In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Defending Traditional Marriage

For all the traditional marriage defenders, consider this: Traditionally, marriage was an economic transaction. In many places in the world, it still is. And the most valuable female partners are often going to be extremely young, so that they have many working and child-bearing years to offer. I personally think it’s a great thing that we have re-defined traditional marriage, and I’d like to see a whole lot of other traditional marital practices abolished. Go ahead, defend it — in the name of tradition and all:

Rather than a willing union between a man and woman, marriage is frequently a transaction among families, and the younger the bride, the higher the price she may fetch. Girls are valuable workers in a land where survival is scratched from the grudging soil of a half-acre parcel. In her parents’ home, a girl can till fields, tend livestock and cook meals. In her husband’s home, she is more useful yet. She can have sex and bear children.

Afghanistan is not alone in this predilection toward early wedlock. Globally, the number of child brides is hard to tabulate; they live mostly in places where births, deaths and the human milestones in between go unrecorded. But there are estimates. About 1 in 7 girls in the developing world (excluding China) gets married before her 15th birthday, according to analyses done by the Population Council, an international research group.


Before we get all high-and-mighty about our progressive Western ways, keep in mind that teen pregnancy in the United States hit its peak in 1957, at the height of the fetishization of the “traditional family” — the difference, of course, is that most of those pregnant girls were married.

And if marriage is primarily for procreation and raising children, then what’s the problem here?

Another thing that these folks have in common with Western right-wingers: a virginity fetish.

But the practice of early marriage stems as much from entrenched culture as from financial need. Bridal virginity is a matter of honor. Afghan men want to marry virgins, and parents prefer to yield their daughters before misbehavior or abduction has brought the family shame and made any wedding impossible.

Traditional marriage is a crock, friends. And “it’s tradition” is not a viable argument for human rights abuses, or for treating some people as second-class citizens.

Unfortunately, there are no reliable data about the age of Afghans at marriage. Husbands are not ordinarily old enough to be their wives’ fathers or grandfathers, but such February-September couples as those pictured here are hardly rare either. In such marriages, the man is likely to view the age difference as a fair bargain, his years of experience in exchange for her years of fecundity. At the same time, the girl’s wishes are customarily disregarded. Her marriage will end her opportunities for schooling and independent work.

On the day she witnessed the engagement party of 11-year-old Ghulam Haider to 40-year-old Faiz Mohammed, Sinclair discreetly took the girl aside. “What are you feeling today?” the photographer asked. “Nothing,” the bewildered girl answered. “I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?”


50 thoughts on Defending Traditional Marriage

  1. The “traditional” nuclear family model of marriage has been around since only about the fifties, right? Plus, people marry for love now, not as a business transaction, at least in the States and European countries. Women gained their rights in the workforce and in earning salaries, so they are less willing to put up with crap than they used to be. That’s why divorce rates are what they are. I think “traditional” marriage is on the decline. And that has the marriage ideologues worried. They act as if the nuclear family model has been around since Day One, and it hasn’t. It’s dying out, I think, or at the very least it’s changing. And the traditionalists don’t like that one bit.

  2. Looking at my family history data, the February-Septembercoupling seemed really uncommon. Most of my relatives, pre-industrial revolution, married in their late 20’s. That doesn’t mean they weren’t already married in common law, of course, but the age difference didn’t appear more than five years between husband and wife in general. These are peasants and general labourers.

    Which makes me think there’s more to the older husband/younger wife dynamic. I don’t have a background in this, so i’m speculating, but I’d guess that the economic circumstances of the region and general economic status of the couple probably affect whether younger wife is seen as the ideal.

    Hmm. Now I’m intereted in doing further research.

  3. My in-laws (from India) actually confirmed that the reason many of these older husband/younger wives (either February-September or even May-August (?? I’m thinking woman 16-17, man 29-30) “worked” was due to complete and total financial dependence on the woman’s part. Not happiness, or “strong values” keeping the marriage together, or whatever else the Christian right likes to believe–just the fact that the woman would starve if out on her own. There’s also still a sense of shame in divorce there too.

    Their family isn’t into those kinds of marriages anymore because they are more like here–the women and the men can choose to work. But many of them still choose dependency–for instance, my 19-year-old cousin-in-law who just married her 27-year-old boyfriend in the middle of her sophomore year, moved to another country with him, and will be changing her citizenship for him and all.

    Even though she’s going to college, she doesn’t feel she will “have” to work after graduation, because he is wealthy and has wealthy parents. She has no qualms about never developing any sort of resume of her own, and just starting to have children and stay home young. And the family’s reaction wasn’t “Uh oh” (except from me and my husband and in-laws, who are more in the American mindset)…it was “Oh goodie! A guy who will take care of her.”

    Don’t get me wrong…I’m all about staying home with your kids…but I prefer to have a resume and work background of my own first.

  4. Jill,

    Another thing that these folks have in common with Western right-wingers: a virginity fetish.

    Well, as long as we’re making unfair assumptions and borderline ad hominems about those with whom we disagree . . . I’ve found that people who respond to conservatives’ concern for virginity until marriage by calling it a “fetish” are usually those people who lost theirs in some pathetic moment of inebriation and have decided to numb their regret by lashing out and insisting that those feelings that they keep to themselves are merely the impact of our oppressive patriarchal society. But then, that’s just been my experience. After all, my wife and I were both virgins when we married. What can I say? We both shared the same same sick fetish.

