Why We Still Take Issue with Same-Sex Marriage: Degredations of Common Sense are Toxic to Civil Society
September 14, 2007 · By George Freeman
 It has been said that when you believe your own lies, you are in real trouble.
In 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 Unruh’s last post on the subject highlights the need for a continuing appreciation for what is wrong with same-sex marriage, the controversy there over. As I write in my one reply to Dalton (with necessarily further editing here):
I do not disagree that [a legally sanctioned, monogamous union for life between two adults] is a “marriage†to the extent that in Canada civil marriage now includes “same-sex marriage.†But it 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 with 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, attacking 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 ideological and dogmatic utopian fantasy!
The relevance of Aaron’s post was…what, exactly?
As I commented below (since this thread seems to be about regurgitation ;) , a number of opponents against same sex marriage suggested that legal recognition would lead to a huge boom in gay marriages. Aaron’s post indicates that they were wrong.
And therefore…?
I agree with your response except for one facet.
“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.”
Actually modern feminist thought dictates, against science mind you, that there are absolutely no differences between men and women whatsoever and that any difference is only engendered by society. They see traditional marriage as a form of slavery for women that must be destroyed, hence by opening up the definition of marriage and by association family, to everyone, it will be eradicated altogether. A good perveyor of this train of thought was Martha Bailey of Queen’s University who wrote a paper on this for the Liberals.
Other than that, I do agree with your post however.
Aaron managed to aggravate opponents and proponents of SSM alike by pointed out what a non-issue it is terms of the numbers directly affected by it. Therefore, those who still take issue with the matter of SSM need to better explain what it is about SSM that makes it an ongoing subject of controversy.
As for a huge boom in homosexual partners getting married to each other, clearly that remains to be seen.
Good point Nicol!
That said, many feminists still rail against such thinking, fearing that women will be misunderstood and further subjugated in the absence of appreciating what it is about women that makes them unique vis a vis men.
But, again, thanks for providing an explanation for why many feminists are also comfortable supporting SSM.
“The relevance of Aaron’s post was…what, exactly?”
Good question.
George and Aaron’s fascination with posting on same-sex marriages grew tiresome months and months ago.
“There is nothing altogether unique about “two person†unions once you no longer believe the sex of those persons matters.”
This really does not make a lot of sense George. You seem to just care about sex of those in the marriage, while others focus on the emotional attachment that is formalized through marriage. What is unqiue is that two people agree through a ceremony that they are committing themselves to each other to the exclusion of all others.
“It does not take much insight to see that such attacks on common sense are ultimately attacks on civil society, attacking any basic appreciation for living in the real and common world.”
Little over the top, don’t you think? Few people see the acceptance of same-sex marriage as an attack on the basic appreciation for living in the real and common world. In fact, it is more likely seen as appreciating what is going on in the real and common world. Same-sex marriages are taking place, they are real, and are recognized. Perhaps not by you, but that is really of no concern to almost anyone; least of all to same-sex couples who choose to marry.
“Keep it up and you will find yourself living in a fertile breeding ground for ideological and dogmatic utopian fantasy!”
You’re the self-appointed canary in the mine shaft I guess? I don’t think you are in any position to pronounce on the merits of ideological and dogmatic grounds, at least based on your views in your many posts on this topic.
“herefore, those who still take issue with the matter of SSM need to better explain what it is about SSM that makes it an ongoing subject of controversy.”
Heh. And how many threads has this blog introduced on this topic in the last couple of days?
“As for a huge boom in homosexual partners getting married to each other, clearly that remains to be seen.”
So Aaron’s point, as well as being mistaken, is possibly irrelevant. There you go. When two people of good will discuss things, they often find themselves agreeing on something.
Until George has: 1. actually had sex with someone; 2. been in love (or found someone to love him back); and/or 3. been married (legally / religiously), then I don’t know why anyone actually bothers disccussing this topics with him, since common sense would dictate that one needs experience all three of these things in order to truly understand.
