some extent contingent on the real and common world that human beings experience and act toward. Definitions are spoken, which entails that others will understand them, critically able to see how much sense they make in the real world.
I have explained the contingencies that come to bear on ANY definition of marriage, and why those contingencies make same sex marriage absurd when compared to how we have historically understood marriage as between a man and a woman. All that has been said in reply, addressing those VERY REAL contingencies, is, “But George, you’re just repeating yourself; and that’s just your definition; and same sex couples are capable of fidelity, don’t you know?”
For the record, I do know that they are capable of fidelity.
So what’s your problem? :-)
I have provided a very good case for why it is entirely reasonable to think same sex marriage absurd; for those who appreciate the uniqueness of marriage between a man and a woman, it is absurd. AND, in doing this, I’ve also made clear why it is not unreasonable to believe that polygamy could raise its heads in the courts, successfully challenging the “current” legal definition of marriage as between “two-persons.”
I refer you to Aaron’s post on the dumbness of dumbing down the definition of marriage: http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....-marriage/
He explains things very well:
“I suppose that it would be hard on the basis of this loose definition to find anything bad to say about plural marriages. After all, it’s really hard to go out and collect the empirical evidence necessary to measure “love†in relationships and, anyway, what right do we have to pass judgment on the bonds that these many people have declared for one another? I mean, what difference is there between polygamous and traditional families besides the ways that society has decided to treat them?”
[...] it are now the same people who, without missing a beat, are now poking fun at how it is such a hilariously insignificant issue. Go figure.Then there’s religion and values, where all of you Bible-pounding loons were absolutely [...]
Animal Sex Horse Fuck Gay Horse Sex…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…