Ship of Fools: Why do gay people want to get married?

Thread: Why do gay people want to get married? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028565

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

I attend a topical Sunday School class and next week we are discussing gay marriage at the behest of one of our members.

He said that he wants to discuss it because "I want to understand why gay people want to get married."

I'm skeptical as to whether or not he does actually want to understand why gay people want to get married. But since there is no one in our class who identifies as gay, I don't know how we are actually going to be able to address this issue.

So I was wondering if any gay person would be kind enough to write on the subject? Those who want to get married, those who don't want to get married, those who are married or in a civil partnership. Why do you or did you want to get married? Or why do you not want to get married?

[ 16. January 2011, 15:31: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I attend a topical Sunday School class and next week we are discussing gay marriage at the behest of one of our members.

He said that he wants to discuss it because "I want to understand why gay people want to get married."

I'm skeptical as to whether or not he does actually want to understand why gay people want to get married. But since there is no one in our class who identifies as gay, I don't know how we are actually going to be able to address this issue.

So I was wondering if any gay person would be kind enough to write on the subject? Those who want to get married, those who don't want to get married, those who are married or in a civil partnership. Why do you or did you want to get married? Or why do you not want to get married?

What a strange question! It is no different than a straight person wanted to get married. To find someone to love, cherish and honour and be loved in return. To grow old together, to set a home together and to be with each other in joy and sorrow.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Like your Sunday school class, I'm not gay. I think you can get perfectly decent answers from your straight class, though, if you start by removing the word "gay" from the question.

The question then becomes, "Why do people want to get married?"

The hidden assumption in the original question is that there's some unstated difference between people who are gay and people who are straight which leads to different wants. IME, people tend to want pretty similar things.

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

Why does anybody want to get married? Remove the child reason (in perhaps most cases, though definitely not all), and you have your answer.

The cultural expectation of marriage and all the joyous hopes attached to that apply just as strongly for gays/lesbians/etc as they do for straights.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

Gay people want to get married because queers (and I don't intent to use the word in the derogatory sense) no longer want to be seen as queer: they want to be accepted by society as 'normal', like everybody else, instead of as a ghettoized element of society. Partaking in the institution of marriage (and having kids, etc.; participating in 'traditional' family life) is probably the most direct means of becoming enfranchised in this way, of validating their identity in the eyes of straight people.

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Gay people want to get married because queers (and I don't intent to use the word in the derogatory sense) no longer want to be seen as queer: they want to be accepted by society as 'normal', like everybody else, instead of as a ghettoized element of society. Partaking in the institution of marriage (and having kids, etc.; participating in 'traditional' family life) is probably the most direct means of becoming enfranchised in this way, of validating their identity in the eyes of straight people.

Good to know it's not because they fall in love and want to spend their life with somebody in a recognized commitment.

Posted by Amiyah (# 11989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Gay people want to get married because queers (and I don't intent to use the word in the derogatory sense) no longer want to be seen as queer: they want to be accepted by society as 'normal', like everybody else, instead of as a ghettoized element of society. Partaking in the institution of marriage (and having kids, etc.; participating in 'traditional' family life) is probably the most direct means of becoming enfranchised in this way, of validating their identity in the eyes of straight people.

This is a really odd view of things. I am engaged to have a civil partnership with my girlfriend, in the summer. This is *nothing* to do with wanting to look normal to straight people, and everything to do with how much I love and want to commit myself to my girlfriend. We didn't have a conversation that went 'Darling, we've been together for a while now and I think it's time to take things to the next level and *really* show the next-door neighbours how normal we are'.

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
The hidden assumption in the original question is that there's some unstated difference between people who are gay and people who are straight which leads to different wants. IME, people tend to want pretty similar things.

Yes, I suspect there is an unstated assumption, but I don't have enough information right now to know what that assumption would be.

As we were leaving the room, he said "I mean what do they think marriage is anyway?" Which is probably the question I want to ask him next week.

But I did think that it would be interesting to get a variety of different viewpoints from folk here.

[ 16. January 2011, 19:08: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Partaking in the institution of marriage (and having kids, etc.; participating in 'traditional' family life) is probably the most direct means of becoming enfranchised in this way, of validating their identity in the eyes of straight people.

Given that there are many reasons that a straight person may want to marry, I suspect the same is true for gay people.

And there may in fact be some gay people who want to get married in order to validate their identity in the eyes of straight people. But I would hesitate to say that is the only reason, or even the most common reason. In fact, it doesn't seem to me to be a likely reason at all. Based on the gay couples that I know, I'd guess that it's actually somewhere between pretty rare and nonexistent.

Posted by Via Media (# 16087) on :

Well, I think the sociological reason that I give is an unspoken truth of the new 'gay rights' movement generally, one that individual gay couples themselves typically wouldn't admit to, or even realize for that matter. And I'm not denying that lots of gay couples want to get married because they love one another, want to 'officially' commit, etc.

[ 16. January 2011, 19:50: Message edited by: Via Media ]

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

Does it actually help if a bunch of straight people talk about this question?