My advice Dalton, from someone who has actually experienced the wonder of George, it isn’t worth your time. However, if you want to continue to read the same 5 sound-bites he parrots over and over, then by all means, go to town. Otherwise, I would find better things on the internet to look at, like this, for example:
http://www.planetunicorn.tv/
Episode 5 is sorta how I feel about this conversation, actually.
George has an argument which is sound, to a degree.
a) Marriage, according to George, is “X”. “X” is a condition meeting certain criteria, established by George.
b) Anything NOT meeting those criteria is, therefore, not a “marriage”.
George embellishes this argument by elaborating articulately and at length, on his eligibility criteria, and by emphasising their importance with strictly subjective modifiers like “Vastly Different”, “Obviously”, and so on, and by introducing ever more stringent criteria. However, that doesn’t strengthen his argument, which remains as articulated in (a) and (b).
He is, however, a civil and articulate fellow, and I will wait with interest to see if he has other and less tautological arguments to support what I suspect is, at its base, a simple matter of personal taste.
Ryan, “emotional attachments” aside, why keep it to two person commitment, since you seem to think that is somehow trump?
I haven’t argued that same-sex marriage is not legally valid in Canada. Clearly, that is the law of the land. However, I did say that they are absurd to the point of comedic. And to that end, I’m only pointing out that it seems some people actually believe you can marry someone of the same sex, that it will be the same type of relationship as if they had married someone of the opposite sex.
I am not ideological nor dogmatic on this front. If I had been, any one of you would have been able to undercut my arguments by appealing to the “light of reason,” so to speak, and clearly discerned categories of understanding. You have been unwilling or unable to do either, which suggests that my arguments have merit.
There are two points I would like to make to keep the conversation going.
First, it seems obvious to me that to be a human being is to be both intelligent and moral, to make choices everyday to do one thing rather than another, for better or worse, and live with the consequences. Whereas one’s “ethics” are what they articulate to be their moral principles or values at any contingent point in time, to actually BE “moral” is something quite different. Actually BEING moral is a substantive quality of the human condition, that quality of being intelligent and making choices.
Now, as Robert Musil points out, even stupid people are intelligent. Stupidity is not so much a lack of intelligence but rather a lack of feeling. Stupid people—and we all have our moments—are not as awake to the common world around them as they should be, unable or wilfully disengaged from appreciating clearly discernible categories of understanding. Stupid people have trouble making sense of the world around them, and so have trouble knowing when to laugh at that which is absurd—they can’t recognize it. Another way of saying this is that stupidity is a lack of common sense.
Now, all of my arguments have appealed to the clearest categories of understanding that I can muster. On not one of these categories or, rather, points of contention, have they been shown to be insufficient.
And my willingness to write such extenuated comments, such as this, to explain myself as clearly as possible suggest that I am a reasonable man. I am certainly trying to hammer out a proper understanding of the matter rather than push through any ideological agenda.
Second, and taking a different tack, to be perfectly honest, if I were ever invited to a same-sex wedding ceremony, I suspect that I would probably attend; with card and gift as well. Anyone who know me knows that I am inclined to live and let live when it comes to my personal dealings.
That said, however, nonsense is still nonsense even if you participate in it and have a good time. :-)
When it comes to passing laws that degrade common sense distinctions, particularly marriage laws that turn the definition of marriage into vacuous nonsense, I think one is morally obliged to point that out.
A people that loses sight of common sense and are devoid of any loyalty to it are more prone to the ravages of ambitious ideological and progressively minded transformations of the world; programs that may or may not be horrendously evil.
Hannah Arendt makes much the same point in telling how Nazi Germany was basically run by ordinary people just doing their jobs.
My point here is that any degradation of common sense is toxic to civil society because it hallows out our appreciation for living in the real world.
Now, if same-sex marriage remains legal in Canada, fine. I don’t know what the future holds for it, but I do suspect that polygamy is around the corner. At the end of the day there remains nothing equivalent about same-sex marriage to a marriage between a man and woman beyond the qualifier of two persons committed to each other. But, then, the number two, devoid of some appreciation for differences based on sex, is arbitrary.
