Gay Marriage—and Marriage

Commentary Magazine ^ | November 2003 | Sam Schulman

[NYer]

As Antigone said to Creon, we are being asked to tamper with "unwritten and unfailing laws, not of now, nor of yesterday; they always live, and no one knows their origin in time."

An excellent read!! Don't skip one word.

[NYer]

A DIFFERENT defense of heterosexual marriage has proceeded by circling the wagons around the institution itself. According to this school of thought, ably represented by the columnist Maggie Gallagher, the essential purpose of that institution is to create stable families:

In case you missed her commentary, here is the link:

Goodridge decision comes down hard

[The Brush]

Nice find.
The argument I see with homosexual unions is that they offer nothing and add confusion.
Defying principle logic in the interest of diversity will never change logic, only principles.

[Kay Soze]

Since we are redefining words such as sex, marriage and is lets include income, taxes, wages and profit as well.

Choke the slimy, selfish little satan worshiping bastards off from the mana of our evil and very succesful conservative lives.

[45Auto]

"Because marriage is an arrangement built around female sexuality, because the institution has to do with women far more than it has to do with men, women will be the victims of its destruction. Those analysts who have focused on how children will suffer from the legalization of gay marriage are undoubtedly correct—but this will not be the first time that social developments perceived as advances for one group or another have harmed children. After all, the two most important (if effortless) achievements of the women’s movement of the late 1960’s were the right to abort and the right—in some social classes, the commandment—to join the professional workforce, both manifestly harmful to the interests of children."

"But with the success of the gay-liberation movement, it is women themselves, all women, who will be hurt. The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning."

[45Auto]

This is truly a remarkable article.

"Marriage, to say it for the last time, is what connects us with our nature and with our animal origins, with how all of us, heterosexual and homosexual alike, came to be. It exists not because of custom, or because of a conspiracy (whether patriarchal or matriarchal), but because, through marriage, the world exists. Marriage is how we are connected backward in time, through the generations, to our Creator (or, if you insist, to the primal soup), and forward to the future beyond the scope of our own lifespan. It is, to say the least, bigger than two hearts beating as one.'

"Severing this connection by defining it out of existence—cutting it down to size, transforming it into a mere contract between chums—sunders the natural laws that prevent concubinage and incest. Unless we resist, we will find ourselves entering on the path to the abolition of the human. The gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men."

[Eala]

"Possibly of interest to the Trad Anglican list, though no mention of ECUSA herein" ping.

[Orangedog]

"Because marriage is an arrangement built around female sexuality, because the institution has to do with women far more than it has to do with men, women will be the victims of its destruction. Those analysts who have focused on how children will suffer from the legalization of gay marriage are undoubtedly correct—but this will not be the first time that social developments perceived as advances for one group or another have harmed children. After all, the two most important (if effortless) achievements of the women’s movement of the late 1960’s were the right to abort and the right—in some social classes, the commandment—to join the professional workforce, both manifestly harmful to the interests of children."

If people really care about "the children" they will do away with no-fault divorce, put a leash on the man-hating "family" courts and stop turning fathers into visitors in the lives of their children.

[NYer]

The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning.

You make an excellent point! The two are inextricably tied together and have been throughout the history of mankind. One need look no farther than a history book to see that in each great empire, when women rose to power, that movement was followed by the rise of homosexuality. Ancient Greece, Rome, Alexandria ... everything old is new again. The next obvious point to observe is this - where are those great civilizations today?

"History teaches us that if we don't learn from history, we are forced to repeat it."

[syriacus]

A caller to a talk show this morning suggested that gay "marriages" should be given a different name than marriage. That way marriage, as it has been defined for millennia, will not cease to exist.

He suggested "Barriage," I think. (My radio's reception was poor.)

How about Gayrriage?

Many words and phrases have been coined to represent societal changes of the past decades ("Ms.," "mail carrier," "chairperson," "flight attendant," etc.)

I don't think gays have the right to call a homosexual union a marriage any more than a man has the right to say he is "female" on his driver's license.

"Marriage" is already the union of a man and a woman...

A new word should be coined for homosexual unions. (Harriage?)

[kanawa]

Pairriage

[gcruse]

The argument I see with homosexual unions is that they offer nothing

And that's why the Constitution is not an enumeration of what we are
allowed to do.  Government is restrained in what IT may do.  We need
not prove freedom offers something to enjoy its benefits.  You don't have
to justify being free.  Government has to justify intruding on you, whether
you offer anything or not.

[LaraCroft]

Great article.

Saying you are against same sex unions for the kids leaves out if you are OK with it if there are no kids.

The religious angle doesn't work since not all religions frown upon same sex unions.

The constitutional angle doesn't work because no where in the constitution does it address it, so it IS constitutional.

If you are for or against it, you should just say so and not try to rationalize your decision as "The Right One".

[longtermmemmory]

same sex unions for the kids leaves out if you are OK with it if there are no kids.
***

Not so. Even a childless couple reinforces the mother/woman and father/man paradign. It is the framework of family. It reinforces the fact that it is not an arbitrary decision.

[scripter]

This looks like a read for tomorrow. Thanks for the ping.

[Graymatter]

How many people are we talking about here? I asked myself.

Google gave me http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php

"'The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS).'... The NHSLS study found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual."

The US population, as of about two minutes ago, stood at 292,693,647. So, 1.4M out of 292.6M are exclusively homosexual. For this we are discussing constitutional amendments?

[NYer]

The NHSLS study found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sexual partners since age 18, a figure that would represent a total of only 1.4 million Americans as homosexual."

Amazing, isn't it!! How can so few command this much attention? They have understood, however, that to get their 'demands' met, they must use the courts, bypassing state and federal legislatures. This is how they have rapidly moved their agenda forward! BTW, for an historical perspective on the Homosexual Agenda, scroll up and click on "Scripter"'s name. He has compiled an extensive library of links on this topic.

[The Brush]

The religious angle doesn't work since not all religions frown upon same sex unions

Help be out here Lara, which religions embrace same sex unions?

[LaraCroft]

I went to Google and did a brief search, and there came back thousands of hits such as the one below:

"In 1984 The United Church of Canada affirmed our acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God, regardless of their sexual orientation. In 1988 the church affirmed that all persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their sexual orientation, are eligible to be considered for ordered ministry. In 1992 the General Council directed that liturgical and pastoral resources for same-sex covenants be made available to congregations wishing to bless such unions. In 2000 the United Church affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation."