Peter Sprigg, in "The Iowa Supreme Court's Marriage Creation Myth", writes that,
Marriage exists in virtually every human society, of every culture and every religion-and for thousands of years, it has always and everywhere been a male-female union.
Then he offers the following scenarios for the origin of marriage:
Scenario #1 --
"We've noticed that sometimes an adult human being will form a strong pair-bond with another adult human being. These two individuals will choose to share a dwelling, share economic resources with each other, and make a commitment to stay together for an extended period of time. Let's create a social institution to provide public affirmation for these generic pair-bonds between adult human beings, and let's call that institution 'marriage'. But because we dislike gay people, let's make sure they can't participate!"
Or, Scenario #2 --
"We've noticed that when a man and a woman have sex with each other, the woman sometimes gets pregnant and has a baby. We need babies for our society to continue into the future. And we've noticed that it's easier to raise those babies if the mother and father stay together and cooperate in raising them. We know that there are many other relationships between human beings that are important, but because this kind of relationship between a man and a woman serves such an important function for society as a whole, let's create a social institution that will encourage, protect, and regulate it. We'll call it 'marriage'."
Could anyone possibly argue -- with a straight face -- that the first scenario is a more plausible explanation for the origin of marriage than the second? Yet that is, in effect, what the Iowa Supreme Court ruled.
Peter Sprigg concludes:
[T]he court unilaterally changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and then used that as justification for ordering a change in the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It doesn't get much more circular than that.
* * *
How about we create a social institution where I can buy a woman for 80lbs of tobacco? Oh wait, that was called "marriage" before we redefined it differently! Nevermind... ;)
ReplyDeleteIsn't it funny how those who like to argue that SSM is justified because "marriage has evolved over time" also refuse to give any credit to the role of selection in the way that marriage has developed, and instead prefer to use a model of mere power abuse to explain it all?
ReplyDeleteUp to a point in time, of course, at which some miraculous "enlightenment" suddenly took place to free us of all those ignorant ideas that the "powerful ones" forced on us.
And, of course, we don't even need selection or trial and error to tell us whether the views of the "enlightened" ones on how marriage should change are right or wrong, because of course they're right, just because they're "enlightened.
Just pause and note. We've logged a lot of shennanigans from Mr H-G in the past. Things like wanting gays to wear pink triangles, an attempt to create the analogy that unless gays can re-define marriage into the relationship model they want to live then they are being driven into concentration camps.
ReplyDeleteSo lets look at this latest equivalence. I know he's obviously mistaken a change in marriage courtship as a re-definition. But there is an even worse mistake lurking in that comment.
In response to how marriage in the past has been centered on children's needs as well as the equity of equal gender representation, he notes that is as obsolete as when marriage was "a social institution where I can buy a woman for 80lbs of tobacco".
Ironically, being able to purchase a woman for just spreading seed and taking the kids is exactly what gays would do to imitate the procreation model of marriage.
Woa, JHG, was that an inadvertently racist remark? Or maybe a sexist remark? Maybe some kind of a heterophobic remark? Maybe all three, and not inadvertently so?
ReplyDeleteI don't adhere to it, but to ask is to answer as per the typical pro-SSM line of thinking. ;)
I'm never thought of women as property, that comes from your "traditional" marriage. ;)
ReplyDeleteNot frm my marriage and not from my tradition and not from the man-woman criterion of marriage.
ReplyDeleteThat criterion is not a tradition, JHG, it is an objective fact of the union of husband and wife.
"Ironically, being able to purchase a woman for just spreading seed and taking the kids is exactly what gays would do to imitate the procreation model of marriage." Very excellent point. Often we see advocates of same-sex “marriage” denounce marriage as archaic and patriarchal and oppressive. (A popular feminist nostrum)
ReplyDeleteOn lawn brings up an excellent point. I remember the story about how India is increasingly popular among gay male couples. There they “rent” a poor brown woman’s womb because nature doesn’t provide wombs for two males.
Then they buy the child essentially…talk about exploitation.
Mr H-G,
ReplyDelete> "I'm never thought of women as property"
Typo? or did you mean it that way ... :)
> "that comes from your "traditional" marriage"
I'm not sure what culture practices the merger of slavery and marriage, let alone if I have any ancestry in it.
You seem to be sure, so maybe you know more about my ancestry than I do. But then again you have been sure about a lot of things which are untrue, (including never causing anyone harm by posting their personal information on the internet) so I'll file it accordingly ;)
Either way, as I mentioned before, trading money for use of a woman's body and gender is a practice directly linked to your tradition of gay marriage. You may draw the distinction of it being rented property rather than purchased property, but it is exactly the kind of subjugation that you seem to be complaining about.
As with so many GLBT advocates, I find them talking all about how other people should treat them, and not enough about how they should treat others.
"Between 1620 and 1622, about 150 pure and spotless women arrived in Virginia and were auctioned for about 80 pounds of tobacco to future husbands."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.genealogymagazine.com/coloandma.html
This is "traditional" marriage, right? Women were chattel real. You claim we shouldn't change marriage, yet if someone hadn't changed it this is what we would still have; women as the property of men. Still think change is always bad? ;)
JHG you claimed that we shouldn't change marriage. Or did you delete your remark from your memory?
ReplyDeleteHang on. Is this your lame way of trying to argue against tradition, JHG?
ReplyDeleteOkay, so the tradition of romance is irrelevant.
Check.
The sexual aspect won't stand on tradition, either.
Check.
That puts you at odds with Iowa Supreme Court Justice Cady's pro-SSM opinion.
Oh, I expect you like the outcome very much, but your now arguing against his reasoning which hinges on romance and sexual attraction.
You are unserious. If you think not, then, please read the current blogposts on this very topic and try to provide a serious and substantive response.
Or just go away and find Justice Cady and tell him he is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Joking.
John, do you or do you not believe that selection has been a mechanism in how cultures change?
ReplyDeleteWhy has this very "simple" change you advocate never been selected FOR?
I think I know your answer, something like "Because the powers in control.....etc, etc"
How and when did humanity change from darkness (always under the control of selfish "powers") to enlightenment?
I suppose you're going to claim that every culture throughout history has bought women with tobacco.
The more universal a tradition, the more we have to ask why it's so.
And if we can't explain why it's so, or our attempts to do so seem "vague" or unconvincing to many people, the more we should be skeptical about changing it. If we know the reason for the tradition, we have the info we need to know if and how we can change it. If we don't know the reason (or, in this case, if it's merely attributed by its detractors to a plot by the powerful, for motives even more vague than it's defenders attempts to explain it's reasons) then we are more likely to find out the reason after we change it, and then it will be too late.
If you disagree, defend your disagreement with logic.
Between 1620 and 1622Two years in one area does not compare with thousands of years of human history in every culture, John.
ReplyDeleteHosty-G: This is "traditional" marriage, right? Women were chattel real.
ReplyDeleteStatements like this make it clear Hosty-G has no understanding of marriage, then or now. And we're supposed to let him and his cohorts take control of something about which they have no clue?
In order to jump to his condemnation of marriage, Hosty-G deliberately avoids statements like the following just two sentences later in his same source:
"...the free women of 17th-century America found their position enviable. Regardless of looks, wit, or wealth, they had no trouble finding husbands."
Yes, don't we all look forward to being "chattel real."
Further evidence from that same article that Hosty-G ignores is the use of antenuptial agreements by women to keep control of their own property. That's right. Contrary to what the anti-marriage crowd like Hosty-G tells you, women owned property even back in the "dark ages" of the seventeenth century.
Even if Hosty-G weren't so far off the mark in interpreting this one sentence out of this article, a rare practice in a rare corner of the world can hardly be said to establish the "tradition" of marriage, any more than this one sentence can establish the real meaning of the entire essay. For example, the article points out that even in Virginia, marriages typically followed the "Common Book of Prayers," which, from its earliest publication in the 16th century has always required the consent of the bride and the groom.
In fact, the earliest European records of marriage, going back to the days of Rome all indicate the consent of the woman was an essential element in marriage. Marriages in ancient societies like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, and Chinese clearly depended on the consent of the woman.
While Hosty-G wants to paint marriage as hostile to women, On Lawn makes the excellent point that it is Hosty-G's favored neutered marriage that makes traditional the idea of turning women into chattel, mere wombs-for-rent for the propagation of male only couples. Even Hosty-G acquiesces this point.
Thanks, op-ed. Of course John was hoping we wouldn't notice that.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it so hard for marriage neuterists to see that in past cultures, if an idea worked, the culture survived, if the idea did not work, the idea was either abandoned or the culture died?
Now, what does that tell us about an idea that is so easy to come up with that probably most kids ask about it before age five ("Mommy, can boys marry boys?"), yet we never see this idea take hold in any long-term society in history?
Along those lines, I noticed this post in our sidebar: Learning from History instead of Dismissing It
ReplyDeleteIs this the quality of our adversaries now days? Change = Bad or Change = Good????
ReplyDeleteWhat about “change” on the Supreme Court? Or “change” in our divorce laws? Or “change” in the hearts of gay men & women toward African Americans?
Given light of the excellent exposure and dialog on Mr H-G's comments above, I'll repeat from the above post what may be a good way to describe the real tradition of marriage. A quote which I noted earlier with the summary, "how marriage in the past has been centered on children's needs as well as the equity of equal gender representation".
ReplyDeleteWe've noticed that when a man and a woman have sex with each other, the woman sometimes gets pregnant and has a baby. We need babies for our society to continue into the future. And we've noticed that it's easier to raise those babies if the mother and father stay together and cooperate in raising them. We know that there are many other relationships between human beings that are important, but because this kind of relationship between a man and a woman serves such an important function for society as a whole, let's create a social institution that will encourage, protect, and regulate it. We'll call it 'marriage'.Mr H-G, it was a very entertaining to watch you try to falsely claim what others believe -- in such an obvious way. But perhaps this conversation can be salvaged for you by sharing with us your tradition of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage for you?
And just why do you so so plan to exclude the very mother of any potential children you might raise from that marriage relationship?
From the link provided by op-ed above:
ReplyDeleteNo one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.
There you have the one big difference between supporters and opponents of neutering marriage. Opponents understand this, supporters think they have come, in one lifetime, to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of, not just their particular society, but human society as a whole. It is simply arrogance.
Or more to the point, it is cultural adolescence, as Charles Murray notes here.
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_murray30_03-30-09_KIDPCVN_v8.3e669d5.html
For some years a metaphor has been stuck in my mind: The 20th Century was the adolescence of Homo sapiens. Nineteenth-century science, from Darwin to Freud, offered a series of body blows to ways of thinking about human life that had prevailed since the dawn of civilization. Humans, just like adolescents, were deprived of some of the comforting simplicities of childhood and exposed to more complex knowledge about the world. And 20th-century intellectuals reacted precisely the way adolescents react when they think they have discovered that Mom and Dad are hopelessly out of date. It was as if they thought that if Darwin was right about evolution, then Aquinas was no longer worth reading; that if Freud was right about the unconscious mind, then the Nicomachean Ethics had nothing to teach us.And responses to his piece on leftist blogs like Daily Kos merely prove exactly his point, as they mostly sound merely adolescent.
Note: last sentence above was supposed to be separate from the preceding paragraph.
ReplyDelete"Between 1620 and 1622Two years in one area does not compare with thousands of years of human history in every culture, John."
ReplyDeletePart of the argument against marriage equality is that it changes "traditional" marriage. You are proving that marriage has changed significantly through the years and that you welcomed that change. Thank you for proving that point for me. ;)
Of course it's "changed", John. But the successful changes have been tested with time, and have worked. Either nobody in all of human history has ever thought of even trying neutered marriage, ever, which is extremely unlikely, or it has not worked when it has been tried.
ReplyDeleteYour little quip above is basically an argument for just accepting any change, because it's a change. I think we have adequately shown, here and elsewhere, that that approach is totally irresponsible, and indeed adolescent.