    Traditional marriage is a crock, friends. And “it’s tradition” is not a viable argument for human rights abuses, or for treating some people as second-class citizens.

    Well, if “it’s tradition” isn’t a viable argument, then neither is “it’s evolving.”

  5. G&R:

    Well, if “it’s tradition” isn’t a viable argument, then neither is “it’s evolving.”

    Except “it’s evolving” isn’t an argument for the human rights abuses that Jill was specifically referring to. Just because something is tradition doesn’t make it ethical. Female genital cutting is a tradition in many African countries, but even the most conservative, traditional types would object to that sort of tradition, wouldn’t they?

  6. Bryan,

    Nor are those Americans defending what some call “traditional marriage” arguing in favor of human rights abuses or the treatment of some as second-class citizens, as Jill has painted them.

    Just because something is tradition doesn’t make it ethical.

    Correct. And a similar response (to which I was hinting in my first comment) can be made to Jill’s prior argument about marriage as “an evolving institution.” Just because something is changing doesn’t necessarily mean it’s changing for the better. So presenting the acceptance of same-sex marrriage as yet another potential change in our conception of marriage is not nearly enough to show that such a change would be a good one (as Jill was trying to do in that post of hers).

  7. G&R

    Nor are those Americans defending what some call “traditional marriage” arguing in favor of human rights abuses or the treatment of some as second-class citizens, as Jill has painted them.

    Straight men and women have the right to marry. Gay men and women do not. Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another? And let’s not get into the argument of polygamy, etc., because they really aren’t comparable. We’re talking about single-partner, monogamous couples here.

    Just because something is changing doesn’t necessarily mean it’s changing for the better

    You’re right that evolution does not equate with progress. Any evolutionary biologist would agree with you on this point as well. But we also know that evolution is necessary for any species to adapt and survive. Also, as Richard Dawkins would argue, evolution is inevitable under the conditions that make it possible. If this is true, there isn’t much one can do to stem the tides, is there?

  8. Marriage has taken on different qualities over the years, no doubt.
    But if we a talking about something discernable (at all) that is because it has a definition.

    Regardless of specific “incidents” of marriage changing, there is something about it unchangeable.

    That something is it central distinguishing feature.
    Being between men & women.

  9. G&R, Fitz, whomever…

    That something is it central distinguishing feature.
    Being between men & women.

    Okay, I’ll grant that has historically been a central component of our conception of marriage. Now, can you articulate why it’s so damn important it stay that way? Tradition by itself isn’t an excuse – you need to offer an explanation for why that tradition is so important and why it should be upheld. I guarantee it’s almost impossible to do without either (a) making it a human rights issue or (b) relegating gay men and women to second-class status. Go ahead, give it a shot.

  10. Men & women can produce children.Those men and women, society, and the children themselves benifit when they are formed into an sexually exclusive life time commitment to oneanothers mutual support.

  11. But this doesn’t include all married couples. First, many couples cannot produce children. Second, many couples do not make life time commitments. We have a very high divorce rate in America, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.

    What about gay couples adopting children? Doesn’t that provide a support benefit to the children who are given up for adoption? There are plenty of gay couples who would be very happy to get married and adopt kids.

  12. “. First, many couples cannot produce children.”

    Marriage (as traditionally defined) is limited to a class of people, namely a man & a woman. While any member of that class may not have children, or cannot have children; the class itself is capable of having children. Same-sex couples are members of a class that can never have children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples separates the institution necessarily from childbearing.

    “Second, many couples do not make life time commitments.”

    Failure to uphold a standard does not negate the importance of that standard (it only inderminds it)

    “What about gay couples adopting children?”
    They may adopt, but they dont adopt by accident- nor are they driven to adopt the same way men and women are driven to have sex.
    Its a standard, it applies to most people most of the time.
    Why should the incentive to create permanent Mother+Father families also apply to Mother+Mother-Father or Father+Father-Mother families? And if it should, how can you claim that this will have no effect on the number of children who have both a mother AND a father? An incentive for mothers and fathers to marry, for the sake of the children, also serves as a disincentive for the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless familes. As it should.

  13. the class itself is capable of having children.

    But if a “class” where some members can and some cannot procreate is good enough, then why define it as male and female couples instead of all couples? A majority but not all opposite sex couples can procreate biologically without assistance. A majority but not all couples composed of people who pair romantically can procreate biologically without assistance. If the fact that each set includes some couples without that capacity is insignificant for the one, why not for the other?

    (Nor can the “open to the possibility” dodge get you out of this one. If a miracle could result in conception for a couple in their eighties, or a women with no uterus, or a teenage Jew who had never had intercourse, then a miracle could produce a pregnancy in a same sex couple. If you don’t want to admit of the possibility of miraculous events in formulating public policy, then we’ll have to stick to the real world, where eighty year old women can meet, fall in love, but not concieve.)

    inderminds

    I am not familiar with this term. I cannot find a dictionary definition for it. Is it a technical term?