Many people don’t appreciate the absurdity of equating same-sex marriage with marriage. In other words, they have no common sense.
actually, if you had any common sense, you’d realize that nothing distinguishes any married couple regardless of gender, beyond societies decision to treat them so. forgive me if i’ve repeating, because i see this conversation has gone awhile…
this is why those domestic disputes are so hard. this is why people fake marriages for green cards, we’ve never been able to measure love. all we can do, is note the bonds people declare between each other. it has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, unless you note that this is the same trend that has brought arranged marriages out of favor in this country. interracial marriage too, is no longer beyond the pale.
clearly, we all like choosing our own partners. we don’t like being told what to do or who to hang out with. why does this bother you so much, that you try to make it scientific? i have no children, yet i am married. it is not part of the definition.
in closing, were they wrong? the people who insisted interracial marriage would degrade society’s values? here we are, contemplating gay marriage as if it’s a continuum. if it is, you’d best come up with a better rationale than, “but they can’t make babies!”. should we outlaw marriages for sterile people? i’m much more interested in preserving freedom.
DOING THE RIGHT THING.
High school students in Nova Scotia fight back against ignorance in their school.
Now here is an example of common sense. Unlike the kind George would have you adopt.
http://www.thechronicleherald......58884.html
STE,
How does what I say above have any relation whatsoever to the article you provide?
Clearly, David Shepherd and Travis Price have virtue, namely courage.
Yeah, I don’t get the connection here.
Come on Aaron and George, you seriously are not that thick, so drop the act.
The arguments that you have been putting forward for years have been used to justify the actions of bullies (and I use that term in the largest sense of the word) for ever. Indeed, David and Travis have virtue, because they decided that such actions (no matter what the justification - how much common sense they make or not) are unacceptable.
It also shows that such attitudes are not being tolerated by the young, even in rural areas, and I find that they have more common sense than you profess to have.
So hide behind your nice words, and your offers to attend same-sex weddings (and to even buy a gift - how generous), but what it boils down to in the long and short of it is that the more you try to kick against the pricks, the more your feet are going to bleed, because the younger generation will not tolerate it for long.
STE,
You demonstrate no understanding of what can actually be called “common sense.”
Bullies are bullies and, by definition, do not appeal to reason to light their way in the world. It is a well known fact that “bullies” are actually quite insecure, lashing out because life is tough—and takes some thinking to appreciate why a hard life is still a good life—and they want to be top dog no matter what.
Speaking of bullies, you are a good example of one. Routinely you fail to win over opponents on this blog, but rather than accepting even a stalemated “reasonable disagreement,” you lash out; be it the personal attacks and insults, or threats of human rights complaints.
Try not to choke on your own righteous indignation.
Quit your bitching George, and drop the hurt little boy act - if you can dish it out, then expect some in return. A quick scan of the archives shows that you are less than nice to many of those who comment here, and have attacked them personally (so if you don’t want to be called a hypocrite, then think twice before you call someone fabulous or a princess on your SSM threads - by your own definition, that is bullying).
Here are a few fine examples of how you don’t use personal attacks:
“What utterly original criticism! Stated like a true hardcore adherent of a cult; one who has gone all wet, without reason or accountability, on the non-sense that is same sex marriage.â€
“It takes a certain morally indigent loser to seriously pay homage at altar of sexual orientation; justifying their choosing to become what they choose to become for the sake of its idolatrous veneration.â€
“Presumably you can’t read. Read what I wrote.â€
“Indignation doesn’t seem to suit you. Try fishing. At least you’ll be participating in a less feminine past-time.â€
“By the way, saying “bigot†as often as you do was intimidating back in the 60s when you were in your sexual prime. Not anymore. So grow up.â€
“Amazing how you two morons can carry on without making one well-reasoned argument.â€
“You’re very earnest, but not very perceptive; quite irrational really. Yes, quite.â€
“Really? Did the stork bring you or how were you brought into this world? Sex is sex, requiring the compatible physiology of men and women. Maybe you should watch more National Geographic, or maybe take up lawn care.â€
You have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you are not actually willing to discuss the topics you bring up, but rather repeat the same things over and over; often contradicting yourself. For example, in the past you said:
“Consummate†a same-sex union? Huh!!! It goes without saying, lesbians can’t even sodomize each other. Lesbian sex? What!!! Did you learn about this on National Geographic. By definition, does not sex require at least one person of each sex?