But if you want to attempt a general defense of the idea that "marriage has changed, therefore any change to marriage will work out fine", please go ahead.
And you have not refuted any of the other points we have made here.
Oh, and just once again, John, does selection play any role in the development of culture through the years, or not? You have not answered.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, testing a cultural change does take a lot more than nine years.
R.K.: supporters think they have come, in one lifetime, to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of... human society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhat's truly funny is that they typically express their "fullness of understanding" in terms of their own ignorance: "I don't know why..." or "I never understood..." or "It makes no sense that..."
There is, of course, no shortage of changes that can be justified by ignorance.
Hosty-G: Part of the argument against marriage equality is that it changes "traditional" marriage.
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. Hosty-G here proves that he is as clueless about the arguments for marriage as he is about marriage itself.
In a previous comment, JHG, you said that " marriage is what it was in the past".
ReplyDeleteHere, you attempted to define "traditional" marriage by pointing to a quote from an amature genealogist about immigration to the underpopulated colony of Virginia in 1620-22.
The colony was predominantely male. The cost of transportation was the "price" the man paid for the contract of the immigrating woman. She consented to the marriage, as per the law even in the colony, and her contract for transportation was settled. Indeed, the husband received additional land because of the integration of husband and wife.
And the point of the process? To encourage the men to settle rather than leave Jamestown. To populate the colony through procreation within marriage.
Women who were not married still were in debt for their transportation contract. They, like youngsters also brought to the colony, could sell their contract in a transaction for indentured service -- that is, for a period of time (5-7 years) the individual worked for the "sponsor" as repayment of the contract. At the conlcusion, the indentured person acquired his or her own land as well as supplies to make a start on their own.
Thus, this example was an innovation rather than a tradition. And it was about immigration -- transportation, settlement, procreation, uniting man and woman to settle the men, and empowered the women more than they would have been back home. The innovation was discontinued after the initial need was fulfilled.
So, once again, JHG, you have shot yourself in your foot -- even as you placed that foot in your mouth.
Provision for responsible procreation and for uniting the sexes in civil society was at the heart of the very innovation you chose to highlight yourself.
"Of course it's "changed", John. But the successful changes have been tested with time, and have worked."
ReplyDeleteVermont has had nine years to think about civil unions and instead went with marriage equality. There been 5 years in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen. How much time do you need before marriage equality becomes "tradition"?
"No, it isn't. Hosty-G here proves that he is as clueless about the arguments for marriage as he is about marriage itself."
ReplyDeleteThank you, your comment was both informative and enlightening adding much to the conversation.
"Here, you attempted to define "traditional" marriage by pointing to a quote from an amature genealogist about immigration to the underpopulated colony of Virginia in 1620-22."
ReplyDeleteIf you want to try to disprove what I've said as historically inaccurate feel free. I get a towel so you can wipe the egg off your face when you're done. Let's see your proof.
BTW, it's spelled amateur.
You made the original assertion. The burden of proof is on you, JHG.
ReplyDeleteNote that the core of marriage is not a tradition.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "traditional marriage" would normally refer to a culture's particular traditions surrounding the core of marriage.
However, since SSMers have pushed forward the oxymoron, "gay marriage", some people have responded with a rhetorical response -- adding "traditional" to differentiate marriage from "gay marriage".
From this, JHG, you would over-stretch the word, tradition, such that it would become meaningless.
You have said that "marriage is what it was". Next you introduced an innovation from the early settlement period of Jamestown. Next you suggested that 5 years of an SSM-merger in Massachusetts is now a tradition.
The core meaning of marriage was the key to the innovation in the Virginia colony which you introduced as your example of "tradition".
* * *
By the way, it is "there have been five years" not "There been 5 years".
The sky has not fallen during all of recorded human history. Maybe you expect it is held up only above Massachusetts but not in the states where marriage has been officially reaffirmed as the union of man and woman.
Hosty-G: Thank you, your comment was both informative and enlightening adding much to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteWhich is more than can be said of your straw-man. If anyone thinks your characterization is legitimate, I'd be happy to set them straight. Otherwise, I have covered this ground with you before. I see little value in going over it again.
There been 5 years in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen. How much time do you need before marriage equality becomes "tradition"?5 years establishes what is a "tradition?" I'm not making this stuff up, folks. That is what he just said. Hey, at least he's moved up from 2 years.
Vermont has had nine years to think about civil unions and instead went with marriage equality..
ReplyDeleteIts more accurate to say Vermont disestablished marriage equality (the quality of each gender's participation in marriage) as its standard. To say that an all-male or all-female marriage increases the equality of marriage is like saying an all-white and all-black school increases the equality of education.
I am watching you try very hard to avoid the specifics of the change you are proposing. I have seen you completely ignore many important questions people have about your change, in how it would encourage inequality, and how it would encourage oppression of people who believed in it.
I'll also note that they made their change after nine years of near complete disinterest of gay and lesbian couples in having the benefits they keep claiming they want in marriage, also. Vermont Civil Union participation rates were embarrassingly low for the GLBT's efforts to get them.
There been 5 years in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen..
ReplyDeleteReminds me of a Simpson's episode where Lisa Simpson pulls out a rock that wards off tigers. Does it really work? Homer asks. Yes, do you see any tigers? Homer offers money to buy the useless rock.
Apparently we can also be relieved that no matter what really has happened in Massachusetts, their judicial ruling has warded off the collapse of our atmosphere.
How much time do you need before marriage equality becomes "tradition"?Each generation gets the opportunity to continue tradition. Ours is the opportunity to continue marriage equality, and even refine it.
ReplyDeleteOr we can do what you suggest and like Vermont remove the expectation of equal gender representation and participation.
So why is it, again, that you plan to exclude the very mother of any potential children you might raise from your marriage relationship?
Why are you choosing against marriage equality? Seriously, why are you?
If you want to try to disprove what I've said as historically inaccurate feel free.There is some difficulty you have in seeing what just happened, perhaps it is because there is egg on your face or you are poor in reading. Either is okay...
ReplyDeleteYour representation of the event in Virginia was already shown to be wrong.
You said a two year auction involving 150 women as brides was "traditional marriage". That was wrong on the face of it. We've had millennia of marriage to billions. This is not even long enough to be a yearly tradition, let alone generational.
Nor does it represent marriage at all. What happens before the wedding is courtship, or arrangement. Marriage is what happens during and after the wedding.
You said the marriage was purchasing women as chattel. That is also wrong, as we have shown with more historic context that these women were free to accept or not. And afterwards they continued to be free women.
You quoted a web page written by a person who was no doubt enthusiastic about the material but very unassuming about their audience. No doubt someone more guarded against misinterpretation would have said, "Between 1620 and 1622, about 150 pure and spotless women [boarded merchant vessels in the hopes of obtaining free passage to the newly formed opportunities in the Americas as brides to a heavily male populous. I]n Virginia[, for the opportunity to marry these brides was] auctioned for about 80 pounds of tobacco to future husbands. [This money was considered payment for the service of transporting the women, and by no means were the women coerced into coming or marrying when they got there]."
Truth be told, they were not the "property" of the husbands and they were not the property of the merchants to sell.
Vermont has had nine years to think about civil unions and instead went with marriage equality. There been 5 years in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen. How much time do you need before marriage equality becomes "tradition"?I already said above that nine years was not enough to test a cultural change. It takes at least a generation, which can be said to be roughly 30 years. And no, no one hear that I know of ever claimed that it would only take five or ten.
ReplyDeleteAgain, John, does selection play any role in the development of culture through the years, or not? Please answer, or try to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Truth be told, they were not the "property" of the husbands..."
ReplyDeleteAnyone with even a cursory understanding of law should know this to be untrue. Women were considered chattel real as late as 1890 in the United States in Kentucky.
"Kentucky in 1890 was the last state to consider women as chattel property, who could not own the clothes they wore."
http://louisville.edu/library/ekstrom/special/suffrage/suffrage.html
Perhaps you now want to argue that The University of Louisville has there own history wrong? Perhaps they are not a credible enough source for you?
Who was it again that pretends to be a lawyer in your midst? Wasn't that you On Lawn? ;)
tsk, tsk, tsk
Again I find that the people who run this website simply don't know what they are talking about.
So much for your argument that women as property was not part of traditional marriage.
JHG, the man-woman criterion of marriage is not merely a tradition.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call "traditional marriage" is perhaps better described as everything that came before SSM ... except where SSM has been imposed for a few years, then, it is tradition as well.
Heh.
Right at the start you introduced an example from colonial Virgnia which actually demonstrated my point about sex integration and responsible procreation.
Your new example of something else serves as your concession on the first example.
* * *
In any case, you appear set on disparaging tradition.
That puts you at odds with SSMers who depend on the tradition of romance -- even though there is no romance requirement in the marriage law and none in the pro-SSM law wherever that has been imposed.
That's another concession on your part.
* * *
What is left for you, JHG, is perhaps some claim of special status based on same-sex sexual behavior. But there is no such legal requirement for that either -- not anyplace where SSM has been imposed in whatever form.
You concede that too, right?
* * *
All that remains is identity politics.
You do more harm to your own side than any other SSMers I've come across in the blogosphere or elsewhere.
Hubris. That's the word for your affliction, JHG.
Nice side step to my points Chairm, I'd expect no less. ;)
ReplyDeleteOne of the misrepresentations of your ilk is that marriage equality would change tradition. I point out that traditions have changed, and for the better. I also point out that your website is littered with misinformation:
"Truth be told, they were not the "property" of the husbands..."
Your attempt to discredit me personally does not change the validity of the facts before you I have presented.
Your concessions remain on the record, JHG, and now you want to talk about something else.
ReplyDelete* * *
As I said earlier, you seek to change not a tradition but the core meaning of marriage.
* * *
You now say, "traditions have changed" when previously yous said, "marriage is what it was."
The core meaning remains the same, JHG, even if the protocols, regulations, or traditions surrounding that core have varied across the anthropological record.
* * *
You discredit yourself, personally, with invalid remarks.
You introduced the bride ship example in aid (you thought) of your view of tradition. Is it no longer at the forefront of your thinking about tradition?
Well, Mr H-G sounds very sure of himself once again.
ReplyDeleteMr H-G> Anyone with even a cursory understanding of law should know this to be untrue..
Lets review this deeper...
Mr H-G> Kentucky in 1890 was the last state [...] .
Kentucky. I don't remember discussing Kentucky... Let me rewind a bit...
> " [...] arrived in Virginia [...] ".
I was right. Somehow we moved from Virginia being evidence of women as chattel in traditional marriage, to Kentucky.
Why the move the discussion from Virginia to Kentucky? Probably because of what Op-Ed uncovered in the very article Mr H-G linked to.
Further evidence from that same article that Hosty-G ignores is the use of antenuptial agreements by women to keep control of their own property. That's right. Contrary to what the anti-marriage crowd like Hosty-G tells you, women owned property even back in the "dark ages" of the seventeenth century.Virginia has a purchase element involving women to it, though what they were discussing was the arrangement of the marriage and not the marriage itself. But according to the very site he points to they were not considered property, and could own property.
So now our scrutiny is moved away from that embarrassment to Kentucky. We are given a page about women who were described as chattel on a web page. Yet, anyone may notice the page now is missing one crucial element, "marriage" or "marry" associated with that practice. What Mr H-G is trying to pose as a marriage tradition, wasn't about marriage at all. In fact the inability to own property was true for married, those that were no longer married, and those that were never married.
Just as an aside, the inability to own property does not make one chattel unless you want to call communism a system where everyone is chattel. The use of the term in that article notes a linguistic hyperbole between women not owning property and the slavery that was occurring at the time. One I'm not inclined to argue against it for factual problems, however, seeing as I believe men and women should hold property as a basic freedom of life.
Now, even more interesting. The web page does mention "married", in this interesting context...
