(The debate initiated by Chairm's post, "Core meaning of SSM," may be carried out here as that post by its length, twists and turns, may be somewhat difficult to follow at this time. You may of course refer to anything in the former post. In the present post I open with a challenge.)
Carlo is an eloquent and sensitive writer. He is an outstanding apologist for his cause. But, like most homosexualists, his view of marriage in toto amounts to a complete deconstruction of marriage. Of course, as a sincere person he is not aware of this.
Right from the get-go, in that long blogpost, "Core Meaning of SSM," he renders marriage meaningless as he says,
"I believe that the meaning of marriage is ultimately owned and defined by its participants in myriad ways for different reasons . . . . "
This merely says that its meaning is whatever its participants say it is. The meaning is "owned and defined by its participants." No matter how absurd or ignorant the participants might be they get to define marriage. You define it and government must give you all the benefits, privileges and status of marriage. And this is said with a straight face and the appearance of deep thought. "Myriad ways." This bombast sounds almost poetic.
Now we know that government has played a major role in this degradation of marriage. Through its easy "no fault" divorce system it has cheapened and debased marriage so that Britney Spears marriage mockeries are legal and acceptable. Where once government protected marriage and family they have now been abandoned, left to the irrational and whimsical passions of confused individuals. Marriage, as we have seen, without either the government's protections or society's disapprobation of divorce falls into meaninglessness and chaos.
This societal descent into marriage meaninglessness does provide Carlo some justification in saying that marriage is essentially "anything goes," that is, whatever its participants say it is. And it provides him some justification for assuming that if, as it turns out, marriage is whatever its participants define it as, it is unjust to not allow non-marriageable relationships, same-sex relationships, to be called "marriage" because that's what they want it to be called. After all its whatever its participants define it as. In fact, you really don't need to even "participate" in it to call it marriage. Just call whatever you're doing marriage and government should hand you a license. Just claim you are participants in a relationship. There are a "myriad ways" of marriage. This is sometimes referred to as the "evolution" of marriage. "The institution has evolved for millennia, and will continue to evolve." (Carlo) Looks a lot more like the devolution of marriage.
This is nothing more than the corruption, the deconstruction of marriage consciously and/or unconsciously. If we stop to think, this is not why any society has ever privileged and sanctified marriage. We may conclude from all that follows in Carlo's understanding of marriage that it has no "core" meaning and hence he cannot identify any "core" meaning for same-sex "marriage." It's all meaningless, lost in the vagueness and contradictions of each "participant's" opinions and fancies. If anything can be called "marriage" then there is no marriage. What allows us to distinguish something is the specificity of its meaning which differentiates it from something else. It is the reason why we work to define something, so that we can say it is this and not that.
Though Carlo is unable, or prefers not to define marriage, societies since time immemorial have been able to identify the core definition of marriage and there has been universal consistency in this definition, until lately when there is a powerful political movement to blend non-marriage with marriage so as to confer "status and recognition" to a specific form of non-marriage, namely homosexual couples. Eventually, by the total inclusivity of Carlo's non-definition of marriage any relationship can join the "marriage equality" campaign.
(For a more thorough definition of marriage see my post, "The Meaning and Function of Marriage." http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/09/meaning-and-function-of-marriage_15.html There are of course many other marriage defining resources in our archives.)
"There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see." Good post.
ReplyDeleteWe've gone from the sublime (natural marriage) to the rediculous (everything else)!
ReplyDeleteUnable to identify a meaning for ss"m" Carlo opts instead to describe what ss"m" seeks, what it is after and conflates that with the meaning of ss"m." He says,
ReplyDelete"The true meaning of same-sex marriage is that it corrects a historical injustice by granting to its participants a status that is equal to that enjoyed by their heterosexual peers. . . . Thus, it seeks to adopt the values and traditions that have become part of opposite-sex marriage: love, sexual attraction, weddings, monogamy; for the same reason it also seeks the same legal benefits and responsibilities."
So, the meaning of ss"m" is in reality a political movement to grant homosexual couples certain things that they desire, e.g., status, societal affirmation and privileges. They realize that this can best be done by simulating traditional marriage practices. The greater the marriage simulation and affectation the better their chances of obtaining societal acceptance and recognition.
But this is not a meaning but rather their political purpose for obtaining a marriage license.
José said: "Carlo is an eloquent and sensitive writer. He is an outstanding apologist for his cause."
ReplyDeleteI agree and would add that I appreciate that Carlo has made this effort to explain his viewpoint and to being open to seeking a mutual understanding of that viewpoint. As he said in the comment section under Core Meaning of SSM @ 5/19/2009 09:56:00 PM
"I think the main reason I'm putting so much effort into this is that it forces me to clarify in my own mind my reasons for advocating SSM. Certainly, my understanding of the topic is significantly better than it was just yesterday!"
Also on a number of occassions, Carlo has made the additional effort of reconsidering some key points or at least thinking about a point from a new angle. For example, in a discussion of the use of "donors" for procreation, Carlo commented @ 6/05/2009 11:49:00 PM:
"Denying a child's birthright is not a small thing"
This gets at the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Does a child have an inherent and inviolable right to have both a mother and father? Or a right to know and be raised by his biological parents? If either or both are true, then this weakens my case considerably. But if the rights of a child extend only to being raised in a loving and nurturing household, then my argument stands. I would like to think about and discuss this some more.
---
I would also like to reiterate what I said @ 5/21/2009 11:11:00 AM:
"I want to emphasize that the goal here is to reach that mutual understanding of that often gets sunk by a rush to disagree.
Sometimes, on contentious issues, people will throw-up their arms and say, "let's agree to disagree". And that's alright, I think, except if it is done prematurely -- before understanding the actual disagreement.
Prematurely "agreeing to disagree" is too often really "disagreeing to agree". I do think there are areas of difficult disagreement, of course, but I also think, based on lots of years on this issue, that there are large areas of agreement. It may surprise some of us to discover that is the case.
Obviously, I support the man-woman basis of marriage in the law. But if there is merit in the pro-SSM viewpoint, I do not want to miss it. Hence the need to go through this step-by-step -- I will follow your footsteps so please, Carlo, resist the temptation to get too far ahead on this path of yours to your conclusions.
Okay, so it looks like this will be a good time to pause and to again express appreication for the efforts being made."
---
José, thanks for your summary of the discussion, thusfar, from your perspective.