“What an ultimate form of commitment! Especially so considering they will never be able to father children or face the challenges of intimately getting on with the opposite sex, not to mention the fact that human mortality makes it all meaningless anyway.â€
But above you say (and it isn’t the first time – are you cutting and pasting from your archives?):
“Second, and taking a different tack, to be perfectly honest, if I were ever invited to a same-sex wedding ceremony, I suspect that I would probably attend; with card and gift as well. Anyone who know me knows that I am inclined to live and let live when it comes to my personal dealings.â€
It is no wonder why you don’t get more invites. If you had gay friends, and they knew you said this, I assure you they would probably stop letting you hang around. Sorry George, but I am calling bull-shit on this one.
And since you don’t want to discuss your discourse from the points of view of pathos and logos (which is your claim), then the only thing left is your ethos. You have no ethos on this topic at all, and so your attempts to change others’ minds with your “reason†are truly pathetic.
Here are some more George Freeman gems from the past:
“Social Justice, gender equality, blah blah blah blah …. Anyone else sick of living in a loser country?â€
“SSM makes incest laws obsolete. Two brothers can’t actually have sex, so there is no “risk†to any potential off spring because there is no potential for off spring.â€
“Also, it’s dangerous for judges to be lamenting: “they understood ?the social indignities and economic difficulties? gay couples have faced.†Empathy is nice, but all niceties aside, so what? Courts should arbitrate existing law, not pull new law out of thin air, departing the world of facts for fanciful rationalisations.â€
“We all have to discriminate at some point, and it remains unclear why keeping marriage between a man and a woman was unjustifiable discrimination, being a fundamentally unique human relationship to any other two person union.â€
Well now, STE, you are a fabulous princess!
And no, I’m not bullying you: clearly the shoe fits (from what you write) and I’ve never threatened you. Did it ever occur to you that I don’t actually know you?
In any event, thanks for posting some of my best lines; a nice trip down memory lane. … Pardon my tears of satisfaction. :-)
I’ll give you a hint as to why I always beat you hands down: debating the stupidity of same-sex marriage has little to nothing to do with the morality or immorality of homosexuality. One just has to stick with that which is obvious and usually taken for granted.
Have you ever considered why there are reputable opponents of SSM who also happen to be homosexual, like, namely, Lee Harris?
The case against SSM is entirely reasonable; something you are loath to admit, and probably because “being gay” is your dogmatic religion. Quite frankly, with you, I’ve never encountered a sorrier victim of his own sexual desires.
Oh, I know, you’re a “gay man” and I have no idea what that’s like, as you like to remind those of us here. Still, it remains the case, “fabulous princess” is a more apt description of how you portray yourself on this blog.
“Did it ever occur to you that I don’t actually know you?”
Don’t be so sure, George. Ever been to the Zoo?
i see i have not been obnoxious enough to merit a response. or, perhaps you’ve been over the salient points of my comment.
regardless, did you want to talk politics? or trade barbs with old friends? ironically, you and ezra sound like a married couple.
Or could it be, bright, that you actually make sense, that it is futile to define marriage in anything but the legal terms given the multiplicity of relationships that fall under its rubric, and that George’s arguments fall apart when you draw light to the flaw in his definitional logic?
It is true that I have been obnoxious, and indeed, it has been a long history between myself and George. However, as many have pointed out, George isn’t really willing to have a discussion, but rather is only interested in repeating himself in the hopes of dragging more poor fools into the same “conversation” he has been having with himself since this debate started years ago. He seems obsessed with it, really.