"Josephine Henry spearheaded the fight for married women's property rights in Kentucky in 1894." [emphasis mine]
So true is it, in the article Mr H-G found, the "spearhead" of the suffrage movement, even in this case, was for the sake of married women. For the sake of marriage equality, the quality of each gender's participation on marriage. That is the opposite of what Mr H-G insinuates, I believe.
Moving further we note that the pinnacle of the suffrage movement came when women were allowed to vote, because their husbands willingly voted to extend their political power to them. I'm not sure of another example in history where people shared power so willingly.
Now if marriage was not their best conduit to leveraging the vote in their favor, you tell me what it was.
The fact that marriage has increased the equity of men and women since the dark ages shows the real tradition of marriage. It shows that marriage equality increasing through the ages in how it builds the quality of each gender's support and participation in the marriage.
Mr H-G wants to start a new tradition that would reverse that trend. One that we've noted serious problems with in how it would treat women and their gender as chattel. And how it would treat babies more like commodities to be purchased rather than created in a bond of love.
Mr H-G> "I also point out that your website is littered with misinformation"
ReplyDeleteWell, we do let everyone speak here. I believe you were doing your best to clean up that litter when you deleted all those comments you wrote over a two week period?
Mr H-G> "Your attempt to discredit me personally does not change the validity of the facts before you I have presented."
It is the facts themselves which will give credit or discredit to the representation of those facts.
Mr H-G> "One of the misrepresentations of your ilk is that marriage equality would change tradition."
ReplyDeleteWhether or not that is true, you present a false notion of equality -- a devastating reversal of the gender equality in each marriage that people have fought so hard for over the centuries.
I point out that traditions have changed, and for the better.True, sometimes traditions change for the better and sometimes for the worse. Increasing the quality of each gender participation and support of the other gender in marriage increases marriage equality. It is worth the change required to foster it.
I don't see your proposal as helping that cause, in fact it seems to undermine it. A change can be good or bad, and in this case it is my opinion that you are advocating a bad change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom the original blogpost:
ReplyDelete"Marriage exists in virtually every human society, of every culture and every religion-and for thousands of years, it has always and everywhere been a male-female union."
--
That male-female part is not a tradition. It is a constant of marriage.
Indeed, the core meaning of marriage has remained even with many variations in the traditions, customs, and legal notions that surround it.
* * *
JHG what you favor is a change, not to tradition, but to the core meaning of marriage.
I know, you've claimed there is no public meaning since, in your view, each individual decided the meaning of marriage -- the word if not also the social institution -- one marriage-at-a-time.
That, I think accurately represents your stated viewpoint, JHG. If not, then, please clarify.
You demand redefinition while denying there is a definition to retool.
* * *
With your emphasis on tradition, it is clear that you are flogging a strawman since none of us here have denied variations in the traditions, customs, protocols around the core of marriage.
That core pre-exists common law notions; it pre-exists roman codes; it has endured well beyond even modern legal reforms to the public union of husband and wife.
We haven't denied that there are private motivations and individualized reasons for entering marriage.
But, here, instead of discussing what we have actually said, you switched to some ambiguous "your ilk". Whatever that might mean to you, it means zilch to me. I'm here, the "ilk" is not.
In an earlier comment I explained that adding the word, traditional, to marriage was done by some people on the marriage issue to distinguish marriage (i.e. the union of husband and wife) from so-called gay marriage. Normally "traditional marriage" would be relevant in the context of a particular ethnic context or whatnot. It would still refer to the union of husband and wife but with the added emphasis on a variation in protocol.
I doubt you can really take issue with that fair and resonable explanation, JHG, but maybe you will, I dunno.
* * *
Here, with your confused emphasis on the phrase, "traditional marriage", you have posed as one who is for "non-traditional marriage" or "anti-tradition" or somesuch.
That is, you imagine that SSM is just a variation, a change in a tradition. Or the addition of a new tradition. Or ending tradition. Or something like that. You are very vague on what seems to be your central point.
On the other hand, the end result would amount to a change in society's regard of the core meaning of marriage.
And even if that change would extinguish the shared public meaning, and leave only room for a hyper-personalized notion that is endlessly retooled by each individual, that would be a change far beyond mere tradition.
* * *
You can dodge, JHG, or you can directly engage what I've actually said here. I've responded to you directly. Can you not do the same in return?
If you were to accurately represent what I have said, you'd acknowledge that I say there is a core meaning and it has not changed even if traditions have changed.
While you might disagree with even the existence of a core meaning, you can't now claim I think I am talking only of tradition.
Indeed, you'd have to demonstrate that the Scenario #1 in the original blogpost is the more plausible.
Return to that challenge, JHG, and demonstrate that you are here to discuss the actual disagreement instead of strawmen of your own making.
From current blogposts that are relevant to the original blogpost at the top of this comment section:
ReplyDeleteTradition and Marriage.-
Marriage has universal or nearly universal features and variable ones.
Its universal features include the fact that marriage (a) encourages procreation under specific conditions; (b) recognizes the interdependence of men and women; (c) defines eligible partners; (d) is supported by authority and incentives; (e) has a public dimension; and (f) provides mutual support not only between men and women but also between them and children. .
[Also discussed: the nearly universal features and the variable features of marriage.]
* * *
Privatizing Marriage is not the Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.
-
In short, we cannot avoid the large, public questions involved in the definition of marriage, even if we want to. One way or another, every society does have preferences and beliefs about the proper context for sexual behavior and child rearing. One way or another, we have to answer the question of what is owed to children. We would be much better off having that discussion, honestly and openly. As things now stand, we are obsessing over fairness to adults while avoiding even talking about what is owed to children.
You are full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing. Your attempt to confuse people will not endear them to you. Facts speak louder than the misinformation you are trying to spread.
ReplyDeleteI'll be heading up to Maine now to give my testimony to the Senate judiciary committee tomorrow, so I check your echo chamber when I return. Ciao!
Calm down JHG and try not to fume so much. Your confusion here is self-induced. Please try not to panic.
ReplyDeleteThat irrational fear you feel in your gut is normal for somone whose cherished dogma suddenly does not fit the facts.
Before that fear becomes too big and grows into hatred, treat it with a good dose of humility and then seek mutual understanding.
That means at least trying to reach agreement about the actual disagreement. You may even discover there is more agreement than your old rhetoric had allowed.
Sure, at first, you may still want to feel angry that someone disagrees with YOUR version of THEIR views on marriage, but it is disempowering for you to let yourself fall into the error of feeling offended just because people think differently.
Instead of feeling that you need to force your beliefs and force your will onto others, you'd be free to face the facts and to recalibrate your thinking AND your rhetoric.
Yes, instead of being led by your rhetoric you can be led by your thinking.
Instead of misrepresentations, you may discover that you can disagree with an accurate representation of the disagreement.
That won't revive the dogma you have been clinging, but at least you'll be free to learn more about marriage and more about what people are actually thinking when they disagree with the pro-SSM argumentation.
Have a safe journey.
Be sure to shed that hurbris in Maine.
John, please answer my question about whether or not selection plays any role in the development of culture through the years. I know you (and other SSM advocates) don't want to answer the question, but please try.
ReplyDeleteHosty-G: You are full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing.I'm sure John wanted this to be some kind of insult, but this refers not to anything that was actually written, but to John's mental capacity to understand it. Consider the impression a hamster would have if one tried to explain physics to it.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to confuse people will not endear them to you.Glad John understands that. He is the one, after all, confusing changes in property law (in Virginia, no wait, Kentucky, no wait...) with changes in marriage. John is in just such a hate marriage mood he wants to blame every perceived social ill he can on it.
Disparities in the legal treatment of men and women have existed in societies around the world. In every one of those societies, however, marriage alleviates, not worsens those differences.
I'll be heading up to Maine now to give my testimony to the Senate judiciary committee tomorrow...I actually feel sorry for the marriage neutering crowd that Hosty-G is the best they could come up with in support of their position. I hope he trots out his whole hate marriage meme while he's there. I'm sure the legislators of Maine will find it quite as convincing as we do.
What’s interesting...If you read the article its clear that the tobacco is not for the wife so to speak? It was difficult for men in the new world to find wives -as it is for men in Alaska and other parts of the world that don’t attract women but attract a lot of men do to certain types of jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe money is being paid to the people who went thorough the trouble and expense of bringing the women all the way to the new world. Not for the woman themselves.
"Consider the impression a hamster would have if one tried to explain physics to it."
ReplyDeleteThank you for the advice, I do often give people here more credit than they deserve.
John: In biology, positive changes (mutations) get selected for, while negative ones (the vast majority) get selected against. (This is true whether we're talking hundreds of millions of years or just thousands, so do not try to sidetrack into an attempt at a divide-and-conquer strategy).
ReplyDeleteDo you contend that there is no similar process involved in the development of culture? That negative cultural changes, through the years, do not get selected against, while positive changes get selected for.
R.K., the trouble I have with your statement is that you quote scientific basis without using scientific method. For all we know homosexuality is a biological response to environmental issues, like overpopulation. There is no scientific rational that proves homosexuality is a negative trait.
ReplyDeleteYou're not understanding me, John. I'm not talking about the development of homosexuality here. I'm talking about the development of the cultural idea that marriage is between a man and woman, and the historical absence of societies in which it was considered to be between any two persons.
ReplyDeleteThere is no scientific rational that proves homosexuality is a negative trait.Though I might add the obvious, that if everyone was homosexual, it would indeed be a negative trait. Hence, whether it is positive or negative (in this particular and most obvious regard) is dependent on percentages, as well as on the extent of overpopulation. Still, this is a separate question from whether or not same-sex marriage is culturally positive or negative, even in a society which is in danger of overpopulation.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it does not help your case that the states and nations that have or are considering SSM are mostly the ones that are not even reproducing at replacement level.
Yes, of the 7 countries that have SSM, only one of them has a fertility rate above replacement levels. However, there are a large number of low-fertility countries that are not even debating SSM.
ReplyDeleteOf the 64 countries that the United Nations lists as having a Total Fertility Rate below 2.0, only 19 are listed as having, recognizing, or debating SSM.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
A + after the country name indicates that the UN lists its TFR as above 2.0 for the current 5 year time period.
Have at the national level: Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa +, Spain, and Sweden.
Recognize: Aruba +, France, Israel +, and Netherlands Antilles (France and Israel are also listed as debating)
Debating: Australia, China (PRC), Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland +, Ireland, Israel +, Mexico +, Nepal +, New Zealand, Philippines +, Portugal, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States +.
Note: I am not counting the European Union as a country.
*I'm not trying to refute R.K.'s last point. R.K. piqued my curiosity, and I thought I'd share what I found.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs there a plausible basis for SSM? If yes, what would it be?
ReplyDeleteThere is no public sexual aspect of gay union in the laws of anyplace it has been imposed or enacted. Lacking that, gay union is not based on sexual orientation.
It is same-sexed but so are plenty of other kinds of nonmarital relationship types and nonmarital living arrangements.
The nonmarital category includes plenty of opposite-sexed relationships and arrangements -- due to the centrality of sex integration combined with responsible procreation. But that sexual aspect does not apply to the same-sex category.
The basis for gay union, whatever it might be, would need to distinguish gay union from other kinds of nonmarital living arrangements. If gay union is the target of the imposition or enactment, then, SSMers need to show that it serves a vital purpose other than identity politics. Its distinction must be a form of discrimination that is just rather than unjust; and this must past the rules intrinsice to SSM argumentation's treatment of procreation, for example.
Identity politics (of the racist variety) was rejected as unjustly discriminatory in our constitutional jurisprudence. SSMers point to the court cases in which this was done. They endorse the reasoning used in those cases. So let's be sure not to rely solely on identity politics to impose or to enact gay union. There must be some just discrimination against the arrangements and relationship types that would be excluded.