I had visions of going to next week's Sunday School class with 20 heterosexual people conjecturing on "What those gay people over there want" and - for some of us in the room, I'm fairly certain - why the desire for marriage isn't legitimate for them although it is for us.

Personally I'm gonna give more weight to what gay people have to say for themselves.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I think the reasons people want a public acknowledged committment to each other are probably the same spectrum of reasons as everybody else. I think the reasons why marriage as opposed to civil partnership would likely spring from three main issues. Firstly, civil partnership lacks poetry as a phrase, secondly people resent the idea that their relationships are seen as lesser than marriage (and nobody buys separate but equal in this domain anymore than they do anywhere else), thirdly and most saliently to your context - those of us who see marriage as a religious act, the joining by God of two people, want to assert that as the nature of their committed relationship.

If your doing a session on the subject you could always ask them what they think would have happened if David and Jonathan had been culturally able to marry ? Would jealously, sucession etc have been such an issue ?

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Seeker963: Maybe you could use the marriage service from your tradition as a resource. Have everyone read along with the vows: "love, honour, cherish, be faithful" etc. Ask if they think gay people are capable of mutual loving, honouring, cherishing, being faithful, etc.

If your service says something about procreation, you can discuss how strictly that's been honoured as a measure of the purpose of marriage.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

This has been well answered above. Don't know what the nature of your Sunday school is, what part of the world etc., but it is always good to talk.

An additional thing I'll add is that I think all of us want people to commit to relationships in responsible ways. Thus I, as a non-gay person, also want gay people to get married.

While saying this, I admit that my initial take was that they should call it something other than marriage, and it took me probly about 5 years to get over it.

And, I have no idea what the mind of God might be on any specific situation, but if we apply the foundation of the faith - Christian Love - the outcome is pretty obvious.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Well, I think the sociological reason that I give is an unspoken truth of the new 'gay rights' movement generally, one that individual gay couples themselves typically wouldn't admit to, or even realize for that matter. And I'm not denying that lots of gay couples want to get married because they love one another, want to 'officially' commit, etc.

'even realise for that matter'??!!
Yes, Stonewall and other such groups quietly brainwash us - they're a bit like the Borg Collective and LGBTQ folks have obviously been assimilated. Heaven forfend that it might be a conscious choice to want to love and honour one other in a committed and faithful relationship blessed by God. That might be just too radical a thought. Plus it might upset the horses.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for over three years and have been involved, on one level or another, going on eight years. Why do I want to marry him? Because I love him and want to share my life with him in the most intimate way possible. I also want to marry him to protect him if I should die. Sure, I can jump through all kinds of legal hoops to kinda sorta protect him, but anything I do legally could be undone legally as well.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Like your Sunday school class, I'm not gay. I think you can get perfectly decent answers from your straight class, though, if you start by removing the word "gay" from the question.

The question then becomes, "Why do people want to get married?"

The hidden assumption in the original question is that there's some unstated difference between people who are gay and people who are straight which leads to different wants. IME, people tend to want pretty similar things.

And that, my straight friends, is all you need to know.

But let me expand slightly anyway. [Big Grin]

When a child is growing up, he/she sees people getting married LONG before he/she figures out he/she is homosexual. Especially if that child is growing up in church circles.

The cultural norms, ideas and expectations I grew up with about finding the love of my life and marrying them didn't disappear just because I eventually figured out I was attracted to my own gender.

And homosexuals don't spring out of the womb fully sexualised any more than little heterosexuals do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Well, I think the sociological reason that I give is an unspoken truth of the new 'gay rights' movement generally, one that individual gay couples themselves typically wouldn't admit to, or even realize for that matter. And I'm not denying that lots of gay couples want to get married because they love one another, want to 'officially' commit, etc.

Just out of curiosity, what qualifications do you have that enable you to plumb the depths of people you've never met who say they want something for some reason, to where you can tell they're either lying or self-deluded and really want it for some other reason?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Well, to be honest, I never wanted to get married. I always said I didn't, from the time I was really young. But that is probably because there was no such thing as gay in those days, and I was thinking about heterosexual marriage.

I've been single for awhile, and haven't been in a relationship with anybody I wanted to marry for longer than that. So I can't speak as somebody for whom this is a pressing issue. And actually, I was still anti-marriage for a long time! Not anti-gay-marriage, just anti-marriage for me. I'm one of those who thought "you didn't need that piece of paper" - but I think really you do, in many ways. So now I'm not anti- anymore. Now I just need to meet somebody I want to marry and who wants to marry me.

I'm also one of those who don't care what you call it, as long as it's possible for gay people to have a legal partnership. But of course, it's just plain stupid to have two sets of laws that give identical rights - and marriage isn't really sacred in the public sphere, GW Bush notwithstanding.

But I wouldn't have a wedding; I'd just get the piece of paper (!) at City Hall. I'm really kind of a bohemian is why.

So as you can see, gay people can be just as confused and ambivalent about this topic as straight people....! [Smile]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(Sorry, just wanted to clarify. "No such thing as gay in those days." = "You couldn't live an open gay life in those days."

Hyperbole, that's all. I did know I was gay from the time I was about 8, but didn't know you could actually do anything about it. And actually you couldn't at that time....)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
Gay people want to get married because queers (and I don't intent to use the word in the derogatory sense) no longer want to be seen as queer: they want to be accepted by society as 'normal', like everybody else, instead of as a ghettoized element of society. Partaking in the institution of marriage (and having kids, etc.; participating in 'traditional' family life) is probably the most direct means of becoming enfranchised in this way, of validating their identity in the eyes of straight people.

This is the problem with seeing gay people as one great big unanimous bloc. The people who wanted to be seen as 'queer' tend to STILL want to be seen that way. And they're not the ones, by and large, who want to get married.

Despite what your later post seems to indicate you think, there isn't some vast underground gay HQ plotting and planning an official position. Some gays want to get married. Some gays want nothing to do with it and decry it as an institution that is both religious and hopelessly heterosexual.

These days of course, there are plenty of heterosexuals who aren't interested in marriage either. Now, why don't you try attributing their disinterest to their sexuality and see where THAT gets you?

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
These days of course, there are plenty of heterosexuals who aren't interested in marriage either. Now, why don't you try attributing their disinterest to their sexuality and see where THAT gets you?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, to be honest, I never wanted to get married. I always said I didn't, from the time I was really young. But that is probably because there was no such thing as gay in those days, and I was thinking about heterosexual marriage.

I've been single for awhile, and haven't been in a relationship with anybody I wanted to marry for longer than that. So I can't speak as somebody for whom this is a pressing issue. And actually, I was still anti-marriage for a long time! Not anti-gay-marriage, just anti-marriage for me. I'm one of those who thought "you didn't need that piece of paper" - but I think really you do, in many ways. So now I'm not anti- anymore. Now I just need to meet somebody I want to marry and who wants to marry me.

I'm also one of those who don't care what you call it, as long as it's possible for gay people to have a legal partnership. But of course, it's just plain stupid to have two sets of laws that give identical rights - and marriage isn't really sacred in the public sphere, GW Bush notwithstanding.

But I wouldn't have a wedding; I'd just get the piece of paper (!) at City Hall. I'm really kind of a bohemian is why.

So as you can see, gay people can be just as confused and ambivalent about this topic as straight people....!

A lot of that is true for an awful lot of heterosexuals too.

[ 16. January 2011, 23:37: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

(tongue firmly in cheek) Obviously, gays want to get married in order to rescue the institution of marriage from the group who have messed that idea up - the straights.

What with sex-for-recreation (but, since the pill, not procreation), sex before marriage, and high divorce rates, the straights aren't exactly showing the best example!

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

Just to add to this conversation that we have spent two weeks discussing heterosexual marriage, the history of marriage, societies which do not order child-rearing in the way that Western societies have traditionally done, the declining interest of heterosexuals in marriage, etc. etc.

The discussion was far-ranging and not at all confined to "we all have to get married because God said so and this is the best way to raise children".

This is actually a "new" church for me and one of the things I like about it is what goes on in this class. The class has demonstrated to me that this is a church where the lay people are not only well-informed, but they "allow" each other to ask hard theological questions and don't scream heretic when people start using their brains.

I'm hoping we will have a good conversation this coming Sunday.

I don't think that all heterosexual Christians are totally bigoted, brainwashed and unaware of what is going on in the world either. I wouldn't presume to speak for gay people, but I'd actually like to listen.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

To undermine the tradition of marriage and bring down the modern nuclear family of course! Why else could someone want gay marriage?

Seriously, though, I'm bemused by this notion that motivations in gay or straight relationships are any different. I'm female and have been in a few serious relationships with women, and am now in a serious relationship with a man (my first). It's really not that different. I'm aware that in certain circles this change would be seen as me stepping away from a life of wild hedonistic sin towards something that could be blessed, and some people would assume that the relationships would be obviously different in every way. The fact is that I don't really notice any difference except in random moments like when I go to the ladies loos in a shopping centre and he has to wait outside.

[ 17. January 2011, 11:15: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Oh yes, and the following exchange:
Him: We should go swimming together.
Me: Yeah! We could go to the women only session! That's always nice and quiet.
Him: Honey...

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

In (a tiny amount of) fairness to Via Media, I think VM may have been assuming a different question. VM appears to be addressing "Why do gay people want to get married instead of having a civil union or civil partnership?" In that case, some arguments about social acceptance and not wanting to feel "ghettoized" might apply. (Although I don't think I would have expressed it as VM did.)

Others are assuming a different question: "Why do gay people want to get married at all?" This is what I understood to be the question from the person mentioned in the OP.

Funny thing - sometimes this sort of question is based on the assumption of LGBTQ promiscuity, and to me has a kind of tone of envy. "Why would they want to get married when they can have all the sex they want without marriage? Lucky buggers."

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Not really my area of expertise here*, but I think that we seem to risk confusing the general and the personal.