And unlike most Canadians, he is unwilling to move on, irrespective of the change in the law. He seems to think he has a strong grip on it (right or left hand George?), yet constantly changes tune, and tries to draw in more and more irrelevant arguements (i.e. smoke and mirrors / polygamy and incest) to mask his motives. Not that I am going to guess what his motives are - (g)od knows I have tried - because he would just deny them anyway and dodge the real issue. George doesn’t know what the future holds - he believes that the moral fabric of Canada is somehow in peril, and grasps at anything he can to blame it on. If it isn’t the gays, then it is the hutterites. If it isn’t the hutterites, then it is the native americans. If it isn’t the native americans, it is the arabs. Who’s next George?
Malcontents like George just want to look for the bad in everything, maybe it is because he doesn’t see anything good around him, which is sad. Oh shit, I just got all freudian again, must be the princess in me (she went to the same university as Georgey-boy, you know).
But unlike George, I am a very happily married man. I know what it is like to be in love, to be committed to someone for the long term, and I know what it is like to be married in both the legal and spiritual senses. Sure, he thinks that I am deluding myself, and that deep down I know that it is all a lie, because he found one gay person who doesn’t like the idea of same-sex marriage (like somehow that is the proof he is trying to hard to develop re: something he knows nothing about) and because the person I married doesn’t have the right plumbing so we can’t have babies.
Sure, if I would have invited his sorry ass to my wedding, he says he would have come with a gift and a card. But just like my jack-ass brother-in-law, he would not really have been welcome, because I would know exactly what he is thinking behind the fake smile and department store wrapping paper. And like my jack-ass brother-in-law, he would have only been there to prove a point (although, no one is really sure what that point is - oh right “see, I am not a biggot, I brought a present and a card…. mmmm, nice martini, don’t they have any real beer at this party (wouldn’t want to call it a wedding)? Silly homosexuals, they can’t have babies you know - anyone want to see things from my perspective? No? (g)oddamn liberals, the country is falling apart and no one is listening to me”).
Sure, us faggots and muff-divers get our panties and strap-ons in a knot whenever George opens his mouth, because, from our perspective, he doesn’t make sense. We find it offensive that he equates our relationships with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who commit incest. We don’t like it when he use really poor rhetoric (that anyone without ideological blinders on can see right through) to prove his point that somehow we are different and should be treated differently. We already know that we are different - in fact - we self-identify. Does that mean that the law should treat us differently? Geoge thinks so, in fact, he has openly and proudly said so. But we won, and we are no longer treated like second-class citizens, and that really gets under his skin.
And George, as long as you intend to use your fancy academic phrases to try to trick people into “discussing” a topic that is so near and dear to your heart, I will be around to call bull-shit. You are not interested in having a discussion, but in finding ways to perfect your “arguments” to use on the next sucker. But to what end? Do you really think it will change anything? And do you really think those arguments are your own? Because they have been borrowed from centuries of others. Is it so you can say “ha!, I got another one!” Or do you have some romantic notion that if you don’t carry this torch that it will die (like, for example, hand-knitting in the wake of all of those knitting machines and women who go to work).
I like what Dalton said in the other thread, “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.” Seriously George, don’t get married to a dude, no one will hold it against you. But at the same time, quit being such a spoil sport and do something more productive. Your mother would be proud of you if you landed an awesome job, seriously, try it, it might be fun, and it might just get you off our backs.
“So hide behind your nice words, and your offers to attend same-sex weddings (and to even buy a gift - how generous)…”
Does this mean I’m not invited? Damnit, I was hoping to catch your bouquet.
Aaron, you would’ve had to wrestle me for it. … wink wink … Wouldn’t we have been the life of the party. :-)
Bright, interracial marriage? What’s with that? Clearly race would be an arbitrary qualifier for defining marriage, no less than “two-person” union. And I did respond to your comment, in part, when I said that the morality or immorality of homosexuality has little to nothing to do with the definition of marriage.