* * *
In the case of marriage, the public sexual aspect is encoded in the law whereby the husband is presumed the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. This is based on opposite-sexed sexual relations. That basis does not apply to any kind of living arrangement nor any type of relationship that lacks one sex or the other. SSMers do not even consider it a significant factor in their demand for gay union -- whether merged or not with marital status.
SSMers concede the point because they argue against the centrality of responsible procreation in marriage.
Theris is a mistaken argument, but to be consistent they ought not to rely on a public sexual aspect of marriage that is opposite-sexed and which is explicitly discarded by SSM argumention's attempted equivalence of marriage with gay union.
If there is a public sexual aspect to gay union, it has not been enacted in the laws and it has not been argued as definitive by SSMers. There are no legal requirements for same-sex sexual attraction nor for same-sex sexual behavior.
And yet SSM argumentation emphasizes sexual orientation and gay identity. How do they get from A to B? They do not say. Maybe sexual orientation is irrelevant to distinguishing gay union from other nonmarital arrangements.
IT is irrelevant to marriage for there is no heterosexuality requirement in the laws. The public sexual aspect is embedded in sex integration combined with responsible procreation. And that's rejected by SSMers. It is not the basis for gay union even if SSMers might imagine piggybacking on marriage.
Whatever the basis for gay union, it does not appear to be specified by SSMers wherever they demand so-called "marriage equality".
Rather they talk ambiguously of "love" (without specifying the kind, quality, or quantity) and often reduce their claim to one of vague mutual consent (without specifying consent to what).
Given the claim by gay activists that gay union is now their top agenda item, that it is entirely about gayness in society, the plausible basis for SSM ought to be plainly stated and placed front and center.
Is it simply the assertion of gay identity politics? I think so. But SSMers seem to runaway from that as if it would be a bad thing to do.
Bumpersticker slogans do not suffice. If this is about gay sex, then, legislate for gay sex. If this is about a relationship type that has no public sexual aspect, then, stop emphasizing sexual orientation.
If you are not really against responsible procreation, and not really against sex integration, then, stop attacking the core meaning of marriage as if that was the equivalent of racism.
What is the plausible basis for SSM?
I see. I have been making the mistake of pointing to the Continual Remarriage of Affair Partners, aka CRAP, as practiced by the likes of Rudy and Newt, in order to justify SSM.
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't realize was that CRAP already has a public sexual aspect. I.e. the affair that precedes it.
And certainly CRAP has nothing to do with identity politics, so you win that point, too.
However, CRAP discriminates against older women, and it forces the state to declare that personal happiness of adults is more important than children being raised by a mother and a father.
CRAPPERS argue against the centrality of responsible childrearing in marriage.
CRAP has been shown to undermine the core meaning of marriage and harms children.
There has never made a serious legislative effort to eliminate CRAP. Therefore, one must conclude that objections to SSM must be based on something other than the the claim that it undermines the core meaning of marriage.
What is the plausible basis for the continued acceptance of CRAP?
"There has never made a serious legislative effort to eliminate CRAP" Their has always been a serious effort to "eliminate" CRAP - legislative and otherwise.
ReplyDeleteFrom Divorce before "no fault" to current "fault" based asset division to laws against adultery to strong societal, religious, and moral condemnation of CRAPY behavior.
The list is long, and socially undeniable.
I'll try to be more clear. Since the onset of no-fault divorce in 1970, there has been growing public acceptance of CRAP, and few if any legislative actions taken against it.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, laws were in place to prevent or punish CRAP. Since 1970, most of these laws have been repealed, ignored, or overturned.
Around the same time that Lawrence v. Texas was decided, the Missouri State Supreme Court ruled against that state's alienation of affection law, voiding damages that a lower court had awarded a jilted spouse.
Writing at NRO, Richard Nadler observed that "No one blinked."
In many states, marital assets are divided without considering extramarital affairs.
The religious and moral condemnation of CRAP? I must have missed the way that Rudy and Newt have been excoriated for their repeat offenses. Maybe it's only something that would happen if a prominent Democrat engaged in CRAP.(1)
Sure, Rudy got nowhere this last primary, but the idea that he was considered a legitimate candidate -- a front runner at one point -- is proof that Americans tolerate CRAP much more than they did a generation ago.
(1) Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, and Jim McGreevey don't count. None of them married the person with whom they were having an affair.
What is the plausible basis for gay union?
ReplyDeletePeter, if you say that remarriage is that basis, then, you need to be a little more clear on the plausibility part.
Where the regulation of heterosexual couples getting married is almost non-existent it is an unfair discrimination to say that not one single same sex couple deserves what can be taken for granted by others strictly on the basis of their sexuality and no other circumstances.
ReplyDelete"Some people ask 'Why?' I ask 'Why not?'" ~Robert Kennedy
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYes, we should do something about "CRAP" as well. But what, really, does this have to do with the SSM debate? It sounds much more like a tu quoque, or at least a fallacious argument that "you're being hypocritical, therefore your concern is baseless". Or that "hey, marriage is already in bad shape, so what will it hurt if we make it even worse".
Uh, no. Actually, the toleration now shown toward "CRAP" underscores one of the big concerns many of us have about SSM, namely, that once it's legal and if it proves to be a disaster, it will still be impossible to roll back for the same reasons nobody has the guts to roll back "CRAP", on the grounds that "you can't turn back the clock", plus the fact that everyone knows too many people who still want it and they don't want to hurt their feelings. That's the problem with social changes, even when they do prove disastrous, correcting them is a lot harder than merely demonstrating the harm they've done.
For some time I've tried to point out how SSM advocates often make two arguments....actually, half-arguments...which in fact contradict each other.
One is the statement that "marriage has survived through all kinds of changes through the years", the implication being that it is resilient and will survive anything.
But frequently this half-argument is followed shortly after by this: "Hey, with a 50 percent divorce rate, and with people like Giuliani and Gingrich divorcing wives and marrying mistresses, heterosexual marriage is in bad enough shape as it is". The implication being, of course, that another change can't make it any worse.
But this half-argument contradicts the first, because it only points out that marriage indeed can be, and already has been, severely weakened. It contradicts the "resiliency" implication of the first half-argument. Marriage is in bad shape now, whoever and whatever got it that way. It is not so resilient. And, yes, it CAN get even worse. And before we can make it better, we've got to at least stop things that will make it even worse.
So, why am I so convinced that SSM will make it worse?
My first, and base, reason, is a simple one. It is because we do not find any long-term example of SSM, in the form being proposed (neutered marriage), in any culture in human history. And I contend that before we should even consider going further into this dark room, we need to come up with an answer as to why this is. And SSM advocates have not even seriously attempted to do so. The whole attitude, not only of SSM advocates but of the mainstream press and Hollywood, is one of "who cares. Humankind was stupid in the past; it's enlightened now." That answers absolutely nothing.
Occasionally, I do hear an attempt to explain this, and it always goes something like this: "The only reason SSM has not been done before is that heterosexual men have always held the power, and they have made sure that women were kept oppressed in marriage, and somehow letting two of the same sex get married didn't fit in". As if they never heard of queens, or of the numerous rulers who were themselves homosexual.
But besides that, this "power" theory of cultural development is a convenient way of ignoring how development both biological and cultural generally takes place, through selection. Just as bad genetic changes are selected out and advantageous ones are selected for, in culture, disadvantageous practices, over time, will be selected out as cultures that adopt them tend not to prosper and survive, while advantageous practices will be selected for as they do tend to prosper and survive.
But, while it is not uncommon to hear SSM advocates berate opponents for being so behind the science in not even believing that this is how things change biologically (or associating with those that don't), they talk as if they do not believe selection is a factor in cultural development at all.
Which leads to my question, do they believe selection plays a role in cultural development?
And if so, when we see something which has been universal throughout cultures, do we not have every reason to assume that cultural selection has had at least something to do with it? And when something is not found long-term in any culture, and that something is an idea too simple for it to have never been even tried, do we not have every reason also to assume that cultural selection has something to do with why that is?
So, are SSM advocates willing to admit that selection might have anything to do with why we don't find it? Or not?
Now, John's post above hints at a possible way out of this: that SSM was selected against in the past because it would stifle population growth, but that when population is growing too fast, that reason no longer applies, and maybe it could even be helpful in keeping the population down.
I might note, saying this about the development of homosexuality is different from saying this about same-sex marriage. Even if, as John suggests, homosexuality serves as a check on overpopulation (and I'm not saying that it does either), same-sex marriage may involve many other factors besides just the birth rate. Which may have something to do with why we find homosexuality almost in all cultures but neutered marriage in none.
Even in societies which were under pressure of overpopulation, we don't find neutered marriage. We do find other things, some of which we find pretty heinous (female or infant sacrifice), but never a long-lasting neutered concept of marriage.
And this is also why I point out that, if you want to use this argument today, it doesn't help that your case that the countries considering neutering marriage are largely ones in which the birth rate is already below replacement level. (As Peter notes, the converse is not true, most countries with low birth rates do not have SSM and are so far not considering it. Indeed, some of the most severely overpopulated countries listed, such as Macao, Hong Kong, and Singapore, did not need to neuter marriage or even debate the issue to get their birth rates way down). So the argument that we need SSM now to get birthrates down has a lot of flaws in it. But then, I don't hear that argument much from its advocates anyway. More commonly, they just refuse to accept the idea that there was even a reason in the past for why it was selected against.
"Some people ask 'Why?' I ask 'Why not?'" ~Robert KennedyWith due respect to Senator Kennedy, as a general way of determining whether to change something, and particularly in changing complex systems of which we do not know nearly enough about (like the culture, environment, or economy) that statement is totally absurd. Are you going to accept that from someone who is trying to rewire your computer when you know he is not an expert on computers?
ReplyDeleteThere is no sexual basis for SSM anyplace it has been imposed.
ReplyDeleteJHG said: "unfair discrimination to say that not one single same sex couple deserves what can be taken for granted by others strictly on the basis of their sexuality and no other circumstances."
What is the plausible sexual basis for gay union?
Please cite the legal requirement that provides such a sexual basis for gay union where it has been imposed.
I expect you will offer none.
If, instead, you'd emphasize "other [nonsexual] circumstances", then, what is the plausible nonsexual basis for excluding the rest of the nonmarital category of relationships and arrangements?
Why do we have to exclude the rest of the nonmarital category from Civil Unions? Obviously we have to exclude nonmarital relationships from marriage, but not from Civil Unions that are legally distinct. We should open them up to all couples that want the stability and security that come from mutual legal commitment to each other exclusively. But only couples that would ethically conceive together should be allowed to marry.
ReplyDeleteHoh: Maybe it's only something that would happen if a prominent Democrat engaged in CRAP.
ReplyDeleteName one. Name one example of your pretended double standard. Go ahead.
Your incessant attempts to stamp political identities onto this debate notwithstanding, this is not a "Republican" vs. "Democrat," "Right" vs. "Left," "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" issue. Political leaders in both parties oppose neutering marriage. Clear majorities of both political stripes oppose neutering marriage.
My experience is that those who resort to identity politics are those who realize they don't have a logical case.
Hosty-G: Where the regulation of heterosexual couples getting married is almost non-existent...
Case in point. Hosty-G knows he has no rational basis for redefining marriage so you'll find him attaching himself to any identity politics based argument he can find, no matter how bad.
Allowing remarriage after divorce is tantamount to marriage regulation being "almost non-existent?" What a facially stupid claim. It's almost as bad as the whole we-allow-divorce-so-we-have-to-neuter-marriage baloney he's trying to coopt. There just is no logical link between the two.
R.K.: Yes, we should do something about "CRAP" as well. But what, really, does this have to do with the SSM debate?
The same thing identity politics has to do with this debate: as a smoke screen. Hoh started out with "discrimination in the public square," and when the obvious facts of life differences between a same-sex couple and a man/woman couple negated that claim he tried to change the subject to divorce and politics. Since marriage supporters come from all political stripes, he knows if he can change the subject to politics he can start an argument between marriage supporters that will distract from the real debate.