There is a lot of difference between "Why would this group of people want to have equal legal marriage rights to this other group of people?" and "Why would I want to marry my very own darling snuggle-bum?"

One question may be approached with a certain amount of detachment, or at least calmly. The other is about our closest personal relationships, about people we love and it's not surprising that people feel very strongly about it.

For what little it's worth, my answer to the first question is "Why on earth wouldn't they?". To the second, I suppose I'd echo marriage ceremonies on Terry Pratchett's discworld: "Oh well, if you must."

anne

*not my area of expertise because the straight and gay communities have reached unanimity on one point. None of them are fighting for the right to marry me!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Not really my area of expertise here*, but I think that we seem to risk confusing the general and the personal.

There is a lot of difference between "Why would this group of people want to have equal legal marriage rights to this other group of people?" and "Why would I want to marry my very own darling snuggle-bum?"

The problem here is that groups of people don't want anything. Wanting is something that is done by people, not abstract clusters of people. Perhaps the dichotomy you want to make is, the difference between "why does this person want to marry her snuggle-bum" and "why does this person want every gay person to be able to marry their snuggle-bum" -- which phrasing goes a long way to answering the second question.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem here is that groups of people don't want anything. Wanting is something that is done by people, not abstract clusters of people.

You are right, of course, but I hope that my (badly expressed) point still stands. Some of us are posting about a relatively abstract question, (set in a broad theological context,) some of us are posting about an intensely personal issue, (set in the context of our own individual relationships with other people and with God.)

anne
(hoping that I'm helping myself here, fearing that I'm not)

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Having just got married in November, I can say that we got married for mostly reasons that I observe others want to be married:

it's the cultural norm for couples who live in committed relationship
it's a way of stating to family and friends that we are in this for good (we're past the "getting to know you and assessing whether the other is "the one" stage) and that we're officially off the market
I like calling him my "husband"
It provides a convenient handle for our kids (second marriage for both of us) to be able to talk about us -- related to the first point, really.

The question posed nearly treats same-sex couples as some kind of alien "other". We don't think about ourselves in that way. At least, I don't. Stability, fidelity, companionship, loving care -- they all enter into it.

How is that any different from the heterosexual variety? IME, not by a whit. I have the advantage of having been in a marriage relationship with a woman (27 years) so I have a basis for comparison.

Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
I have the advantage of having been in a marriage relationship with a woman (27 years) so I have a basis for comparison.

You certainly spent some time setting up the control case [Biased]

Auntie Doris x

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem here is that groups of people don't want anything. Wanting is something that is done by people, not abstract clusters of people.
You are right, of course, but I hope that my (badly expressed) point still stands. Some of us are posting about a relatively abstract question, (set in a broad theological context,) some of us are posting about an intensely personal issue, (set in the context of our own individual relationships with other people and with God.)

anne
(hoping that I'm helping myself here, fearing that I'm not)

For any gay person, such questions are intensely personal whether we like it that way or not.

It's often the most distressing part of these topics, actually - that heterosexual people for whom this is a completely abstract intellectual exercise are so keen to affect my life.

And I don't even have a snugglebum to marry. I just know that, should I ever be fortunate enough to find the man of my dreams, I don't want extra hurdles in my way. It's hard enough to find the right person to spend your life with as it is!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Addendum: Just to clarify, I didn't mean that THIS thread was distressing. I was speaking in the more abstract general case. [Big Grin]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
You certainly spent some time setting up the control case

We're both stubborn cusses. And I wanted to be sure.

Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
You certainly spent some time setting up the control case
We're both stubborn cusses. And I wanted to be sure.

Indeed. (love you!!!)

Auntie Doris x

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

Thanks, everyone, for some great comments so far.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

To be fair, there is a parallel question of 'Why do pressure groups want the right to gay marriage?' which is often going to be different from the question 'Why does this individual want the right to gay marriage?' At the collective level, there are people and groups who think it terms of demonstrations of equality, normality etc with respect to straight folk.

However, at the individual level I would echo others and say that such political considerations are rarely important - I think I might know a couple of couples where it could be a factor, but generally it comes down to much more old fashioned values of loving and cherishing, having and holding...

(I speak, incidentally, as a gay man who is a very happy and marriage-like relationship, even if we currently have no intention of buying into the institution).

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Why would I want to get married when I get to have great sex, followed by dinner and/or a movie every Saturday night and do what I want to do the rest of the week? But if I ever did want more commitment – and who knows what will happen – I'd want to be able the have the legal protections straight people have. Call it what you will.

(I can remember in my 20s and 30s folks who didn't know I was gay saying 'You ought to get married. You ought to get married.' Then sometime in my 40s I started hearing 'You're so lucky you're not married. You're so lucky you're not married.')