Furthermore, the fact that human beings are male and female is the overwhelming sexual fact of any human society, so wandering over, absolutely relativising human relationships, as though sex does not matter, is utter nonsense. Men and women, though both capable of being reasonable, come to it from different physiological experiences of reality: sex. If you possessed more common sense, you would know this, or at least be able to explain why I am wrong. Instead, you seem to think that I am telling people how to live their lives, which I am not.
STE is clearly a troubled soul. I might be inclined to pity him but I think he would enjoy that too much; might just as well continue to aggravate his overly sensitive irrationalities. :-) The gates of hell are locked from the inside and STE doesn’t want to come out. And no, I’m not saying homosexuals go to hell here.
I refer you to the reply I will post to Dalton’s most recent, and might I add, reasonable, comment.
[...] response to George Freeman’s outstanding post on same-sex marriage, commenter Bright provides a lovely egalitarian interpretation of marriage. [...]
Ezra, what I want to know is: What is wrong with department store wrapping paper?
[...] Spanky’s Clubhouse: “It is vitally important that we continue to warn Canadians about the dangers of same-sex [...]
ste:
“We find it offensive that he equates our relationships with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who commit incest.”
i used to. but there is no point. being offended ends the conversation. i’m dismayed about a speech given at the american psychological association this year, but i’m more dismayed that some bloggers’ response has been “did anyone walk out?”. the speech was another tautological, evolutionary psychology paean to “boys and girls are different!”, with a twist ending. and i found it deeply offensive, but i wrote a response that attempted to explain why, instead of just raging. using small words. just as you’re doing.
as for knitting, you’d be surprised. did you know that more people now own more horses than ever before in history? it’s not because they need them to get around. humans are uniquely capable of doing things mystifying to other humans. i can’t see that jesus fella either. we’re better off i think, not assaulting the sovereignty of other minds. i’m glad to hear you’re so happy.
Thanks Bright. I think you are nice.
gf:
“Clearly race would be an arbitrary qualifier for defining marriage, no less than “two-person†union. And I did respond to your comment, in part, when I said that the morality or immorality of homosexuality has little to nothing to do with the definition of marriage.”
clearly? you do realize the law forbade it, yes? so it wasn’t clear then, was it? if you’re unaware, please google “antimiscegenation”.
and i didn’t realize you responded to me thus. perhaps because my comment didn’t say anything about morality. i was speaking of love and the laws we’ve developed to mark it in society.
“Furthermore, the fact that human beings are male and female is the overwhelming sexual fact of any human society, so wandering over, absolutely relativising human relationships, as though sex does not matter, is utter nonsense. Men and women, though both capable of being reasonable, come to it from different physiological experiences of reality: sex. If you possessed more common sense, you would know this, or at least be able to explain why I am wrong.”
sure: i’m married and i have no children. having sex has nothing to do with this. you are speaking of “gender”. and gender is swiftly becoming arbitrary. if i’m very wealthy, i can have a sex change and hop over this very arbitrary distinction you’re making. it’s now cosmetic. which is why i keep comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage. if you were a pale enough black person in most counties, no one cared. then too though, if they did, the rationale was sex based more than anything. the fear was an erosion of the races through crossbreeding. now, here you are again, saying sex is the paramount reason for marriage. and i say to you, i have no kids. can i still be married? mmm, yes!
can you explain to me why i should find this compelling? what has sex to do with marriage? i know once upon a time it did, but clearly it has evolved. why do you ignore that?
[...] Apparently it is possible to see the light of reason and disagree with a bullish practitioner of two-dude “husbandry,” that is, as long as you have no concern whatsoever for traditional institutions—somehow “legality†remains an important exception, magically sustaining itself—nor a common sense appreciation for basic sexual physiology. All you really need is a confused nihilistic zealotry, couched in polite libertarian platitudes where anything goes.  It seems that all sins of dogmatic omission are forgiven as long as said bullish practitioner of two-dude “husbandry” finds you “niceâ€. [...]
[...] commenter “Better Than Ezra” has recently performed an invaluable public service by chronicling much of the wit and wisdom provided by George Freeman on this site over the years. [...]
Consummate or perish.
The absurd arguments in favour of same-sex marriage can be destroyed instantly. Darned if I know why nobody has thought of it?