  14. As fascinating as the umpteenth iteration of, “Why Gay Marriage is Wrong: A Polemic in Three-Hundred and Eighty-Six Acts by Fitz” is, and as lovely as it is to see feministe getting double digits in comments again, there’s no point to this. He did this shit at Alas on every gay and/or marriage-equality thread he came across; I think Amp might have banned him because of it. He has limitless stamina, and he never gets tired of his three or four favorite arguments. This is not a mod note, and you may feel free to reply to these comments as you please, but know that he’s a troll, okay?

  15. Interesting argument but it really is about money. If coporations are forced to recognize same sex couples, then they will have to fork out the money to grant them the same coverages that are granted to the man/woman couples who are married. This would seem to spill into just about every institution, including the military. Seems it is just cheaper and easier to deny the same sex couples the classification of being married than to expend the money and time to correct the issue.

    I work for a man who is gay and married to another man, They have adopted a boy. Whether this has a positive effect of the child I may never ultimately find out. But then is it any of my busniess anyway? Do we need legislation anyway to confirm or deny the right to get married? It would seem to make more sense to offer the partners of employees the same benefits somehow. If the term marriage is inadequate then we will need a new one in order to provide a genderless classification for legally joined couples.

  16. Bryan,

    Straight men and women have the right to marry. Gay men and women do not. Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another?

    No. Not unless we’re assuming that gay men and women ought to have such a right . . . which, of course, would be question-begging.

    And let’s not get into the argument of polygamy, etc., because they really aren’t comparable. We’re talking about single-partner, monogamous couples here.

    How is it anything but arbitrary of you to limit the scope of those who ought to have a right to marry to “single-partner” couples? You see, one of the primary premises upon which liberals often defend same-sex marriage is that it’s unfair and arbitrary of us conservatives to insist that only heterosexual couples ought to have the right to marry, as is illustrated by this response of yours to Fitz:

    Okay, I’ll grant that has historically been a central component of our conception of marriage. Now, can you articulate why it’s so damn important it stay that way?

    What’s the big deal, right? What difference does it make?

    Now, why can’t the same defense be made of other sorts of potential marital unions? If a man and two women all love each other sincerely and are completely faithful to each other, why is it so damn important for our conception of marriage to exclude them? Your very own logic works here just as well as it did above: “[Single-partner couples] have the right to marry. [Multiple-partner unions] do not. Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another?”

    You see, you say that “they really aren’t comparable,” but I’m not so sure you’re right. Shouldn’t adults be able to make their own decisions? It might seem weird, or “icky,” to some of us, but is it really the government’s place to legislate the scruples of the majority?

    But we also know that evolution is necessary for any species to adapt and survive. Also, as Richard Dawkins would argue, evolution is inevitable under the conditions that make it possible. If this is true, there isn’t much one can do to stem the tides, is there?

    And here’s where the analogy breaks down. Good luck convincing me that the legalization of same-sex marriage is necessary for the survival of our species . . . especially in light of that tricky little obstacle lying between same-sex couples and reproduction . . . you know, biology. I love it, the legalization of same-sex marriage, or perhaps homosexuality broadly construed, is essential for the survival of our species, and yet nature sure doesn’t seem to have figured this out yet.

  17. No. Not unless we’re assuming that gay men and women ought to have such a right . . . which, of course, would be question-begging.

    What? Oy. Look: If x group of people have the right to do something, and y group of people do not, then that right is denied to y group of people. The justice of this is up for debate, but the fact of inequality is not.

    And here’s where the analogy breaks down. Good luck convincing me that the legalization of same-sex marriage is necessary for the survival of our species . . . especially in light of that tricky little obstacle lying between same-sex couples and reproduction . . . you know, biology. I love it, the legalization of same-sex marriage, or perhaps homosexuality broadly construed, is essential for the survival of our species, and yet nature sure doesn’t seem to have figured this out yet.

    Go look up “analogy.” His point is that acknowledging all those same-sex marriages out there–you know, adapting our legal code to fit an existing reality–is good for society for many of the same reasons that adaptation is good for a species.

  18. Fitz–
    Whose traditions? I know a goodly number of my ancestors belonged to cultures where marriage was not held to be strictly between a man and a woman as you’d define them. Even given that your culture dictates the tradition that one man and one woman are the only acceptable form of marriage, and those two people are involved for childrearing, and other people aren’t involved in that–even given those premises–why are your traditions, your culture, and your family structures better than mine?
    Why is it that my culture might suggest that adults other than the parents ought to be involved in helping raise children, which ought to ensure multiply-gendered adults in the family structure no matter who the parents are, rendering your point about isolated same-sex pairs moot? Why should I listen to your cultural values, which apparently dictate that if one biological parent leaves their spouse, the other is all alone to raise the kid, instead of our model, where enough people are involved to really think about the children–not to mention caring for the grandparents? Why should I throw away centuries or millennia of precedent for transgender social roles and same-sex committed relationships that have worked for my ancestors for your traditions, which relegate the people who need those cultural spaces to the margins? What’s wrong with my family, and what makes yours so much better?
    And why, you might ask, don’t I try to force you into conforming to my cultural values?

  19. piny,

    What? Oy. Look: If x group of people have the right to do something, and y group of people do not, then that right is denied to y group of people. The justice of this is up for debate, but the fact of inequality is not.

    You see, this is what happens when you butt into a conversation while ignoring the context.