I dunno, John, you tell me -- if there is nothing that distinguishes civil union from the rest of the nonmarital category why would you limit it to the twosome?
ReplyDeleteIf this is not intended as an imitation of marriage, then, it should be based on something else, especially if there is no sexual basis for it.
Provision for designated beneficiaries already exists without a sexual basis, without a binary basis, and without imitating marriage. It is an agreement between individuals and is very open-ended and can be taylored to flexibly fit the private circumstances.
If you mean to include the rest of the nonmarital category, then, okay, society does not need civil union. Nor gay union. Society already has the nonmarital category covered.
If the plausible basis is protection based on vulnerabilities, then, provision for designated beneficiaries is a solution that already exists, it has evolved to meet new needs that arise outside of marriage, and it does not conflict with marriage.
But if there is some other plausible basis for gay union, one which is nonsexual, then the gay part of "gay union" seems to be unnecessary and misleading.
If the nonsexual circumstances are not exclusive to homosexual couples, then, this reveals the SSM campaign to be a tremendous waste of everyone's time. It really is just about promoting gay identity and innoculating gay identity politics from oppositon and dissent.
Op-ed, from your comment I take it that you also noticed that JHG used the phrase "heterosexual couples" to contrast with "same sex couples".
ReplyDeleteSame-sex is not one and the same as homosexual; opposite sex is not one and the same as heterosexual. Indeed, marriage is not based on sexual orientation of this or that person, of this or that couple, of this or that identity group.
The fact that the nonmarital category includes opposite-sexed combinations of people stands against JHG's latest comment. It includes minorities. It includes people who have been persecuted specifically due to transgressions of marriage laws. But those exclusions are based on the core of marriage which entails a specific sexual basis.
I think you are right: identity politics is what the pro-SSM argumentation emphasizes at almost every turn.
John Hosty-Grinnell (askes)
ReplyDelete"Some people ask 'Why?' I ask 'Why not?'" ~Robert Kennedy
Chesterton explains the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it. Here's the quote:
The Thing: , chap. 4 (1929).
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
I dunno, John, you tell me -- if there is nothing that distinguishes civil union from the rest of the nonmarital category why would you limit it to the twosome?
ReplyDeleteBecause marriage is limited to twosomes, and the idea is to get the same protections and commitments as marriage for couples that can't get or don't need conception rights. It would be limited to twosomes as long as marriage is limited to twosomes.
If this is not intended as an imitation of marriage, then, it should be based on something else, especially if there is no sexual basis for it.
Who said it wasn't intended as an imitation of marriage? The only difference is that it wouldn't have the sine qua non right of marriage, but the idea is that all the other protections and benefits and obligations and laws would apply directly, as if they were marriages, without the need to come up with some strange ad hoc arrangement that would be confusing, inconsistent from state to state, not give equal protections, and be a marriage-lite that weakens marriage by its mere existence as an alternative.
Provision for designated beneficiaries already exists without a sexual basis, without a binary basis, and without imitating marriage. It is an agreement between individuals and is very open-ended and can be taylored to flexibly fit the private circumstances.
But why is that a good thing? It's marriage-lite, it doesn't obligate the partners to each other the same way marriage does, which makes it too attractive and individual-focused. Why not make couples really commit to the same rules a man and a woman do?
If you mean to include the rest of the nonmarital category, then, okay, society does not need civil union. Nor gay union. Society already has the nonmarital category covered.
Indeed, but by making all couples equivalent to married couples even if they aren't, we have removed the reason to marry. It'd be better to elevate marriage from non-marriage, and CU's from non-CU's. CU's would indeed be very explicitly non-marriage, but they'd be exactly like marriage in all ways other than protecting the couple's right to conceive witih their own genes. It's DB's that blur the line between marriage and non-marriage, by giving only some of the benefits and protections.
If the plausible basis is protection based on vulnerabilities, then, provision for designated beneficiaries is a solution that already exists, it has evolved to meet new needs that arise outside of marriage, and it does not conflict with marriage.
Not well enough, as they aren't recognized in different states or even municipalities and just tie up courts and legislatures burdened with writing DB laws and interpreting them constantly. Let's do away with them entirely, they are just enablers for non-committed couples to take advantage of city perks, and society gets nothing out of it. Society would benefit only if the commitment is equally as strong as marriage. There'd be less of them, and they'd work better at what we want them to do, create more exclusive long-term partners.
But if there is some other plausible basis for gay union, one which is nonsexual, then the gay part of "gay union" seems to be unnecessary and misleading.
Indeed, that's why no one cals them that. I call these "Civil Unions" because they join the couple together civilly in a union. They aren't based on gayness or sex, just on the couple deciding to join together exclusively, the way married couples do, but without protections for any right to conceive together that a married couple would have (or should have, right?).
If the nonsexual circumstances are not exclusive to homosexual couples, then, this reveals the SSM campaign to be a tremendous waste of everyone's time. It really is just about promoting gay identity and innoculating gay identity politics from oppositon and dissent.
Well, it reveals that the SSM campaign is really about Transhumanism and postgenderism, not about protections for people in committed relationships with someone of the same sex. You are right it is about promoting gay identity and innoculating against dissent, but I think my Compromise is a huge blow against gay identity as it is based on everyone having a right to be straight and no one requiring genetic engineering to be equal because they are "gay". It accepts that people are in same-sex relationships and offers them protections, but it also makes schools start teaching that everyone has a right to be straight and only by being straight can a person conceive with the person they love - a constitutional right, but only with a person of the other sex, not your sister, etc.
Op-ede, I've named two: Newt and Rudy. There are no Democrats as prominent as those two Republicans who have divorced their wives to marry their mistresses.
ReplyDeleteMy point is not that Democrats are better than Republicans. Pols are pols.
Rather, my point is that when prominent members of the putative conservative party can engage in CRAP without taking serious hits to their status, that says something. While neither may be considered presidential timber any more (though Newt is still deluding himself), both enjoy the continued support of their party elite in the form of speaking fees. It's a necessary part of their alternative lifestyles.
No-fault, and its logical extension, CRAP, assert that marriage is the temporary union of two people who like each other. The happiness of the adults is put ahead of the needs of children. Instead of supporting marriages, the state is in the business of dissolving marriages at the whim of one party.
Everyone younger than 40 has grown up in the era of no-fault. A large majority of them see no reason to exclude same-sex couples from what the government recognizes as marriage.
Pete
ReplyDeleteI would challenge most of your points on factual grounds and indeed challenge allot of your premises as well (concerning CRAP)
But in the end the larger philosophical problem is that you seem to be saying only (essentially) "A people can be de-moralized"...
Yes they can and are being de-moralized with same-sex "marriage" being just the latest cause & effect of that de-moralization.
The whole point of the marriage movement is re-building marriage as the locus of a sexual ethic that avoids CRAP at multiple levels and helps channel people into stable marriages. We have decided collectively on this blog that stopping the redefinition of such a primary social institution as marriage is one of the most important ways of advancing that overall agenda.
Well, John, imitation of marriage is unnecessary, much less attaching an imitation to the hip of marriage.
ReplyDeleteProvision for designated beneficiaries is not "marriage-lite" -- it is not an imitation and it is not attached to marriage.
Also this already exists now. It can be adjusted for easier access or greater affordability and greater mobility, if these are actual problems based on the actual vulnerabilities.
Measuring designated beneficiaries against marriage is a nonstarter. This is explicitly not marriage-lite and, unlike marriage, it is has a nonsexual basis.
This is not about marriage but about something else. And that's the starting place for provision of designated beneficiaries.
Well, as those already exist now, it makes them useless to offer in exchange for protecting marriage as a man and a woman, and I do think something needs to be offered in exchange for any Congressmen to get away with prohibiting same-sex marriage in every state. Especially with how terrible a job people are doing making a solid argument that it needs to be done. You guys are perfectly willing to let SSM continue in my state. You guys are perfectly willing to let human manufacture remain legal. Those things must change ASAP!!! What is your plan?? Do you even have a plan to stop them, or do you just plan to gripe from the sidelines?
ReplyDeleteAnd DB's ARE marriage lite - they are easier to get into and out of, and don't have the same responsibilities to the other spouse. They're all about getting benefits, and not about giving anything back to society in exchange. Remember that comedian youtube clip posted here who joked that he just wants the same rights gay guys get? That's what DB's do, they make marriage seem a terrible bargain that straight guys don't want to get, they'd rather get DB's. It's the one part of Jonathan Rauch's argument that is true.
Is the plausible basis for gay union is political appeasement, according to you, John?
ReplyDeleteProvision for designated beneficiaries is designed to meet needs produced by certain vulnerabilities.
It is not attached to marriage. It does not mimic marriage. It is NOT marriage-lite.
It does not diminish marriage one iota.
I see that proponents of SSM have not provided a plausible basis for gay union. That speaks volumes.
You, John, have at least emphasized the political bargaining that is at the root of gay union. Except that the proponents of SSM are not barganining, they are demanding that their meaningless alternative (i.e. one without a core meaning) must replace the core meaning of marriage. No public sexual aspect. No plausible basis for the gay part of gay union. And the rest is just naked identity politics of the more brutish kind.
Why should society appease that? The marriage movement is working to push back the imposition of identity politics. Appeasement would only encurage it instead.
Appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous."
ReplyDeleteUnless you have a plausible plan to stop human manufacture and stop marriage from being stripped of its core values, you're assuring both the destruction of marriage and everyone's individual conception rights, human manufacture, and identity politics. If you're plan is reasonable, and it accomplishes those things with certainty, please let me know.
DB's are marriage-lite, they are easy to get in to and out of and just exist to extend benefits to people who give nothing back to society. CU's that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights" are not marriage, but they are not "lite" either - they are just as hard to get into and out of and obligate the spouses to each other, thereby offering the benefits of stability and support to society. They both re-inforce the obligations and heaviness of marriage (which would be felt by married couples, as Jon Rauch argues), and they emphasize the unique right of marriage to conceive children together, and therefore the right of everyone to conceive with someone of the other sex. That destroys identity politics, it puts in law that everyone has an equal right to be straight. Your DB's don't accomplish that, they leave identity politics humming along, as we can see.
So, either offer your alternative plan to stop SSM and human manufacture or start responding to my points instead of stubbornly sticking to whatever it is you are sticking to (its not a plan, apparently).
Also, usually "appeasement" means that the other side doesn't give up anything they have taken (Rhineland, Manchuria, etc), and the side that "appeases" them merely scolds them verbally. It looks to me like YOU are practicing appeasement: you are letting them keep their winnings and merely scolding them with some blog posts.
ReplyDeleteIn my plan, which is very doable if just a few bloggers would get behind it and push it, they give up SSM in every state that has it, they give up CU's that give "all the rights of marriage" (That's CU's in most states that have CU's, even California), and they give up the whole claim of "equal rights" to heterosexual couples. All we give them in return is federal recognition, and equal protections in all other areas besides conception rights. So they DO get very practical benefits, which do have a tangible cost to taxpayers, but look at how much we win back, plus we stop human manufacture in the process. You aren't about to stop that, either, you are just going to appease them when they do that, and write a post about how what they are doing should be called "human manufacture" not what they are calling it.
Come on Chaim, take a fresh look at the battlefield and realize that we can win this right now, with only a small cost for benefits.
John, it took about two million pixels in our various exchanges for you to realize that your concern about "same sex procreation" is really about manufacture.
ReplyDeleteIt might take as many pixels again for you to realize that provision for designated beneficiaries is not an imitation of marriage.
Appeasement has not worked anyplace that civil union has been imposed or enacted. Appeasement does not destroy identity politics; it encourages more of the same.
What has occured in your homestate illustrates that very well. The defenders of marriage are not responsible for the pro-SSM side's abuse of judicial review and the corruption of the legislative process. That transpired because of the unmerited elevation of identity politics.