Marriage requires consummation to be validated. Lawyers know that and use the fact to get marriages annulled. Same sex couples cannot consummate a marriage so they do not qualify for the institution.
Another point: Homosexual folk rabbiting on about “gay-sex†is proof of their ignorance of the reality of human biology. Sex has been - for the better part of a century - an abbreviation for “sexual-intercourse”. Coitus is only possible between a male and female of the human species. What gay-folks do is nothing more than “mutual-masturbation”. Please no responses based on contrived rubbish about being “deeply offendedâ€.
Incidentally, I love myself “a lot”, but I sure aint gonna marry me!!!
Two of George’s favourite self-referential arguments in one post. I wonder…nah.
roger rabbit, no one can prove consumation in the age of tampax. sadly, no children ever come from these unions…
we’d best acknowledge this new technology and move on to sensible definitions.
Dalton and Bright - Weak “nothing” replies, as I expected.
And you missed the self deprecating “tag-line” completely.
How about this from Wikipedia?
In Colonial America, hand-fast marriages were allowed in several of the Colonies. These marriages were not done in church; instead there were public verbal commitments made between the man and the woman, and then they consummated it by having sexual relations. If the woman did not become pregnant within one year, the marriage was considered annulled. If she did become pregnant, the relationship would automatically become a fully-recognized marriage.
These points cannot be denied.
Consummation is overwhelmingly “likely” in the case of a “true” male/female marriage.
Consummation is “impossible” for a “male/male” or female/female” fake marriage.
As you Americans love to say “And that’s the game!!!!!”.
“Dalton and Bright - Weak “nothing†replies, as I expected.”
Well, that’s because I’ve already responded to your argument on this site. I’ll be happy to do it once again.
Any individual, state, religion or culture can decide that “marriage” must meet certain criteria. You’ve described a couple of the criteria that you use for your own definition of marriage. That’s nice. It also doesn’t matter, except to folks interested in what your personal definition of “marriage” entails.
It’s not “my” definition of marriage. It’s just the way it is “by design”. God or evolution - take your pick.
It’s worthwhile considering why marriage exists at all. It emerged in a civilized world thousands of years ago. The purpose? To prevent men getting women pregnant and then running off and leaving them. It started as a fertility rite. That’s why people who choose to avoid real “reproductive” intercourse cannot possibly qualify. It not a matter of deliberately denying those of the homosexual persuasion the right to marry. Simple fact is that same-gender couples do not meet the parameters that are laid down by nature. Blame God or evolution.
I notice you have avoided addressing the qualifications for a “complete†marriage, in particular the “consummation” issue. I’m not surprised. Most people go off in a different direction when they come up against the brick wall of reality.
“It’s not “my†definition of marriage. It’s just the way it is “by designâ€. God or evolution - take your pick.”
Wrong. “God or evolution” are responsible for the process of reproduction, a phenomenon which happens independent of “marriage”.
“Marriage” is a socially defined institution. Your personal criteria link it to reproduction. No problem. Define it whatever way you want.
“I notice you have avoided addressing the qualifications for a “complete†marriage, in particular the “consummation†issue.”
Heh. I “avoid addressing” it because it’s the same argument, selecting a particulary criterion which you have decided will be part of your personal definition of marriage. Thanks for sharing your criteria. Most interesting from an anthropological perspective, but not relevant to the definition which our society now uses.
Dalton – I don’t mean to be rude or intrusive, but are you a homosexual person?
In reference to “God or Evolution”, I was speaking of the existence (creation) of the two genders. The “design†of the male and female bodies is for sexual reproduction. Therefore God or evolution is ultimately responsible for the emergence of marriage, because the physical reality of male and female human beings makes it possible.
Yes marriage is a socially defined institution—designed to prevent men getting women pregnant and abandoning them. Pray tell, why do you think marriage was instituted thousands of years ago? Can’t wait to hear your explanation!
I can see that you subscribe to the narrow-minded “romantic†view of marriage. This is how the “homosexual†desire for marriage has come about.