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Why do we want to get married? Call us sentimental, pious saps, but we want to affirm our love and commitment to one another in a public way, and have that affirmation blessed by a representative of the people of God. (Even if the people of God aren't all on board with it...which I'm sure they're not with more than one heterosexual marriage.;-))

Sadly, we want to do this despite the fact that it will have absolutely no impact on our status in the eyes of the law in this state -- the fact that we, unlike heterosexual married couples, have to protect one another legally in a very cumbersome, piecemeal manner that still does not guarantee the protections that heterosexual married couples take for granted. (For instance, I just discovered that my state requires a next-of-kin individual to release a non-legally-married person's body for burial/cremation -- at least as I understand it, I can't leave an advance directive that my partner have that right. (So if I die before she does, she is dependent on, say, my aunt or cousins, people I have NO dealings with, to release my remains for dealing with as I've directed.)

Am I bitter? Yes; I will not deny that...especially because the idiot legislators in my state not only will not entertain the idea of same-sex marriage or even civil union, but have actually inserted language in our state law that, unless overidden at some future date, takes those possibilities right off the board.

My partner and I are planning, at some date later this spring after she's recovered from an upcoming surgery, getting legally married in Ontario, which is only about a three hours' drive away. We've identified a number of churches willing to assist us. We are choosing this route, rather than some type of non-offiical relationship blessing partly because we don't want to get our pastor in trouble with our bishop, and partly because, frankly, we want to experience the dignity of having our relationship taken seriously by a sovereign state, even if it isn't our own.

Again -- yes, I'm bitter. I'm trying -- although no longer as hard as I used to -- to understand how making us go through a complex, circuitous, lawyer-laden, expensive and not entirely foolproof process in order to care for one another in a legal manner as best we can is "protecting" the rest of your marriages. Why does it apparently make many people in my state happy to think that, in the event of my death, my own partner can't take possession of my remains -- that she is dependent upon someone she's never met and someone I have no contact with other than an annual Christmas card, for that most intimate of duties?

That's just a rhetorical question, by the way. I don't think I want to hear an explanation of why God thinks this is a good idea or why this is all necessary to preserve the sanctity of you straight folks' covenanted relationships.

Oh...and I should mention that my partner is a disabled veteran whose pension benefits are not extended to me now, as they are to married partners of disabled veterans. And yet, despite all that -- we're formalizing our commitment as much as we can, even if it requires a stay in another country and even if our resulting marriage isn't recognized back home.

That's for the good Christians out there who've decided that same-sex marriage is all about finances and shared health benefits instead of about love and commitment and responsibility and the shared project of creating and nurturing a family. Oh, no...we couldn't possibly care about all that.

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

Thanks so much for that, LC

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I waver from day to day between feeling positive about our plans -- "Here is our Christian and our civic witness, people -- maybe one day you'll respect it," and simply feeling reactive -- "You can wear us down but you can't defeat us."

I also wanted to mention that our state legislators are also of a mind to punish state-funded institutions that extend employee benefits to same-sex partners.

This anti-gay animus is promoted/funded heavily by the DeVos family of Amway fame, who are from the Grand Rapids area and have insinuated themselves deeply into state politics; also big players in California's Prop 8 referendum. So anyone who purchases their products helps finance this sort of thing.

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I also wanted to mention that our state legislators are also of a mind to punish state-funded institutions that extend employee benefits to same-sex partners.

Morons. Not sure I'm allowed to say that in Dead Horses, but, anyway. Morons.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well said, LutheranChik .

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Question: do supporters of gay marriage see gay marriage as a sacrament?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Of the three gay Christians to whom I'm particularly close (two men, one woman), two believe that gays can and should be able to have their marriages, in the Christian understanding of the word, solemnised in church. The other (one of the men) is adamant that two men/women cannot be married because the sacrament of marriage is that which exists between a man and a woman. Thus, he's entirely happy with civil partnership because it isn't marriage but does express the love, commitment, mutual support, etc., that exists between the couple.

Not sure if that adds anything but it might be of interest.

Thurible

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

My partner and I were married on October 11th 2003 (with a couple of shipmates in attendance, which was lovely). We had a mass in the morning, with a more 'secular' ceremony and reception in the evening for over 180 guests. None of my family is at all religious, and we had a wide mix of people coming, so we wanted the whole event to be as inclusive as possible. We kept to the 'feel' of a traditional wedding, but used readings from Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss. We also borrowed a lot from Quaker traditions, including having a 'time of sharing' rather than any homily or reflection, and also having everyone who attended sign the wedding certificate as witnesses.

It had no legal recognition at all - we're also in Michigan, and did nothing to help my ability as a Brit to stay in America with the person I love. But it was something we knew that we wanted to do. We have exchanged vows in the presence of God and our friends and family, and I certainly believe that without the spiritual grace that came from that day, we would have found things a lot harder over the past seven years - so yes, I certainly think that what we celebrated was sacramental.

We did put some of our thoughts about why we were making this decision on our wedding website which I really do need to go back and finish updating, upload more photos, write more memories etc. But the bottom line is this: there is no other language apart from the language of marriage that expresses the love I have for Terry, the vows and commitments that we wanted to make to each other, the responsibility for loving and caring for each other that we were undertaking. And, as Jonathan Rauch points out, marriage is the only ceremony that we have which creates family and brings more people into relationship and kin than just the couple.