Appeasement on a national scale is just more of the same. I don't see your plan gaining traction in your homestate. I do forsee a federal marriage amendment and a federal ban on human manufacture as viable opportunities. There is some overlap especially in the appeal across party and ideological lines.
In the meantime, here in this comment section, the topic is outined in the blogpost at the top.
This blogpost is about the plausible basis for gay union from the viewpoint of the people who are in favor of SSM.
You've given your answer from the pro-marriage viewpoint. It is a nonsexual basis; and it is an effort to appease identity politics. Thank you for explaining your answer.
However, John, you are not an SSMer.
Let them speak for themselves.
To SSMers: what is the plausible basis for gay union?
OK, but tell the SSMers that they need to be clear whether they are talking about marriage or "gay unions" that are not marriage. It'd be great if they specifically addressed CU's defined as "marriage minus conception rights", that gave all the other rights except the right to conceive together, and it would be great if they addressed DB's too. (And DB's are not an imitation of marriage, but they are indeed "marriage-lite" in that they are an alternative to marriage that provides them the short-term immediate tangible benefits of marriage without long-term commitment. They wind up making straight couples view marriage that way too. And - I used to say "manufacture" but people said I sounded alarmist, so I switched to using the word that would actually be used by the practitioners.)
ReplyDeleteI do forsee a federal marriage amendment and a federal ban on human manufacture as viable opportunities.OK, thanks for answering about your plan. Sure, if those can both be done without having to give any federal recognition, I won't stand in the way. I just don't see any action, I don't see you guys arguing for them, they all seem stalled, and meanwhile Obama and Pelosi are planning on addressing DOMA, perhaps by implementing the Blankenhorn/Rauch proposal which is entirely unacceptable (you must agree, right?) as it leaves same-sex marriage in place and extends federal benefits anyway. Where would you rank my proposal compared to theirs?
ReplyDeleteOh, and if those two things are done separately, then the effect is to separate marriage from procreation. You don't want to do that, do you? You don't want to create a situation where legal marriages are prohibited from having children together with their own genes, and you don't want to create a situation where people are allowed to create children together but prohibited from marrying each other. Those are both bad. You calling it manufacture doesn't change the fact that it separates marriage from the right to bring into the world bio-related children.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in a civil discussion of these issues, but I'm not trying to change your minds.
ReplyDeleteEven if I wanted to try, I don't think I could satisfy your demand for a rationale that you would find plausible.
The political and cultural reality is that more Americans are beginning to see SSM as plausible, and fewer Americans view it as implausible.
It won't count as political appeasement if the majority wants to see this change take place.
Let those who stand for equal rights prevail, while those who oppose it fail.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the well wishes. We support equal rights and do indeed hope to prevail against the identity politics of the SSM campaign.
ReplyDeletePeter, if there was a plausible basis for gay union, surely you could just state it and make it clearly known.
ReplyDeleteSo a majority is a good thing when it favors SSM and it is not a good thing when it opposes SSM? I don't think that counts as a plausible basis, Peter, and I don't think you really think it would either.
My reason for supporting same-sex marriage? Justice.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any significant reason to exclude same-sex couples from what the state recognizes as marriage. Does that somehow constitute my "plausible basis for marriage?" Frankly, I don't think about it in those terms.
You are correct that majority opinion is lousy substitute for moral reasoning. A majority of Americans didn't approve of interracial marriage until 1997, 30 years after Loving. Neither event determined the morality of interracial marriage.
But if you asked me to explain the plausible basis of interracial marriage, I wouldn't know where to start. Can't I simply say that it just seems right?
Peter, does justice demand that people be allowed to attempt to create a child with someone of the same sex? I don't think so. I do think it demands that we support our fellow citizens who love and want to partner with someone of their same sex, and have been encouraged and pushed with implicit promises of support. Do you agree those are different questions? If interracial marriage required genetic engineering to produce healthy offspring, we might view it differently also, but the fact is, it doesn't matter what race someone is in terms of who they can ethically procreate with using their own unmodified genes.
ReplyDeletePeter, you'd start with the core meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it, for gay union? What is it, for marriage? I think they are two different things but you seem to think they are one and the same. If so, what is that common core meaning? Or is it entirely a private meaning and there is no public basis for it?
Chairm, doesn't it depend on how the law defines them? If the law defines a civil union as "all the rights of marriage", then isn't it the same thing? And if the law defines them as being different, then they are different. We need to tell Peter that the law should define them different, not ask him vague questions that he'll answer the same way he always does. I predict he'll say the core meaning is "two people who want to commit to each other", which gets us nowhere unless we go there ourselves. That can be the core meaning of a Civil Union, but it is not the core meaning of marriage, which is that the couple is allowed to create children together.
ReplyDeleteSure, that's why I asked the basic question the way that I did. If it is a private thing with no public basis, it becomes an implausible relationship status at law. And if Peter cannot answer the underlying question, "commitment to what?", then the implausibility is conceded as self-evident.
ReplyDelete"My reason for supporting same-sex marriage? Justice." What shallow chest thumping. Obviously this blog is dedicated to mature in-depth analysis of the debate. We could simply say the same thing. Instead we try to explain the implications by looking at the institution itself.
ReplyDeleteHow about…I defend marriage – for “Truth Justice & the American Way”
I’m the Superman of marriage defense….
(rather lame and hokey)
John, hetero couples have been pushing the boundaries of responsible reproduction. This will continue, whether or not more states recognize same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhile marriage may have traditionally be viewed as a license to procreate, it no longer functions that way.
Peter:
ReplyDeleteIs it also justice that marriage between more than two persons be recognized (when all parties agree to it)?
Is it also justice that marriages between siblings be recognized? We had a post not long ago about a case where two people who got married found out afterward that they were brother and sister, and had kids who the state was going to take away from them. Not a single SSM advocate posting here even tried seriously to deal with the implications.
Yeah, Peter, I am trying to get Congress to set a clear boundary that all couples (and labs) would have to adhere to.
ReplyDeleteMy question to you was clear: does justice demand that people be allowed to attempt to create a child with someone of the same sex? (RK's questions are good too.)
Peter, in your view, what is "responsible procreation" and what are the current boundaries?
ReplyDeleteIn gay union, the commitment is to what?
RK, again, I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't need to persuade you that the slippery slope won't happen. You need to persuade me that the risk of the slippery-slope is great enough that we should block same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe slippery-slope argument has not been sufficient to derail SSM in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. Maggie Gallagher, the most prominent activist opposed to SSM, seems to have dropped the slippery-slope argument in favor of a religious liberty claim.
Chairm, remember that the state no longer enforces the commitment clause of the marriage contract. In fact, far from being passive in its role, the state will help the spouse who wishes to dissolve the marriage. Is the commitment part of marriage now a purely private function?
Jennifer Roback Morse fears that the Iowa court has made marriage about the affirmation of adult feelings. As I have argued here, that's already the case, thanks to no-fault and CRAP.
Morse writes, "The essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another." However, at the whim of one spouse -- and over the objections of the other spouse -- the state will dissolve a marriage without regard to the presence of children, no matter how young they might be. The state will enforce orders of child support, but the state will not order a non-custodial spouse to spend any time with the children.
John Howard is right in this regard: You need to persuade people that the law should regard same-sex couples differently than it regards hetero couples. You won't succeed by blustering that you are right and that those who disagree with you are wrong.
--------------------
John, to answer your most recent question: no one should be allowed to create a child by means other than the joining of egg and sperm. I thought I made that very clear the last time we went 'round on this.
You need to persuade me that the risk of the slippery-slope is great enough that we should block same-sex marriage.And in your post before: A majority of Americans didn't approve of interracial marriage until 1997, 30 years after Loving.Please note, Peter, that in the last post I was not even claiming "slippery-slope" there. I was simply asking you for some consistency of argument. I asked you why the others were not also about "justice".
ReplyDeleteBut you don't seem to realize that whenever you bring up the analogy of interracial marriage to justify SSM, you are the one demonstrating the "slippery slope".
I have said it before and I will say it again: If SSM proponents want opponents to stop raising the issue of polygamy or sibling marriage, they need to stop trying to use interracial marriage as an argument for SSM, implying it is some sort of stepping stone.
Peter, please explain how the difference between same-sex marriage and sibling marriage is greater than that between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. Please explain how the difference between same-sex marriage and sibliung marriage is greater than that between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.
And I'd be glad to put that question to the public as well. Maybe it's time we did. Quite honestly, our side has not even started to put out the hard questions. I've said all along that they could have done even better in California last year than they did. If the right questions were put to the public the right way, you would see the pro-SSM numbers drop fast.
But it's all a matter of money and behind-the-scenes political games, I guess.
Could we link to the article about the couple I mentioned in my 3:51 PM post? Let's see what Peter has to say about it, if anything.
The game of SSM proponents, evade, evade, evade.
A correction: My fourth paragraph above, last sentence, should have read: Please explain how the difference between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage is greater than the difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Peter, what ever made you think that I thought you were trying to change my mind? I'm sure you don't think you can change mine any more than I think I can change yours. The purpose of argument is not to change minds; it's to see if the arguments can be answered.
ReplyDeletePeter, sorry I have trouble remembering sometimes, I should keep a journal I suppose. Maybe I've asked you this next question too, but please refresh my memory, and for people that missed it last time:
ReplyDeleteSo, if you agree that an egg and sperm law is needed, and it would not be an injustice to same-sex couples, do you feel that justice would be served by Civil Unions that gave all the rights of marriage except the right to create children together? Why is marriage necessary for justice? Certainly justice demands that we are all allowed to create offspring with our own genes with our spouse, right? Or do you think marriage no longer protects the right to conceive children together, and that justice demands that I can't have a right to conceive with a woman because I don't have a right to conceive with a man?
"We support equal rights"
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!
Chairm, you loath GLBT people, it's apparent to everyone that bothers reading your posts. You can't make more than a few comments without passive aggressive zingers.
"You need to persuade me that the risk of the slippery-slope is great enough that we should block same-sex marriage."
ReplyDeleteWell Said Peter, the responsibility rests with the accusers, not the accused. If marriage equality causes social harm why are so many states adopting it? New Hampshire makes #5 and Maine will be #6 next week. We are also waiting to hear back from California, New York, and New Jersey as well.
Chairm >> "We support equal rights"
ReplyDeleteMr H-G responds to equal rights > "LOL!!!"
There's apparently at least two types of equal in this discussion?
One equality described as, "Men and women are different. What needs to be made equal is the value placed on those differences."
The other is described as, "I cannot fully love someone of the other gender so the government needs to change its institution to accept my discrimination against them."
Its no wonder Mr H-G, who follows the latter laughs at the former.
You would think that his form of equality would have examples in history.
Mr H-G> "If marriage equality causes social harm why are so many states adopting it?"
Actually it is argued that 48 of the states are retaining marriage equality, but we remember Mr H-G defines equality much like segregationists of the past. Where equality is only measured by their freedom to discriminate and segregate from another branch of society.
Which brings up a good point, lending to his train of thought I wonder if any states in the union every decided for segregationist version of equality, and if that harmed society?
Go ask those who had to sit at the back of the bus if government supported segregation (as Mr H-G is suggesting) meant equality or if it meant social harm to themselves.
Mr H-G truly laughs at marriage equality, but even worse he mocks it with the suggestion that separating men and women makes marriage more equal and fair. Well it does to those who want to discriminate against the other gender I suppose, who are they to care about anything else perhaps?
No, John, when the change being proposed is something so easy to come up with that it's universal absence as a lasting ingredient of culture can really only be logically explained by its having been selected against, then the responsibility is on the advocates of the change, not the opponents. We are talking about changes in perception that probably take at least a generation to fully sink in. Even in Massachusetts, Netherlands, and Vermont, whatever the legal definition of marriage, the historical definition is still "internalized" in most people. It is when the any-two-persons definition becomes internalized that we will start to see the effects accumulate.