    Since Bryan’s question (“Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another?”) came in the context of what he and Jill are calling “human rights abuses,” I was interpreting Bryan as already implying that this denial of rights from one segment of the population is unjust.

    You’d’ve been able to guess this much if you’d just done a little reading.

    Go look up “analogy.” His point is that acknowledging all those same-sex marriages out there–you know, adapting our legal code to fit an existing reality–is good for society for many of the same reasons that adaptation is good for a species.

    Which, of course, gets me back to my prior comment: “Just because something is changing doesn’t necessarily mean it’s changing for the better.”

    Tell you what, piny. I’ll go look up “analogy” if you’ll go look up “begging the question.”

  20. You see, this is what happens when you butt into a conversation while ignoring the context.

    Since Bryan’s question (”Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another?”) came in the context of what he and Jill are calling “human rights abuses,” I was interpreting Bryan as already implying that this denial of rights from one segment of the population is unjust.

    You’d’ve been able to guess this much if you’d just done a little reading.

    This is my blog. I read all of the comments threads. Maybe you should do some background reading yourself.

    You answered his question by disputing the idea that this was in fact denying rights to one segment of the population. Take it up with your poor phrasing, not my reading comprehension abilities.

    Which, of course, gets me back to my prior comment: “Just because something is changing doesn’t necessarily mean it’s changing for the better.”

    Tell you what, piny. I’ll go look up “analogy” if you’ll go look up “begging the question.”

    You haven’t come up with any good argument as to why opening marriage to gay couples would be a negative development.

  21. piny,

    I’m well aware of the fact that this is your blog. Pardon my giving you the benefit of the doubt. You see, I figured that someone who had read my comments so blunderingly must either (a) truly be an idiot or (b) have missed the context.

    For the record, whenever a conversation of mine goes something like this . . .

    SOMEONE ELSE: Except “it’s evolving” isn’t an argument for the human rights abuses that Jill was specifically referring to.
    ME: Nor are those Americans defending what some call “traditional marriage” arguing in favor of human rights abuses or the treatment of some as second-class citizens, as Jill has painted them.
    SOMEONE ELSE: Straight men and women have the right to marry. Gay men and women do not. Isn’t that denying rights to one segment of the population that are not afforded to another?

    . . . I’m going to assume that the “someone else” to which I’m speaking is building a sense of injustice into their language of the denial of rights to some group of people. You see, piny, sometimes context influences the meanings of words. Not sure you’re aware of that.

    This language stuff. It’s a tricky business, ain’t it?

    You haven’t come up with any good argument as to why opening marriage to gay couples would be a negative development.

    And pray tell: What hope is there that anyone might “come up with any good argument as to why opening marriage to gay couples would be a negative development” in a conversation with someone so intent on begging the very question that he or she insists that others answer? No thanks. I’d sooner spend the afternoon watching dust collect.

    And further, what need is there for me to come up with an argument for why extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would be a bad thing? You see, in the face of existing law, the burden rests upon the person claiming that changing that law (or those laws) would be a good thing . . . which, of course, would be you liberals. So to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, you’re quite right to think that extending such rights to same-sex couples would be a change, but the burden rests squarely upon your shoulders to explain to me and the rest of America why this would be a change for the better.

    And, to date, I’ve yet to hear such an explanation. Nope, just a bunch of ad hominems about how conservatives are closed-minded bigots with “a virginity fetish” (apparently).

  22. explain to me and the rest of America why this would be a change for the better.

    A lot of gay couples would be allowed benefits previously denied to them. They would also be afforded the same rights and respect (by the law) as a heterosexual couple and would probably feel better for it. No straight couples (or single straight people) would be affected in any way whatsoever.

  23. . . . I’m going to assume that the “someone else” to which I’m speaking is building a sense of injustice into their language of the denial of rights to some group of people. You see, piny, sometimes context influences the meanings of words. Not sure you’re aware of that.

    If one segment of the population is denied a right afforded another group, they are being treated unequally and therefore unjustly. Their marriages are not protected by the law, and they suffer because of it. It’s not that difficult.

    But again: your poor phrasing. The argument was a clear reference to the denial of a right; you should have conceded that if you could not dispute it.

    And further, what need is there for me to come up with an argument for why extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would be a bad thing? You see, in the face of existing law, the burden rests upon the person claiming that changing that law (or those laws) would be a good thing . . . which, of course, would be you liberals. So to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, you’re quite right to think that extending such rights to same-sex couples would be a change, but the burden rests squarely upon your shoulders to explain to me and the rest of America why this would be a change for the better.

    Oh, that’s horseshit. It’s your job to defend maintaining the status quo, just as much as it’s our job to defend change. We have provided reasons why recognizing all the same-sex marriages out there would be a good idea. Now, since you’ve implied negative change, explain why it would be a negative change.

  24. Bryan,

    A lot of gay couples would be allowed benefits previously denied to them.

    But, for the last time, this merely begs the question of whether or not same-sex couples ought to have such benefits.

    Everyone’s got the right to marry. But there’s no such thing as a right to marry whoever one wants to marry, and for good reason.

    I notice you never responded to my comments about multiple-partner unions.

  25. But, for the last time, this merely begs the question of whether or not same-sex couples ought to have such benefits.