Besides, I just love the look on people's faces when I casually mention 'my wife' [Big Grin]

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

Missed the edit window ... but on re-reading I also wanted to add:

What I wrote was a description of why I wanted to marry Terry. There are also plenty of reasons why I continue to support and argue for the recognition of marriage at a federal/government level. There are all sorts of benefits that a couple gain when they marry which are denied to us. We have had to pay exhorbitant lawyers fees to try and ensure that we don't get hit with tax burdens after one of us dies, and that the estates can be transferred or distributed as necessary.

The big one for me is immigration rights. Any bi-national heterosexual couple who have known each other for 15 minutes can apply for a fiance visa to bring the foreign partner into the United States to work and live permanently. I have spent the past seven years battling to find ways to stay in the country, and cannot take living with my wife for granted. It has made us very grateful for each day we have together - and yet I would love to be able to relax and not have to worry that if I get sick, or my employer can no longer afford to keep me on, then our life together is at risk once more. Full marriage equality would change that (and before anyone asks, immigration is a federal benefit, so getting married in Massachusetts or Canada wouldn't help or change anything). So that's the other piece of my answer to the question of why marriage is important.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

And Inanna's is one of the most important reasons to support legal marriage, I think. I know several couples in her situation, and they are continually stressed over whether or not the Dept. of Immigration is going to allow them to stay together.

You DO need that piece of paper, IOW.

Congrats on your marriage, Inanna - lovely website!

[ 19. January 2011, 13:51: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Ricardus: My own tradition does not consider marriage a sacrament according to our definition of same. For Lutherans sacraments are means of grace specifically instituted by Christ and given specifically to/for the benefit of the Christian community, and we don't understand marriage to qualify under either criterion.

That said...there are many, many aspects of life which, as my old coreligionist Philip Melanchthon noted, have a sacramental quality. And I certainly see my own relationship as being a place in which God's love and care are made real for us in our love and care for one another, as well as a way of living that empowers us to serve God and other people in a different, more united manner. (And in our years together we have found that each of us brings different strengths to the spiritual table that work better together. I have a more contemplative side; she has a more action-oriented justice-and-mercy side.)

So to answer your question: I don't consider marriage per se a sacrament -- but I consider our relationship to have a sacramental quality. And part of wanting our relationship solemnized in a religious ceremony is to acnowledge and celebrate that.

Which, by the way, has nothing to do with civil marriage. For Christians who think it does -- I wonder why your squeamishness toward same-sex civil marriage isn't matched by an equal squeamishness toward heterosexual civil marriages that don't meet up to your tradition's standards for what constitutes a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God as you perceive that.

[ 19. January 2011, 14:23: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: do supporters of gay marriage see gay marriage as a sacrament?

My wife and I support same-sex marriage and we both see marriage as a sacrament in the sense that you mean. So do most of our straight, anglican friends.

So do the two same-sex married (this is Canada) couples we know reasonably well.

John

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: do supporters of gay marriage see gay marriage as a sacrament?

I don't see heterosexual marriage as a sacrament so I don't see homosexual marriage as a sacrament.

As I understand the history of marriage in Europe, marriage was the church's attempt to control warring family clans by declaring that marriage was not supposed to be a union of families but rather a union of two individuals.

As a happily married heterosexual Protestant, I'm cynical about a lot of the "family values" stuff. I'm probably more cynical about the Protestant version than the Catholic version (because the Catholic version has a modicum of history whereas the new Protestant version feels an awful lot like holier-than-thou to me.)

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I'm glad LC mentioned the legal aspects. I live in NZ, and the issue of who gets to make decisions after death was a major driver for law reform. It was particularly poignant for us because our friend Ian committed suicide - his partner of 17 years had to wait three weeks until Ian's sister came back from overseas to be able to retrieve Ian's body. Fortunately Ian's sister is lovely and had a good relationship with the couple, but it could have been otherwise. The coroner agreed that it was awful, but wouldn't do anything until the law changed. [On a tangent, most people don't realise this applies to heterosexual unmarried couples as well.]

It is simply not true that lesbians and gay men can set up the same protections through legal means outside of a civil union or marriage. Every single piece by piece arrangment can be challenged in court. Next of kin status is an absolute (unless you are unfortunate enough to live in a US state where the right was granted then taken away).

I would ask your class to consider that exact thing - how would you like to get married, then have the state disestablish your marriage? Or to have to wait until your (possibly hostile) in laws were ready to retrieve your spouse's body from the coroner.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: do supporters of gay marriage see gay marriage as a sacrament?

No. I see marriage as a sacrament in the church, and a legal partnership in civil society. But I don't see "gay marriage" as anything because that's instantiating something that isn't independent. There is no such thing as "straight marriage" and "gay marriage". There is marriage. The question is if gays are eligible for marriage, not if we should invent some new, never-before-seen separate entity called "gay marriage". "Gay marriage" is merely a shorthand way of saying "marriage between two people of the same sex". Marriage, however, remains marriage, whether of the church variety (which is a sacrament) or of the civil variety (which is not).