ReplyDeletePeter> "You need to persuade people that the law should regard same-sex couples differently than it regards hetero couples.I don't think its needed at all. Lets just work on the altruism that marriage is around to keep families intact. While jaded against that point, I believe you still accept that goal.
ReplyDeleteChildren place a real value and importance on their parentage. They learn real value from seeing the parents they identify with showing each other the true value of their identities in currency of commitment, love and support.
I'm not saying that only two people who procreate can love, honor and support each other. I'm just asking who better to show that love to for the sake of your children than the person you combined identities with to create theres?
And when you answer that question, you find that this isn't a hetero v homo thing at all. Its marriage, the quality of each gender's participation in the creation and governance of a family, vs any selfish ideal that tears people away from that.
Thats Dr J's point. And it points directly to question those who believe in the decimation no-fault divorce has done to marriage and yet support continuing that degradation by neutering marriage.
A majority of Americans didn't approve of interracial marriage until 1997, 30 years after Loving..
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm calling your bluff on this statistic.
By the time interracial marriage was struck down by the Supreme Court, it had already been eliminated in a vast majority of states and especially the most populated ones. Almost just as often by vote as by judicial fiat. In fact, we can make a point that it is those states which made the change by judicial fiat and thus closed the democratic dialog that remained most adamant against the practice.
The Columbus Argument
ReplyDeleteby David Stove
(Originally in Commentary, December 1987)
There might be good arguments for being anti-conservative in particular circumstances. But are there any good arguments for being anti-conservative in all circumstances? If there are, they would clearly have to be very general arguments: general enough to be philosophical, or at least to be of interest to philosophers.
There has only ever been one very general argument for anti-conservatism, as far as I know, and it is not a good one. But it is one which has been so widely thought good that hardly anyone in the last 150 years, touched at all by education, can have entirely escaped its influence. I call it the “They All Laughed at Christopher Columbus’ Argument” and for short “the Columbus argument”. It goes as follows: “Throughout almost all of human history, people who have proposed innovations, whether in belief or in behavior, have met with hostility. Death, or persecution, or prison, or at best neglect, has been the regular reward for their efforts. Yet whatever improvements have actually been made in human life, either in our opinions or in our practice, have depended, and must always depend, on some innovator in the first place. We ought, therefore, not merely to tolerate, but to welcome, innovators”.
The germ of the argument goes back to Socrates’ suggestion, when on trial for his life, that he actually deserved, not death, but a life pension from the state for the moral and intellectual stimulation he had given it. But the modern locus classicus is, of course, John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (1859). And the argument in the form which Mill gave it (which is essentially as I have given it above) has swept the world. With every day that has passed since Mill published it, it has been more influential than it was the day before. In the intellectual and moral dissolution of the West in the twentieth century, every step has depended on conservatives being disarmed, at some critical point, by the Columbus argument: by revolutionaries claiming that any resistance made to them is only another instance of that undeserved hostility which beneficial innovators have so regularly met with in the past.
Mill’s essay did not go unanswered in its own time. Some saw clearly enough both the dangerousness, and the weakness, of the Columbus argument. The best reply to On Liberty was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1878), a book by James Fitzjames Stephen (Leslie Stephen’s brother and hence Virginia Woolf’s uncle). The contest was very unequal intellectually: Stephen made mincemeat of Mill. But, historically, his book soon vanished without a trace, while Mill’s essay continued its all-conquering career.
We need no books to teach us now how dangerous the Columbus argument is: we have as our teacher instead the far greater authority of experience. For “They all laughed at Christopher Columbus” led, by a transition both natural and reasonable, to “It’s an outrageous proposal, but we’ll certainly consider it”. That in turn led to “We must consider it because it’s an outrageous proposal.” People who have surrendered, in their own minds, the right to deride ideas however absurd, or to repress conduct however vicious, are (as the vulgar in Australia say) history.
As to the weakness of the Columbus argument, it is perfectly glaring. No doubt it is true that, for any change for the better to have taken place, either in thought or in practice, someone first had to make a new departure. But it is equally true that someone first had to make a new departure in order for any change for the worse ever to have taken place. And there must have been at least as many proposed innovations which were, or would have been, for the worse as ones which were, or would have been, for the better. But if in the past bad innovations have been at least as common as good ones, then we have at least as much reason to conclude that we ought to discourage innovators in the future as to conclude that we ought to encourage them.
How did an argument so easily answered ever impose upon intelligent people? Easily. It was simply a matter of ensuring what Ludwig Wittgenstein (in another connection) called a one-sided diet of examples. Mention no past innovators except those who were innovators-for-the-better. Harp away endlessly on the examples of Columbus and Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno, Socrates and (if you think the traffic will bear it) Jesus. Conceal the fact that there must have been at least one innovator-for-the-worse for every one of these (very overworked) good guys. Never mention Lenin or Pol Pot, Marx or Hegel, Robespierre or the Marquis de Sade. There is no weakness in the Columbus argument which cannot be more than made up for by a sufficiently tendentious choice of examples.
In fact, of course, innovators-for-the-worse have always been far more numerous than innovators-for-the-better: they always must be so. Consider the practical side first. Do you understand television sets well enough to be able to repair a non-functioning one or to improve a malfunctioning one? Probably not: very few do. And if you, being one of the great majority, nevertheless do set out to repair or improve a TV set, it is a million to one, because of the complexity of the thing, that you will make it worse if you change it at all. Now human societies, at least ones as large and rich as ours, are incomparably more complex than TV sets, and in fact no one understands them well enough to repair or improve them. Whatever some people may claim, there are no society repairmen, as there are TV repairmen. So if anyone gets to try out in practice his new idea for repairing or improving our society, it is something like billions to one that he will actually make things worse if he changes them at all. Of course it is possible that he will make things better, but that is trivially true: it is possible, after all, that a furious kick will repair your ailing TV set.
The same holds for innovations in belief, at any rate in sciences like physics and chemistry; for those are intellectual structures of a size and richness comparable with our social structures. Even there, of course, it is always possible that a heretic or an amateur is right and the scientific establishment wrong. But the, possibility is cheap, as I have just pointed out: the thing is extremely improbable, that’s all, and you would be extremely irrational to believe it in any given case. Physicists and chemists rightly try, therefore, to maintain a professional organization and a screen designed to exclude the teeming would-be Columbuses whose letters begin, “I do not have a science degree, but….”
In less advanced sciences, of course, the situation is proportionately different. And by the time you come to the festering slums, such as sociology and anthropology have now become, the situation is quite reversed. There, almost any innovation would be for the better, and the rankest amateur, if he could get his foot in the door, would be sure to raise the tone of the place out of sight, morally of course but even intellectually.
Mill pleaded in On Liberty for the widest variety of what he chose to call “experiments in living”. The phrase was a sickeningly dishonest attempt to capture some of the deserved prestige of science for things which had not the remotest connection with science; principally—need I say?—certain sexual and domestic arrangements of a then novel kind. Certain respectable people had dropped him, because of his irregular association with Mrs. Harriet Taylor, and Mill thought that this showed clearly the need for a whole new, and more open-minded, philosophy of life. Not much more than that: he probably would have been horrified even by something like the Oneida Community.
Yet only sixty-odd years before Mill wrote On Liberty, certain more momentous “experiments in living” had been performed on France, by the Babeufs and the Robespierres. And even while he wrote, the Marxes, Bakunins, etc., were filling Europe with their announcements of the far more drastic “experiments in living” which they were preparing. It is idle to say that Mill could not have foreseen what these things portended: other people could and did foresee what they portended, and no one in England knew what was happening in Europe better than Mill did. The longer he lived, the more his writings worked to the advantage of the socialist “experiment” even when (as in the case of On Liberty) they were not intended to do so.
Here, then, is a sufficiently curious sequence of events. A philosopher publishes an argument in favor of welcoming innovations. This argument is so bad that, on its own, it could hardly have deceived a child of ten. Supplemented, however, by a tendentious selection of examples, this argument sweeps the world, and does more than anything else to bring about the present internal dissolution, and external irresolution, of free countries.
Yet some people think think that philosophers, and cheap tricks of argument, do not matter.
John, I think that a law banning cloning and other experimental reproductive technologies would be just.
ReplyDeleteWe have no absolute right to create offspring. Marriage does not grant a castrated male the right to push researchers to harvest DNA from other cells in an effort to fertilize one of his wife's eggs. Married septuagenarians have the right to try to conceive, I suppose, but I don't want them to be availing themselves of reproductive technology. Do you?
I think that civil unions are off the table. I struggle with CUs. Had they been created at the federal level, I think straight couples would have petitioned to be included under CUs. I think they would have eventually succeeded. That would have been great for the Alternatives to Marriage Project, but it would have weakened marriage.
R.K., I don't believe that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are identical issues. There are some interesting parallels, however, and I think it's fair to point them out.
Most clear is the issue of court intervention. Those who would rail against "activist judges subverting the will of the people" need to explain how they view the judicial activism of the Warren Court, or they need to stop making blanket statements that suggest that the court should decide cases in accordance with the sentiments of the majority.
I've never argued that SSM is a consequence of interracial marriage. I have consistently argued that SSM is a consequence of no-fault, which produced a culture in which marriage is merely the public affirmation of the feelings of two adults for one another.
While the Equal Rights Amendment failed, I think it's fair to say that our culture comes very close to treating men and women as equals. There's no denying that the push for no-fault paralleled the push for women's rights. I recall reading an article that connected gender equality with the push for SSM.
Polygamy has a long precedent in human history, but that does not mean that it is practical in our society. I think polygamy can only exist in a culture that views women as second-class citizens.
As a practical matter, same-sex couples fit into the existing legal and cultural framework much more easily than poly arrangements would.
On lawn, 9:22 -- here's the gallup data on approval/disapproval of interracial marriage:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx
I've never argued that SSM is a consequence of interracial marriage.Okay. Others have, or at least argue as if the former simply follows from the latter.
ReplyDeleteI have consistently argued that SSM is a consequence of no-fault, which produced a culture in which marriage is merely the public affirmation of the feelings of two adults for one another.And no-fault has made a mess out of marriage and should be repealed, but getting people to do so now is like pulling teeth. But making things even worse is not the way to go.
We support equal rights.
ReplyDeleteSSM argumentation is not about securing equal rights. It is about the assertion of false equivalencies.
Huge difference.
One that neither Peter nor JHG have overcome in their various evasions of the actual disagreement on the marriage issue.
Peter, what makes you think that SSM is higher up the slippery slope than the prospec of disestablishment of marriage?
ReplyDeleteSSMers did not hestiate in oral argument before the CA Supreme Court: they said it would be a-okay with them to abolish marital status in California. That's what "marriage equality" really means to them.
When I asked you about the lines drawn around the core of marraige, I did not use a slippery slope argument. You may have read it that way, but the problem with SSM argumentation is quite different in this context.
If you (i.e. advocates of SSM) cannot tday justify lines, based on a core meaning, then, those lines are not sustainable even by the standards within SSM arugmentation.
You have illustrated this more than once. As have other SSMers. The SSM campaign is supposedly about fighting against the arbitrary use of government power to exclude; well, if you can't sustain the lines even in argument, today, you don't meet the least of standards in presenting your proposed reform.
A reform, it is clear, that is meant to be a legal reform that exacts a far-reaching cultural reform. Not all reforms are worthy of enacting. If you can't meet basic standards, then, don't bother complaining about the onus that remains on your shoulders due to your taking up that burden.
* * *
To illustrate:
Is marriage a foundational social institution?
I say it is and would anticipate that you'd agree, but maybe you don't?
Is marriage a public type of relationship, at law and in our culture?
I say it is and would again anticipate that you'd agree, but do you?
Is marriage a sexual type of relationship, at law and in our culture?
I say yeap but do you? Indeed, I'd say yes to each statement across the anthropoligical and historical record, not just in our laws and in our culture.