    And this merely begs the question of why they ought not to have them.

    I notice you never responded to my comments about multiple-partner unions.

    That’s because you’re missing the point. Polygamy is another issue entirely. The only difference between a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage is the gender of one of the partners. If you want to debate multiple-partner unions, we can do that elsewhere, but let’s keep this on topic.

  26. Everyone’s got the right to marry. But there’s no such thing as a right to marry whoever one wants to marry, and for good reason.

    Well, yes. Most legislators did pass fifth-grade English, for one thing.

    There is no reason to restrict that right to “the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.” There are clear differences between a marriage contract between you and one other person and you and several other people. There’s no comparable difference between a spouse of one gender and a spouse of another.

  27. piny,

    If one segment of the population is denied a right afforded another group, they are being treated unequally and therefore unjustly.

    That’s odd. I thought you said,

    If x group of people have the right to do something, and y group of people do not, then that right is denied to y group of people. The justice of this is up for debate, but the fact of inequality is not.

    If unequal treatment simply entails injustice, as you say in this first quote of yours, then the justice of unequal treatment is apparently not “up for debate,” as you say in this second quote of yours.

    [And I’m the one guilty of “poor phrasing.” I see.]

    The argument was a clear reference to the denial of a right; you should have conceded that if you could not dispute it.

    What right is being denied a gay person? Everyone in America has the right to get married. No one in America has the right to get married to whoever they want to marry . . . because there’s no such right.

    Oh, that’s horseshit. It’s your job to defend maintaining the status quo, . . .

    This isn’t a matter of “status quo,” piny. It’s a matter of pre-established American law. Gay people have been around for quite a while, but only recently has anyone seriously suggested that pre-established American laws be changed so as to allow same-sex couples to marry.

    Like it or not, in matters of whether or not pre-established laws ought to be changed, presumption is always on the negative side. If conservatives all of the sudden began insisting that that whole “separation of Church and State” thing ought to be changed, the burden of argument would, of course, rest squarely upon our shoulders . . . because, again, presumption is always on the side of leaving the law of the land as it is.

    Rest assured, I’m not about to engage in some pitiful burden-shifting struggle with the likes of you, piny. Precedent is on my side.

  28. If unequal treatment simply entails injustice, as you say in this first quote of yours, then the justice of unequal treatment is apparently not “up for debate,” as you say in this second quote of yours.

    I did not state or imply that unequal treatment entails injustice, per se. I stated that this instance of unequal treatment does. In the first quote, I argued that the justice of this unequal treatment was something you hadn’t conceded; I was disputing your poorly-phrased reply.

    What right is being denied a gay person? Everyone in America has the right to get married. No one in America has the right to get married to whoever they want to marry . . . because there’s no such right.

    The right to have their marriages recognized as marriages.

    Like it or not, in matters of whether or not pre-established laws ought to be changed, presumption is always on the negative side. If conservatives all of the sudden began insisting that that whole “separation of Church and State” thing ought to be changed, the burden of argument would, of course, rest squarely upon our shoulders . . . because, again, presumption is always on the side of leaving the law of the land as it is.

    Yes, but we’ve provided a defense of the change. You have failed to rebut that defense: you cannot provide any good reason for this discriminatory law.

  29. Bryan,

    And this merely begs the question of why they ought not to have them.

    Just as I suspected, you don’t know what “begging the question” means. That’s okay, though. It’s been a pleasure exchanging with you nonetheless.

    That’s because you’re missing the point. Polygamy is another issue entirely.

    Here’s what happened. You insisted that polygamy is another issue entirely. Then I gave you reasons (using your own logic, mind you) why it isn’t clear at all that polygamy is another issue entirely. Then you never responded. Then I asked why you never responded and you told me that I’m missing the point because, again, “Polygamy is another issue entirely.”

    And ’round and ’round we go.

    Again, it’s been a pleasure Bryan. Have a fantastic week.

  30. Here’s what happened. You insisted that polygamy is another issue entirely. Then I gave you reasons (using your own logic, mind you) why it isn’t clear at all that polygamy is another issue entirely. Then you never responded. Then I asked why you never responded and you told me that I’m missing the point because, again, “Polygamy is another issue entirely.”

    There’s a difference, for legal purposes, between one person and several people. There are no comparable differences between an individual man and an individual woman; a marriage between a man and a woman would not be different from a marriage between a man and a man. Therefore, opening the franchise to polygamous couples is a very different proposition from opening it to same-sex couples.

  31. piny,

    I did not state or imply that unequal treatment entails injustice, per se. I stated that this instance of unequal treatment does.

    Which makes a helluva lot o’ sense.

    I argued that the justice of this unequal treatment was something you hadn’t conceded . . .

    Assuming that we’re talking about the same statement, this explanation of yours is, of course, false. These were your words, piny:

    The justice of this is up for debate, but the fact of inequality is not.

    Which I took mean this: Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are being treated unequally in the sense that the State acknowledges the marriages of the former but not those of the latter, but whether or not this unequal treatment is unjust “is up for debate.” Clearly, that’s the natural interpretation of your statement. If you meant something else, I suppose . . . gosh . . . must be “poor phrasing.”

    The right to have their marriages recognized as marriages.