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

I just want to echo those who have asked why heterosexuals want to get married. An increasingly relevant question, as single and common-law adults now outnumber married adults in Canada for the first time in history. Thoroughly Modern Marriage OliviaG

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question: do supporters of gay marriage see gay marriage as a sacrament?
No. I see marriage as a sacrament in the church, and a legal partnership in civil society. But I don't see "gay marriage" as anything because that's instantiating something that isn't independent. There is no such thing as "straight marriage" and "gay marriage". There is marriage. The question is if gays are eligible for marriage, not if we should invent some new, never-before-seen separate entity called "gay marriage". "Gay marriage" is merely a shorthand way of saying "marriage between two people of the same sex". Marriage, however, remains marriage, whether of the church variety (which is a sacrament) or of the civil variety (which is not).

Amen.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Thanks to all for your replies.

For the record, I'm coming from the perspective of one who supports the right of gays to get married in church, but whose theology of the sacrament of marriage is fairly incoherent, and I was interested that nobody on the thread had mentioned the sacramental aspect.

What Spike and Mousethief say makes sense to me. My hesitancy arises from two questions:

- Can something be a sacrament if it's not recognised by the Church?

- Historically the church's theology of marriage seems to have been tied fairly closely to procreation. If people still hold to that view, that would suggest that, pace Mousethief, gay marriage is a separate thing from heterosexual marriage -

- however, that assumes either a.) adoption doesn't count, or b.) most gay couples aren't interested in adopting children, which is a fairly massive assumption.

As I say, I don't claim any coherence for my understanding of the sacrament of matrimony ...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
- Historically the church's theology of marriage seems to have been tied fairly closely to procreation.

Yes. Which is something I simply don't understand after closer examination, and have raised before on the Ship to try and understand where it came from. Because I can't see the Biblical basis for such a view.

I can see the basis of it in a concern of noble families in the Middle Ages wanting to make sure their property stays in the bloodline, but that's hardly the same thing as a Biblical basis.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
- Can something be a sacrament if it's not recognised by the Church?

No, by definition.

quote:
- Historically the church's theology of marriage seems to have been tied fairly closely to procreation. If people still hold to that view, that would suggest that, pace Mousethief, gay marriage is a separate thing from heterosexual marriage -

Then you would have to say that marriage between two fertile people is a different sacrament than marriage between two people, one or both of which is infertile. (Whether from surgery, menopause, horrible war accident, or whatever.)

But it isn't. Why is that?

Well if you ask IngoB he might say it's because a woman whose ovaries were removed because of cancer is still open to the possibility of conceiving children, should God so bless her. I do not at all understand this argument, however, so I can't explain how it works.

In the Orthodox Church the answer is that marriage is seen as a path to salvation, which is part of its purpose even if it is reproductively-wise-speaking unproductive. Maybe in traditions where marriage isn't seen this way, it's harder to justify the idea of marriage without procreation; I don't know.

I can't wrap my mind around the logic that says:

1. Gays can't get married because marriage is about making babies.
2. But hetero couples who can't make babies can still get married.

Makes no sense to me at all.

Adoption, as you point out, raises an entirely different set of questions! Of course the anti-gay-marriage crowd will just say gays have no business adopting kids at all, and I think that sometimes there is a subtle circular argument going on:

1. Gays can't get married because marriage is about raising kids
2. Single people shouldn't raise kids
3. Therefore gays shouldn't adopt kids because they can't get married.

That's before you even get into the stuff about gay parents raising their kids so they'll turn out gay, which hardly deserves the courtesy of a response except it's so prevalent.

[ 20. January 2011, 23:01: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Well if you ask IngoB he might say it's because a woman whose ovaries were removed because of cancer is still open to the possibility of conceiving children, should God so bless her. I do not at all understand this argument, however, so I can't explain how it works.

Well, my wife and I are certainly open to the possibility of God blessing us with new life and conceiving children... I always wonder why those who make this line of argument limit the power of the Almighty to only heterosexual couples?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
While saying this, I admit that my initial take was that they should call it something other than marriage, and it took me probly about 5 years to get over it.

And, I have no idea what the mind of God might be on any specific situation, but if we apply the foundation of the faith - Christian Love - the outcome is pretty obvious.

I have been among those who would be quite content to call it something else. Gay marriage is an innovation, in the eyes of the church and in most societies. But to claim this of all approved single-sex partnerships would only display one's ignorance of fact. The one time I met Bishop Robinson, I suggested that we should campaign first to restore the "order of making of brothers." Since this is an old tradition, the traditionalists would be hard-put to oppose it. But he said that, while he used to like this strategy, marriage is better because "separate is not equal."

In the church we could press for Making of Brothers [Sisters]. But this rite was withdrawn from us (and from everyone else) by church authorities in the past for reasons best known to themselves. Whether reviving it now would be more feasible, or acceptable to critics, than marriage is anyone's guess. Peter Akinola, for one, is dead set against any and all (as he has said) ecclesiastical recognition of a same-sex relationships. Which doesn't make him much of a traditionalist, does it, but at this point who cares other than the few who have a sense of grimly comical irony?

