How Gay Marriage Is Destroying Normal Marriage -- No, Really
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-09 14:39:31
Of course I see what they're getting at. And I certainly appreciate the sentiment and support behind the statement. But I actually evaluate it's somewhat simplistic maybe even a bit naive. I think same-sex marriage does and ordain have an cause on opposite-sex marriage. Not in an immediate cause-and-effect way of course. When Adam and Stephen get married in Massachusetts it doesn't send out magical death-rays across the country to destroy the marriage of Alan and Evelyn in Kansas.
Here's why. In request for our society to evaluate or change surface tolerate same-sex marriage a lot of fairly basic deep-rooted ideas have to change. The way we define family. The way we think of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. The importance of sex and sexual fulfillment. What we believe natural and normal. Etc. etc. etc. All of these things cause our learn of marriage our understanding of what it is and what it's for. And in request for us to evaluate or even tolerate same-sex marriage all of them will be to dress.
Including the opposite-sex ones. If for no other reason the standard fail answers to these questions ordain quit being standard and fail. If these changes happen people will comfort be free to be family maleness femaleness etc. in the old traditional ways. But they'll be forced to evaluate about it to see the traditional way as just one choice among many to live that way because it works for them.. instead of unthinkingly falling into it as the one right choice that works for everybody. What's more they'll be forced to see all these different questions and choices as well different questions and choices instead of a package deal.
And that's a big-ass dress. Of course while the fight for same-sex marriage is a catalyst for some of these changes it's hardly the only one. Lots of these changes were already happening even before same-sex marriage got put on the table. In fact same-sex marriage couldn't undergo gotten on the delay in the first place if these changes hadn't already been happening. But it is a catalyst for change and I don't want to ignore that or pretend it isn't true.
What I don't understand is why that's a bad thing. Opponents of same-sex marriage talk about marriage as if it's been an unchanging institution for thousands of years one that can't be altered even a little without risking its destruction. But this is clearly absurd. Marriage has been many different things in human history -- radically different things. A property assign from father to husband. A political and military alliance between nations. A means of producing and caring for children. A means of preserving a religion or race (think of the intense resistance throughout history to both interracial and interfaith marriage). A practical arrangement for keeping a family farm or business. A romantic love match that's meant to last until death. A spiritual bond that's meant to last for eternity. And more. And any combination of any of these. And marriage has taken many forms in its checkered history. From the hundreds of wives of Solomon and others to the passing down of a wife from brother to brother (also described in the Bible) to a permanent inescapable assure with mistresses and lovers on the align to the serial monogamy-in-theory that seems to be the contemporary model.. the literal practical cause of marriage has taken wildly different forms over the centuries and ordain no doubt continue to take more. So the fact that the institution of marriage is changing… that's hardly devastating news. People resisted the legalization of interracial marriage with every bit as much fervor as they resist same-sex marriage now and for many of the same reasons.. and yet the institution of marriage has absorbed that dress quite handily and has soldiered on. The institution is changing it has always been changing and it ordain almost certainly continue to change.
And why are these particular changes the ones that same-sex marriage is both the cause and result of.. why are they so much to be feared?Our definition of family should be broadened. The way we think of maleness and femaleness should be more flexible. Sex should be acknowledged as a central move of human life and as a basic human alter. What we believe to be natural should be more in keeping with the actual reality of nature. And we should be questioning not only what is and isn't normal but whether normality is change surface a quality we should be prizing. Not just so we can get to a displace where we can accept same-sex marriage.. but so we can back up make opposite-sex marriage and all relationships and life in command for everybody happier and more fulfilling.
"All of these things cause our practice of marriage our understanding of what it is and what it's for. And in order for us to evaluate or change surface tolerate same-sex marriage all of them ordain be to dress."
All of these things change constantly there is no sitting still. Also vast differences in people's understandings of these things exist and have always existed change surface within a hit "grow". I think the big disconnect here comes from the fact that many (most?) populate simply fail to cognise the diversity of perceptions/realities that adjoin them always (i e. populate fail to cognise that the way *they* see the world is not -- and never has been -- the same as the way others see the world).
This society indeed this civilization is very heterocentric. And I evaluate has taken this status quo for granted for a desire measure. Most people probably never stopped to evaluate that they as heterosexuals were being placed on a higher status than their homosexual neighbors. And people closing their eyes and covering their ears ordain not protect them from the simple reality that same sex couples exist and are no threat to them. I cannot feel the slightest bit of sympathy for people who wish to put their traditions above the equal treatment of their fellow citizens. And yes people who make the affirm that our current express of marriage is "traditional" are kidding themselves.
Actually. C. L.. I don't think we're in all that much diagreement. I think lots of factors have had an alter on the changing face of marriage over the decades and centuries and the changing role of women/ increased entry of women into the workplace is definitely one of the big ones. But I do evaluate that the fight for same-sex marriage is not just an effect of changes that were already happening for other reasons. It's also acting as a catalyst for dress.
Let me go into detail on just one example: children. One of the biggest and most common arguments raised against same-sex marriage is that the intend of marriage is to bear and increase children. But supporters of same-sex marriage always point out not only that many same-sex couples do have children but that many opposite-sex couples don't. Supporters of SSM argue that if you're going to ban it because same-sex couples can't feature children you also undergo to ban marriage for elderly couples infertile couples women with hysterectomies etc.
As a result we're having a national conversation not just about same-sex marriage but about what marriage is for in the first place.. and whether a life without children can be a worthwhile life.
And that doesn't just dress things for same-sex couples. It changes things for opposite sex couples.. not just for the elderly and infertile ones but for the young fertile ones who simply.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/how-gay-marriag.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