    I was under the impression that gay people don’t have the right to marry a person of the same sex in the first place, so why suppose that they might have the further right to have their marriages to people of the same sex recognized as marriages?

    Yes, but we’ve provided a defense of the change.

    So far, the only reasons I’ve seen (“human rights abuses,” etc.) have all been question-begging. So you’ll pardon me for not feeling the sort of bite I’d have to feel in order to defend American law as it already is.

    Here’s a question: In a democracy such as ours, should American voters be able to decide whether or not same-sex marriages ought to be allowed and recognized? And if not, why not?

  32. piny,

    There’s a difference, for legal purposes, between one person and several people. There are no comparable differences between an individual man and an individual woman; a marriage between a man and a woman would not be different from a marriage between a man and a man. Therefore, opening the franchise to polygamous couples is a very different proposition from opening it to same-sex couples.

    But the whole spirit of this debate revolves around whether or not laws ought to be changed for the benefit of certain romantic unions (e.g., same-sex couples). Now, perhaps the allowance and recognition of multiple-partner marriages would cause more of a ripple-effect among existing statutes than the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriages, but I hardly see why this is a compelling reason to keep the “franchise” closed off from multiple-partner unions.

    After all, most of the reasons for which people think same-sex couples ought to be allowed to marry (e.g., they’re being denied a right afforded to heterosexual, single-partner couples) can just as comfortably be used to defend multiple-partner unions (or other sorts of romantic, consensual unions).

    You say that “there’s a difference, for legal purposes,” but the question is whether or not those “legal purposes” are genuinely important enough to deny a person’s right to have his or her marriage recognized by the State — whether he or she is married to a single person of the same sex, or multiple partners of either sex.

  33. But the whole spirit of this debate revolves around whether or not laws ought to be changed for the benefit of certain romantic unions (e.g., same-sex couples). Now, perhaps the allowance and recognition of multiple-partner marriages would cause more of a ripple-effect among existing statutes than the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriages, but I hardly see why this is a compelling reason to keep the “franchise” closed off from multiple-partner unions.

    After all, most of the reasons for which people think same-sex couples ought to be allowed to marry (e.g., they’re being denied a right afforded to heterosexual, single-partner couples) can just as comfortably be used to defend multiple-partner unions (or other sorts of romantic, consensual unions).

    You say that “there’s a difference, for legal purposes,” but the question is whether or not those “legal purposes” are genuinely important enough to deny a person’s right to have his or her marriage recognized by the State — whether he or she is married to a single person of the same sex, or multiple partners of either sex.

    Darlin’, I, personally, don’t have any problem with legal recognition of polyamorous relationships. I don’t know why people keep holding them up as some sort of moral firebrake. But the comparative “ripple effect” is a perfectly reasonable argument: a monogamous heterosexual marriage is indistinguishable from a monogamous homosexual marriage. There is no reason to discriminate against them, and therefore no reason not to change the law.

    Which I took mean this: Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are being treated unequally in the sense that the State acknowledges the marriages of the former but not those of the latter, but whether or not this unequal treatment is unjust “is up for debate.” Clearly, that’s the natural interpretation of your statement. If you meant something else, I suppose . . . gosh . . . must be “poor phrasing.”

    (Sigh) You agreed with something he’d said–namely the fact of inequality–then acted like he was wrong to say it. That made no sense, and I pointed that out.

    I was under the impression that gay people don’t have the right to marry a person of the same sex in the first place, so why suppose that they might have the further right to have their marriages to people of the same sex recognized as marriages?

    We’ve been getting married without legal recognition for generations; what’s wanted, and deserved, is the right to legal recognition of those marriages.

    So far, the only reasons I’ve seen (”human rights abuses,” etc.) have all been question-begging. So you’ll pardon me for not feeling the sort of bite I’d have to feel in order to defend American law as it already is.

    Then you haven’t done any background reading.

    Here’s a question: In a democracy such as ours, should American voters be able to decide whether or not same-sex marriages ought to be allowed and recognized? And if not, why not?

    Was it wrong not to leave the legal recognition of interracial marriages to a popular vote? If not, why not?

  34. Okay, I think that’s all for me tonight. I’ve gotta prepare for a lecture tomorrow.

    G’night.

    Hah! That is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

  35. Which I took mean this: Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are being treated unequally in the sense that the State acknowledges the marriages of the former but not those of the latter, but whether or not this unequal treatment is unjust “is up for debate.” Clearly, that’s the natural interpretation of your statement. If you meant something else, I suppose . . . gosh . . . must be “poor phrasing.”

    …Except for the part where I said several times that these two types of couples are indistinguishable. It’s possible to make a case for unequal treatment between, say, adults and children. It’s not possible to make an argument for unequal treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. That’s why you keep fobbing off your obligation to defend it: you can’t make any argument for retaining this legal definition other than the fact of its existence.

  36. only recently has anyone seriously suggested that pre-established American laws be changed so as to allow same-sex couples to marry.

    Yes, and only recently has anyone suggested overturning sodomy laws or outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. By your argument, gay men and lesbians would still have to face discrimination because, well, that was the law for so long and nobody complained until recently.

  37. piny,

    Took a break for some dessert.

    Hah! That is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

    Why?