This is not a series of trick questions, by the way. These are basic to the issue. If we don't deal fairly with such questions, by evading for example, then, the discussion lacks the seriousness its subject matter demands.
* * *
Marriage is a foundational social institution with deep meaning. That meaning is both public and sexual. At its core, as it has always been, you will find that the institution integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. This has profound private and social implications that extend across generations.
The lines around that core meaning have varied, just as cultures and traditions and customs have varied. But not the core -- not the essentials -- not the universal features of marriage. There are constants with marriage just as there are variables. It is not all variables and no constants, as SSMers are wont to claim.
Now, if you would discard this core, then, the challenge for you (and for society if your favored SSM imposition sticks) is to justify lines around a hollow thing. Or around some replacement core. If there is no core around which to draw lines, then, marriage will be deinstitutionalized. If the replacement core is arbitrary, then, so will the lines be arbitrary.
Every society that has marriage has both the core and the lines around it. This is basic stuff. We distinguish marriage from other living arrangements or types of relationships that are not marriage. This is not unique to marriage, by the way, but for some reason SSMers runaway from distinguishing gay union, for example, for the relationship types and kinds of living arrangements that are NOT marriage. This suggests to me a naive and incredibly immature view of the issue at hand.
This is not a process that is peculiar to marriage for it applies to all social institutions. When this occurs to a foundational one, then, the harms won't be just shorterm blips; in the longterm the harms are bound to be very difficult to correct or to reverse.
I think you recognize this because you want to discuss the divorce trends and how it impacted, negatively, marriage as a coherent set of principles and practices. Thus I am encouraged that you can see what I mean on this point. It is not a slippery slope argument and not subject to such easy dismissal as SSM propaganda would suggest.
Sustaining marriage without its core meaning has shown to be very difficult in places where the merger of SSM with marriage has been imposed in just the past decade or so. The nonmarital trends -- including divorce and unwed cohabitation and unwed childbearing -- cannot be expected to stall nor to reverse post-merger.
But when a core meaning is reaffirmed and then the social institution is strengthened further, well, that provides the plausible basis for a preferential status for the most pro-child social institution we have. Indeed, it is the basis for reducing the trends toward increased sex segregation and nonresponsible procreation that are the main products of the no-fault divorce mess.
Also, the not-so-sublte disparagement of religion that comes with the elevation of gay identity politics is no help for strenghtening marriage. Locking in the negatives of recent decades does not solve the social patholigies of a weakened marriage culture. It exacerbates them.
Unfortunately, it looks like SSMers want to see the harm done before they even think the harm is worthy of consideration. Well, no civilization has long lasted which had an impoverished marriage culture and the sort of pathologies that we have a good line of sight on today. Maybe you'd shrug when our civilizaton finds itself at the cliff's edge instead of hangning by some nonexisting toehold higher up a slippery slope. I'd hope you'd be more forward thinking. Maybe you are not.
Marriage is not a lost cause. But SSM argumentation depends on losing marriage for the sake of some replacement that is poorly delineated. SSM arugmentation points to a private arrangement but demands a public status. SSM arugmentation points to so-called "sexual orientation" discrimination but negates the public sexual aspect of marriage. SSM argumentation deconstructs the social institution but demands the benefits that are afforded a foundational social institution. SSM argumentation cheers disestablishment of marital status -- to deny all of society marraige -- if the SSM merger is not done. SSM argumentation raises identity politics far above liberty and constitutional governance but chants bumpersticker slogans like "marriage equality" and "tyranny of the majority".
As I said, there is a close analogy with the racist identity politics that are invoked by the example of the anti-miscegenation system.
There is no equality of the sexes within a relationship that excludes one of the sexes. There is no equality of "sexual orientation" when the public sexual aspect is abolished. All that is left is identity politics that bulldozes everything else flat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think that a law banning cloning and other experimental reproductive technologies would be just.
ReplyDeleteOK, and do you agree that the law would make same-sex couples have different rights than they would have without the law? That it would ban people from procreating with someone of the same sex?
We have no absolute right to create offspring. Marriage does not grant a castrated male the right to push researchers to harvest DNA from other cells in an effort to fertilize one of his wife's eggs.
I think a marriage does have an absolute right to create offspring, provided they aren't incarcerated. A marriage can't be publicly prohibited from attempting to create offspring by any means, which a same-sex couple would be. It's a private matter if a person is castrated or not. It's not private that a person is male. So a castrated male should have the same rights as a non castrated male. Not all non-castrated males will be able to have children either, right? Many people are infertile, but it is a private infertility. They are not prohibited, publicly, by a law that doesn't allow them to attempt to conceive together, and if they managed to conceive together, no one would be surprised or concerned that they had opened the door to the use of modified gametes. Even if they used some new technique to recreate gametes from stem cells, as long as they didn't use modified gametes, then it would be allowed. It is allowed currently and I don't think it would be prohibited by the Egg and Sperm law. Even if it was prohibited by an egg and sperm law, it wouldn't conflict with their marriage rights, because of the private/public thing. The Egg and Sperm law only conflicts with same-sex marriages.
Married septuagenarians have the right to try to conceive, I suppose, but I don't want them to be availing themselves of reproductive technology. Do you?
As long as they are not banned from conceiving they should be allowed to remain married. We can still ban the use of modified gametes and artificial wombs without banning the septuagenarians from marriage. I certainly don't want to impose age restrictions on being allowed to try to conceive. For the life of the marriage, a married couple is allowed to conceive. (I do think we should ban surrogacy and gamete donation and artificial wombs, which would probably be required for an old couple to try to create "children", but if they can do it with their own bodies, I think we have to let them do it, because of marriage rights.
I think that civil unions are off the table.
Nah, Obama and Biden just ran on CU's and got elected to put them on the table.
I struggle with CUs. Had they been created at the federal level, I think straight couples would have petitioned to be included under CUs. I think they would have eventually succeeded. That would have been great for the Alternatives to Marriage Project, but it would have weakened marriage.
Straight couples could get the CU's I propose, which would be state CU's, recognized at the federal level as if they were marriages. They just wouldn't get the protection of their conception rights, which means they wouldn't officially be allowed to have sexual intercourse, or travel to other countries as if they were married. They wouldn't be able to feel the same right and approval of their sexual intercourse that married couples have felt for as long as there have been married couples. If they like that feeling of fornicating, they can choose CU's just like they can choose not to marry at all. But if they choose CU's, they take on all the obligations and legal entanglements of marriage, so I would suspect they would just not marry if they liked the thrill of fornicating. There would be nothing protecting their procreation rights, and the state could prohibit them from procreating again if it decided to start enforcing fornication laws, which I think it should start doing again.
But the main point is that you agree that CU's that gave all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive together would be just, apparently. You just don't like the solution because you want to deny that marriage gives the couple the right to attempt to have children. That's a very huge change to marriage, which has always allowed a couple to conceive children, and not justified when there is an alternative. Plus, the Compromise would achieve that justice right away, and what do they say about justice delayed?
John, reproductive technology has pushed "the right to attempt to have children" well beyond cultural permission to become one flesh. Do married couples have any more right to pursue reproductive technology than single people?
ReplyDeleteIn what ways does the law currently protect these procreation rights you keep nattering on about?
Married couples certainly do have a greater right to pursue all medical means to have children than single people, who have no right to have children at all. They have children anyway, without punishment, because it is unfair to the children to punish them for their parents actions, and we now can use technology to identify the father and garnish wages for child support and equal inheritance rights. But those advances in justice for illegitimate children (including losing the stigma of the word 'illegitimate') did NOT make it a "right" for single people to have children. As Justice Kennedy wrote in Loving, marriage is still, at minimum, about the right to have sexual intercourse, and that means, for it still to be about that, that nothing else is. It is still a widely held belief that people should marry before having children, and that they should have their spouse's children, not children of affair partners. Do you want to further erode the connection between marriage and procreation by creating, for the first time in human history, marriages that are actually prohibited from having children together? Or do you want to reconnect and strengthen the connection between marriage and procreation, so that people are reminded that they should marry in order to have the right to conceive children?
ReplyDeleteWe are already hearing calls for mandatory screening for genetic diseases, both of embryos and of "carriers", and it is very likely that if it continues down this slope states will eventually write laws to force rogue 'natural' couples from using their own unmodified gametes. That's when we will need the law to still protect their right to use their own genes, with their spouse's own genes, and no one elses. If the law makes it "equal" to use modified genes or to use substitute donor gametes, then nothing will protect a couple's former right to use their own genes, since we will have established long ago that there is no such right of marriage.
Also, doesn't it just make sense that if I have different rights with Suzy than I have with Bobby, that the names of the bundle of rights that we have should be different? Why pretend that we have equal rights when we don't? Especially when it would be good for reconnecting marriage and procreation and good for achieving a resolution for the marriage debate. Why is it important for you to call couples married when they don't have equal rights? And you should be aware that most SSMers demand equal rights, including procreation rights, so you are in the tiny minority who believes that they should not have equal rights. Since the battle is over whether they should have equal rights or not, and not merely over the word marriage, you are arguing over a moot point. For example, CU's like New Hampshire's, that give "all the rights of marriage" are completely unacceptable also, as they also strip conception rights from marriage.
Chairm, marriage is a foundational social institution. It is a public relationship which presumes a sexual component.
ReplyDeleteNone of this leads me to think that same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage.
Our federal system allows for some experimentation. The New England states seem set to embark on a regional experiment in same-sex marriage. Interestingly enough, the New England states have divorce rates below the national average, so perhaps they are not at the vanguard of a post-marriage culture.
John, you lost me at "As Justice Kennedy wrote in Loving. . . ."
ReplyDeleteHoh: Chairm, marriage is a foundational social institution.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is not with Chairm, but with one Pete Hoh:
"...the Iowa court has made marriage about the affirmation of adult feelings. As I have argued here, that's already the case..."
Which is it, Pete. A "foundational social institution," or an "affirmation of adult feelings," you can't have it both ways.
Pete's basic stance is one of powerlessness. He doesn't like where marriage has gone so he wants it to be even more meaningless. You will recognize the "parallels" between Hoh's argument and that of a spoiled child who, when told they can't have a cookie right now, smashes the cookie jar on the ground and tramples the crumbs. This is no different than the scorched earth argument of the neutered marriage crowd that if they can't have marriage as they want it then the rest of us are obligated to do something to marriage to damage its purpose, i.e., force couples to have children, present their reproductive systems for government inspection, or something else equally onerous.
The fact that Pete can't even fathom what a core purpose is, let alone advance one for the new institution with which he wants to replace marriage, proves his support for neutering marriage is not motivated by the public good. He certainly never expresses how his change will benefit marriage, let alone its purpose. If Pete really thought no-fault divorce or "CRAP" was bad, he'd be arguing for changes to minimize those behaviors, not to make them more widely available.
I meant Lawrence, sorry. The court reveals what marriage means to them as a totally obvious rhetorical point, and I'm sure even the dissenters agree with Kennedy that marriage is about the right to have sexual intercourse, at minimum. And that means the right to conceive, since you can't force a woman to have an abortion, and intercourse might always result in pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteYou are still trying to equate my right to have children with Bobby to my right to have children with Suzy, even though you agree (supposedly) the technology that would allow me and Bobby to do it should be banned. That means you think I don't have a right to do it with Bobby. That means you have to deny that I have a right to conceive with Suzy, even if she is not my sister or mother or already married or incarcerated. I think that's really outrageous. Just accept that we should not have equal rights.
JHG
ReplyDeleteChairm, you loath GLBT people, it's apparent to everyone that bothers reading your posts. You can't make more than a few comments without passive aggressive zingers.
On the basis of this quote alone it is JHG who hates straight people and the institution of marriage. Anyone who would join such a notorious group like NTN…. A comment like this is pure add homonym – with no real basis and purely speculative & agenda driven.