Regarding the true reason for the existence of marriage, you simply “don’t get it†or more likely don’t want to get it. Marriage is and always has been entwined with sexual reproduction. It’s unnecessary for male/male or female/female relationships to be taken to the level of a marriage.
Here’s a bit lighthearted speculation. If gay unions ever become established in the western world, how many “shotgun†marriages will there be? I think you know the answer.
“Dalton – I don’t mean to be rude or intrusive, but are you a homosexual person?”
The question is neither rude nor intrusive…just irrelevant. The answer is no. Are you a rabbit?
“Therefore God or evolution is ultimately responsible for the emergence of marriage, because the physical reality of male and female human beings makes it possible.”
Can anyone spot the really, REALLY basic logical fallacy here?
“Yes marriage is a socially defined institution—designed to prevent men getting women pregnant and abandoning them.”
Ah. So we agree that marrriage is socially designed institution. Does it not follow that society can change (broaden, narrow, whatever) its criteria? I’ll save you the effort: the answer is yes. And that is, in fact, what has happened.
The remainder of your post is simply a reassertion of your personal criteria, which, as I’ve noted, are interesting but irrelevant.
Dalton – ever thought of becoming a “tap dancer� You’d make a pretty good one. Perhaps a boxer? You’re still bobbing and weaving better than Muhammad Ali in his prime.
What “personal†criteria? You give me too much credit. More like the criteria of billions of people over thousands of years. Crunch those numbers.
Marriage is male + female = sexual intercourse = pregnancy = children that grow up and repeat the process. Creating human life can happen without marriage but ideally occurs within that institution. No sexual reproduction, no need for marriage.
You don’t seem to understand (or want to understand) that male/female/reproduction “is†marriage. This is how it has been for thousands of years. Reproductive responsibility is the reason that marriage was created. The attempt to “redefine†marriage as a non-reproductive “romantic union†is a very recent phenomenon and a rather silly one. Surely “sexual reproduction†is at the very core of marriage? If you eliminate reproduction from marriage completely, you don’t have marriage.
Why do “you†think marriage was created in the first place? Please address this question directly not with your usual tangential waffle.
Why change or modify an institution (marriage) that makes sense in terms of its current parameters? In other words, if it aint broke don’t fix it!
Finally - so what is your criterion for marriage?
“Marriage is male + female = sexual intercourse = pregnancy = children that grow up and repeat the process.”
Yup. I understand your definition and criteria. It’s pretty straightforward. The remainder of your post is simply another reassertion that those are the only criteria that represent “real” marriage in your opinion. You do understand, don’t you, that simply repeating something again and again doesn’t strengthen an argument?
“You don’t seem to understand (or want to understand) that male/female/reproduction “is†marriage.”
I understand that’s your definition, yes. You’re certainly entitled to view marriage in your world that way.
“Why do “you†think marriage was created in the first place?
Dozens of reasons, including the assurance of property protection, institutional sanction of sexual relationships and bonding, the promotion of societal norms, the protection of children within a domestic unit, to formally confer the emotional satisfaction of a lifelong commitment to someone you love, and so on.
‘Finally - so what is your criterion for marriage?”
Well, to me marriage is a social and legal institution. So “marriage” is whatever a given society and legal system say it is.
firstly, i don’t live in colonial america. you guys are the ones who still have some sort of weird little monarchy going on. this is why i like arguing the legal basis for rights: mine have nothing whatsoever to do with colonial americans. i can vote friends. i’ve been married for 3 years now with no kids, and my marriage is still valid. end of comparison.
additionally, if we’re discussing marriage law, it’s got naught to do with god or evolution. it’s got everything to do with how we conspire to build societal rules through consensus.
i do not consent to pump out young’ns in some effort to prove to you the seriousness of this union. ergo, i don’t see why it matters if gay couples can procreate or not. henry the 8th failed to produce a male heir A LOT. and he still went to the trouble of ceremonially ending his marriages, via beheading, natural causes or divorce. there’s nothing glorious about these traditional marriages.