    If you’ve decided to all-of-the-sudden make things personal (assuming that your comment here is meant to imply something like “As if you could ever teach anything to anyone!”), I’d be happy to leave you alone.

    I was under the impression that you were an adult. Perhaps I was mistaken.

  38. If you’ve decided to all-of-the-sudden make things personal (assuming that your comment here is meant to imply something like “As if you could ever teach anything to anyone!”), I’d be happy to leave you alone.

    I was under the impression that you were an adult. Perhaps I was mistaken.

    You’re kidding, right? About this whole lowering the tone thing? Scroll back up a little bit and read your comments to me.

    Here’s a sample:

    I’m well aware of the fact that this is your blog. Pardon my giving you the benefit of the doubt. You see, I figured that someone who had read my comments so blunderingly must either (a) truly be an idiot or (b) have missed the context.

  39. piny,

    I had good contextual reasons for thinking that Bryan was building a sense of injustice into his talk of rights-denial. So I went ahead and skipped actually making the distinction and responded to him accordingly. You stuck your nose into someone else’s conversation and made a comment that you later contradicted . . . all just to point out to me that there’s a conceptual difference between inequality and injustice.

    There are only two natural conclusions for me to draw from this, piny. You either ignored the context (which is probably the case, though you’d never own up to it) or you’re well aware of the context and still figured you needed to point out to me the difference between inequality and injustice . . . which, in my book, would make you an idiot.

    And let’s not forget who began the condescension:

    What? Oy. Look: . . .

    “Oy. I suppose I’ll lower myself to enlighten another one of these simpletons.” So you’ll pardon me for not taking the time with each comment to butter-up and kiss your ass. I generally return kindness with kindness.

    Now, since I’ve noticed that the administrators of this blog have a bad habit of silencing those with whom they disagree (e.g.), I’ll go ahead and assume that this conversation has already been as fruitful as it ever could’ve been and head back to the world of fellow simple-minded folk. It’s been my pleasure, piny. I do appreciate you coming down off of your cloud to share with me. It’s truly been an eye-opening lesson in both critical thinking and tolerance.

    Now if only you could do the same with all those crazy judges in New York, Georgia, etc. “Oy,” right?

    Ta.

  40. There are only two natural conclusions for me to draw from this, piny. You either ignored the context (which is probably the case, though you’d never own up to it) or you’re well aware of the context and still figured you needed to point out to me the difference between inequality and injustice . . . which, in my book, would make you an idiot.

    …Which is why you called me an idiot. This is an explanation for the insult, not an excuse for it. I did not ignore the context; I do not agree with your “building a sense of injustice” argument.

    “Oy. I suppose I’ll lower myself to enlighten another one of these simpletons.” So you’ll pardon me for not taking the time with each comment to butter-up and kiss your ass. I generally return kindness with kindness.

    That’s a lot of meaning to derive from a single syllable, nu? It was more like, “Oy, that makes no sense at all.” I generally respond to good arguments with praise and lousy arguments with derision. You’ve been condescending and snotty throughout; you have no right to suddenly cry foul. The rest of your comment is a pretty good encapsulation of your tone here in general.

    Ta yourself.

  41. Lest we forget, this is how you responded to Jill’s post:

    Well, as long as we’re making unfair assumptions and borderline ad hominems about those with whom we disagree . . . I’ve found that people who respond to conservatives’ concern for virginity until marriage by calling it a “fetish” are usually those people who lost theirs in some pathetic moment of inebriation and have decided to numb their regret by lashing out and insisting that those feelings that they keep to themselves are merely the impact of our oppressive patriarchal society. But then, that’s just been my experience. After all, my wife and I were both virgins when we married. What can I say? We both shared the same same sick fetish.

  42. “There’s no comparable difference between a spouse of one gender and a spouse of another. “

    Uh- yes there is. Only a spouse of a different gender can form a union capable of producing offspring. Also, such units represent equel gender representation. And on the list goes…..

  43. Fitz–

    You still haven’t addressed basic flaws in these arguments. Would you disallow infertile heterosexual couples from having their marriage recognized? Couples who don’t want to have children? Couples who’ve had hysterectomy, vasectomy, or similar procedures? Would you ask that the intersexed not be allowed to marry, as many of them cannot ‘produce offspring’ and/or don’t tidily fit into your system?

    “Equal gender representation”? Come on, now, that’s reaching.

    And you still haven’t answered my question as to why your traditions are better than mine or anyone else’s. Or, for that matter, why yours are better than those of mainstream Protestant Christian organizations like the United Methodists and United Church of Christ, let alone the Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, let alone the majority of American Jewry, leaving entirely aside religions neither Jewish nor Christian, for the sake of simplicity? If those denominations are performing marriages to both same-sex and heterosex couples, why are some of the marriages they perform and bless not good enough for government recognition? Do you believe that some religions or sects ought not be honored equally under the law?
    Come on–address even a little of this, please. The list goes on over here, too.

  44. So called gay “marriage” does two things necessarily. (that is it follows axiomatically from the very definitional change)

    #1. It androgynies the institution.
    #2. It separates it from any necessary connection to procreation.

    You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can concieve children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
    It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.

    Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.

    Of coarse I’m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.
    For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
    We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined. The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for your inclusion.

    “And you still haven’t answered my question as to why your traditions are better than mine or anyone else’s.”

