So anyway, as a reply to Will H�s question last night �What�s the difference?� between my position of support for civil unions but anti gay marriage.
Posted by
Loyola
Nov 12 '08, 14:03
|
I have a bit of time on my hands now to type out this reply, and also because I know there�s a few good guys on here that possibly view such a stance as demeaning to them, which as far as I�m concerned isn�t the reality at all. So why not put that to right while I have a chance. It�s not costing me anything.
I think first of all, in arguing for or against gay marriage it�s helpful to actually ask oneself what marriage actually is. And once you have decided what marriage is, it�s then helpful to ask why is marriage afforded such extra benefits from society; why does the institution of marriage hold an elevated status in the eyes of the state? (I use state for country)
To answer the first question, to my mind there�s two separate ideas of marriage; the secular view and the religious view. I can�t speak for other churches, but for me marriage is a sacrament of the church. That the state recognizes such sacrament is immaterial in any true marriage as first and foremost it�s a couple in love and who commit themselves per the vows to each other forever. It�s an important decision from which there is no rowing back. Now you can argue that marriage predates the current churches, that no church has a monopoly on the word marriage, but the fact remains, for many people of different faiths, it is a commitment before God.
The secular view, I guess needless to say, isn�t a commitment to any higher power, it�s two people in love who want to make a commitment to one another.
Is the church marriage more important than one conducted in a registry office? That�s not for me to say, and I suspect to argue which one is more important is pointless. What they both have in common is that marriage represents a commitment to one another.
So what?
Why can�t gays get married if heteros are allowed? They�re two people who love each other as much as any couple surely. This is where what marriage represents needs to take into account what the state views as marriage. Why the state views marriage in the way it does actually defines the implied legal definition of marriage. There�s no getting around it. The institution of marriage, is viewed by the state, historically, as the foundation for a family, and is appropriated such benefits, tax status, etc, in recognition that the family unit is important in the bringing up of children and that the state by these actions lend help to those couples solely to help them in their parenthood. That is why it recognizes marriage in the first place, why it helps those financially who are married. What then is to be surmised from this assistance? Those married in the church already know that participating in the sacrament of marriage is the first step in forming a family. Those married in the secular forum need to ask themselves why do they benefit financially from their commitment to one another. The answer is that society, as aggregated through the dispensation of social aids, reduced taxes etc provides this help because it recognizes marriage as the first instance of a family. If you accept that, then the logical conclusion is that marriage (historically) can only be entered into by those who have the possibility of bearing children whilst remaining true to the vows they took in the initial ceremony. It�s a critical point. The state views marriage as the basis of a family, and is the sole reason it provides social benefits to it.
I know that this is difficult to accept for those that seek to argue that anybody can marry anyone else, whatever their sex may be. I always try to put myself in other people�s shoes when looking at both sides of an argument. Were I on the other side of the fence, I would find it extraordinarily hurtful to hear others say, no you can�t get married. It would feel to me like I�m being treated like a second class person, not worthy of marriage. But from my own point of view, it has never been about treating others as less worthy, or as somehow beneath me. It�s been about what marriage actually is. The basis of a family. And is implicitly recognized as such by the state.
But what do I care? Why don�t I just say let anyone marry anyone else and be done with it. Two guys marrying aren�t going to hurt me personally. I�ll marry a girl, they can marry each other, and we can all just get on with living, right? I ask myself these questions solely out of respect for those that feel slighted by my point of view that marriage ought to be only between a man and a woman.
I believe in the separation of church and state, and equality for all. How does my view represent equality if I don�t approve of gay marriage? It doesn�t until you realize what marriage actually is. The base family unit. The whole debate is always framed as �the right to marriage� I�ve never felt I had a right to marriage, same as I�ve never felt I had a right to be loved by a significant other. If it happens it happens.
Ask yourself this, do those in a gay marriage have a right to accrue particular benefits from society pertaining to marriage that were enacted solely to aid in the upbringing of a family? That in essence, on this plane, forgetting about the spiritual, is what marriage is.
The logical response to that is, gays can have a family too. They can adopt and save a child from a life of potential misery. You then enter the realm of parenthood. Never in the debate on the rights of gays to marry, do you hear about the rights of a child. I doubt there is a gay person in the world who would admit there is a right of the child to be brought up in a family unit with both a masculine and feminine presence. It just doesn�t come into the equation. Two gays can give them a loving home just as good as any hetero couple. It�s the point at which I break completely from those that argue for gay marriage, because from that point of view, either the role of the father, (or father figure) or of the mother (or mother figure) is made redundant by those who support gay marriage. Two guys getting married; what is implied is that the child can be brought up just as well as any hetero couple would. There is no special role of the mother and her formative influences on the child. Likewise, two women rearing a child, is by extension, reducing the role of the father; we can raise the child just as well as any hetero couple, there�s no need for a father figure. So to answer my own question, what do I care? I care because either the role of the mother or father is devalued. Not intentionally, but it is.
What then is my justification for supporting civil unions? I do because the benefits of marriage not pertaining to helping in the raising of children should be applied to all; gay, straight, co habite�s, elderly people living together etc as it�s the fair and equitable stance for society to take when you believe, as I do, that government policy concerning the raising of children should aspire to the ideal; that of every child having the right to both a male and female influence in their upbringing. I don�t seek to impose my view of the world on others, however, when the question was asked how would you vote in a California referendum on gay marriage, I would be against it.
Some may call that a hateful stance, as happened last night in a debate between two people, but things like that have never bothered me because I�ve heard it before and I know how I feel; I�ll stick up for anyone no matter what their sexuality if they were in trouble. And at the end of the day, how important is it to me that gay marriage never comes to pass?. I know how I would vote on the issue, but where does it rank in my imperatives. It�s not of huge importance; someone came to me tomorrow and said no more abortions if you allow gay marriage, I�d be out there tomorrow with a sign championing gay marriage if I felt lives could be saved. I couldn�t be bothered either doing multi board spanning arguments for what its worth. It is what it is.
|
Responses:
-
Ok, I read it all, I understand your heart is in the right place, but...just because it's tradation, has always been that way doesn't make it right
-
The Calico Cat Coalition
Nov 12, 14:34
-
that's a wall of text. The bottom line is that rearing children is not an obligation or marriage, and you don't have to be married to raise a child.
-
Max
Nov 12, 14:19
-
tl;dr -- nm
-
Qale
Nov 12, 14:13
-
what's the difference between fountains marked white and colored -- nm
-
zeitgeist
Nov 12, 14:13
1
-
thank you for taking the time to type all that out. If I'm following your arguments correctly, i have two questions.
-
znufrii
Nov 12, 14:13
1
-
I did a quick read and had a similar position before but ultimately you're talking about separate but equal (unions vs. marriage) and that doesn't fly
-
oblique
Nov 12, 14:08
7
-
"The state views marriage as the basis of a family, and is the sole reason it provides social benefits to it." Where do you get this from?
-
TFox
Nov 12, 14:07
1
-
im way too tired to read all this, but watched Obermann's "special comment" last night and was surprised how angry he was about it
-
Guy
Nov 12, 14:05
6
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|