    Fine…I guess we’ll vote on it then?

  45. The Top Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Right

    1. Gay marriage has been around forever and is nothing new. Gay divorce is as ancient as queer theory itself.

    2. The Federal Marriage Amendment would make Andrew Sullivan cry because he has publicly rejected the prospect of his marrying another man.

    3. The old laws against interracial marriage used to selectively segregate the sexes on the basis of racial identity. Therefore, today it is justifiable to selectively segregate the sexes on the basis of sexual identity.

    4. Gay marriage is not really just about being gay or lesbian. This is so obvious to anyone who watches Will & Grace.

    5. In a pluralistic society, the only good religion is the one that approves of gay marriage. All other religions are bigoted and should be chased from the public square, or at the very least from adoption services.

    6. It is awful that no woman is allowed to do what any man could do: marry a woman. When marriage law requires the equal participation of both sexes, that’s unequal treatment of the sexes.

    7. Children benefit from having double moms or double dads. That’s why we outlaw polygamous and polyamorous families.

    8. Sex is analogous to race. There is one human race and it is two-sexed. Therefore marriage can be one-sexed and multi-racial.

    9. The fight for gay marriage is not about dictating morality on gay people; it is about re-educating straight people who just don’t know any better.

    10. Gay relationships would be meaningless if not licensed by the government. That’s why relatively few gay couples register with the government when given the chance.

    11. According to the best social science evidence, gay marriage is valid because every gay couple is victimized by the deep and scarring hardship of social infertility. Being gay is like being really old and infertile. But without the bad skin condition and the rumpled fashion sense.

    12. Gay marriage will rescue all of the orphans who languish in sperm banks and IVF clinics. Turkey Basters Unlimited has already saved hundreds of millions of children.

    13. Every gay couple is like the married straight couple who can never make babies together because the husband lost his jewels to testicular cancer or the wife had life-saving surgery that removed her biological clock.

    13. Gay marriage will make people into queers, in the same frumpy way that the unwashed masses are oppressed by heteronormativity. Anyone who watches Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can see that.

    14. Enacting gay marriage is about justice and fairness for gay people. It is not about justice and fairness for anyone else without the political clout of pressure groups armed with gaydar and artistic merit.

    15. In fairness and for the sake of justice through diversity, no sexual identity can be denied the right to be included in marriage. All forms of sexual expression are natural because nothing is unnatural if it can be done. Except incest and plural marriage and sex-integration and other stuff that’s not very gay.

    16. Second-parent adoption is not nearly as good as gay marriage. That’s because the goal of gay marriage is access to marital status, not access to the legal protections that directly benefit the child-parent relationship that gay marriage cannot provide.

    17. This list incudes 16 points (17 with this one) but the denary criterion of a Top Ten list is not discarded. It is merely extended to mean more than the traditional ten. And not necessarily less than 17. This is progressive and therefore good. Count on it. And recount.

  46. You’re not listening, Fitz. I’m not throwing out history or precedent or tradition. I’m pointing out that there are more histories than yours. I’m pointing out that I’m not ‘redefining’, but rather, that there are a whole lot of people on this earth, and a whole lot of traditions, some going back millennia, that use a different definition of ‘marriage’ than you do, and you still haven’t provided any good reason to pretend they don’t exist and make everyone use the definition you and yours use.

    You haven’t addressed any of the questions I posed. You evaded all of them by insisting that to suggest that there are other definitions of what constitutes marriage means throwing out any defintions at all, or that suggesting there are other kinds of marriage than your tradition’s version equals claiming anything can be a marriage–which is not, indeed, what I’ve asserted. You haven’t dealt with the question of the numerous Jewish and Christian organizations who don’t seem to feel that same-sex unions are objectionable or counter to Biblical authority. You haven’t dealt with the question of the numerous heterosexual couples who cannot have children and whether or not they ought to be allowed marriage. You devalue the families who adopt. You refuse to deal with intersexed people, let alone the transgendered. In short, I’ve brought up factual things that exist, and asked you your opinion of them; and you’ve covered your ears and eyes because you don’t seem to want to acknowledge their existence. This convinces me that you’re not serious about this debate in the slightest; you’re not even participating in it.

    Some of us have long histories that involve traditions different from yours. Some of us have ancestors that were doing same-sex unions when Paris was a collection of huts and New York was a grassy field and the Hebrews were still slaves in Egypt. And by all accounts, our societies worked just fine, and the disruption of people insisting on your traditions have thrown them into chaos. Why should we participate in your grand social experiment of forcing everyone into cisgendered heterosexual unions, instead of honoring them for those who want them and making room for the minority who don’t? Why should we stop honoring members of our communities who we value just because you don’t? Why should we throw away our history and our precedent just because your relatives showed up at our doorsteps and forced us to redefine marriage in a way that served you–at times, yes, selfishly and inhumanely?

    Our standard explicitly states that family is important and that children ought to be raised in stable homes by responsible, loving adults, and it works for us. Just because you choose to redefine ‘family’ to mean only what your kind of family is, why make the rest of us come along? We have institutions, too. We have cherished families, histories, and ‘biological’ realities. And we’re not asking you to change your family. So are you going to answer any of these questions, or are you going to keep sidestepping, compadre?

Comments are currently closed.