And in the secular realm, we could press for domestic partnerships. But the homophobes don't like that either, and have opposed every attempt. So when some now say that they want us to go for that instead of marriage, one has a right to question their sincerity.

The campaign for marriage fell into our laps due to a decision of a court in Hawaii that denying it to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. This decision was ultimately reversed, but it suggested that marriage might be just as feasible as some kind of special status, so why not? Maybe the marriage bed is procrustean... but something is better than nothing.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

I used to think "civil unions" would be ok.

I don't anymore for reasons that Timothy Kincaid explains better than I could.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

"marriage" seems to work just fine in Canada.

John

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
I used to think "civil unions" would be ok.

I don't anymore for reasons that Timothy Kincaid explains better than I could.

Thanks for posting that iGeek - some very helpful stuff there. At our General Assembly in May this year, [Church of Scotland] the question of minsters in same-gender relationships comes back to the floor for discussion again. In the end, I suspect it will all boil down to a legal wrangle over property due to threatened walk-outs. Happy days to look forward to... sigh!

[edited because there are dayz when I can't spel, argh]

[ 02. February 2011, 08:52: Message edited by: joan knox ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

An interesting new poll: Gallup’s Stunning Finding: SSM Majority

quote:
Even to someone fairly jaded about seemingly dramatic poll results, Gallup’s new finding that support for same-sex marriage is now the majority position is breathtaking. The poll finds a huge one-year jump in support, from 44 percent in 2010 to 53 percent this year. If the pollster weren’t Gallup (gold standard), and if The Washington Post/ABC News poll hadn’t come up recently with exactly the same result, I’d suspect this was a fluke. You just don’t normally see attitudes change that much in one year, absent a catalytic event.

Moreover, support for SSM is up among every group: men, women, old, young, etc. Well, every group but one. The only group among which support for SSM hasn’t grown: Republicans. They continue to oppose it by better than three to one.

[ 20. May 2011, 20:41: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
An interesting new poll: Gallup’s Stunning Finding: SSM Majority

quote:
Even to someone fairly jaded about seemingly dramatic poll results, Gallup’s new finding that support for same-sex marriage is now the majority position is breathtaking. The poll finds a huge one-year jump in support, from 44 percent in 2010 to 53 percent this year. If the pollster weren’t Gallup (gold standard), and if The Washington Post/ABC News poll hadn’t come up recently with exactly the same result, I’d suspect this was a fluke. You just don’t normally see attitudes change that much in one year, absent a catalytic event.

Moreover, support for SSM is up among every group: men, women, old, young, etc. Well, every group but one. The only group among which support for SSM hasn’t grown: Republicans. They continue to oppose it by better than three to one.

Given that, this seems remarkably ill timed.

quote:
It's now up to voters to decide whether to ban gay marriage in Minnesota.

After nearly six hours of emotional debate, a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman was approved in the Minnesota House late Saturday night. It was the last legislative step needed to put the question on the statewide ballot in November 2012.

State law already prohibits gay marriage, but supporters of the proposed amendment said it's necessary to prevent judges or lawmakers from legalizing it in the future. Opponents said the constitution should be used to expand rights, not limit them, and predicted a long, divisive debate over the next 18 months.

Of course, maybe the proponents of the referendum are counting on a low turnout among young voters, who are most likely to vote against such a measure. After all, it's not as if there's anyone with a track record of turning out the youth vote who's going to be on the general election ballot in 2012.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

There's an interesting article about the Minnesota thing here. An excerpt:

quote:
I have never seen anything quite like the Minnesota House debate over the proposal to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment passed last night, 70-62.

....

While Joe Jervis says, “The vote came after impassioned debate by legislators on both sides,” in fact there was no debate at all. Every member who spoke opposed the amendment – and did I mention that went on for over five hours?

The only voice in support was the amendment’s author, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who had no backup from anyone in his party. And even he never weighed in on why it might be good to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. His argument was about the virtue of legislative abdication. This shouldn’t be our decision, it belongs to the voters. In his cameo speaking role, he kept repeating that his opinion on same-sex couples, were he to have one, would be irrelevant to his authoring of the amendment. The proposal wasn’t about same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, or, really much of anything at all.

It's interesting; the writer of the article says that "This is what the public discussion of gay equality has come to on the right, a combination of cowardice and embarrassment. "

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

The situation in Minnesota is an embarrassment. It's my hope that it just gets the Repubs voted out - that being said, two of my new heroes are Republicans who spoke against the amendment.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Returning to the "sacramental" point:

I'm a Methodist and marriage isn't considered sacramental within our tradition (we've only two sacraments: baptism and communion).

So when you posed the question about whether "gay marriage was "sacramental", it really struck me as missing the point.

Like MT so eloquently put it, I think we can speak of marriage and it's attributes in the civil and religious realms.

I don't believe anybody is really striving to create a new thing called "gay marriage" separate from what we understand as marriage. That's rather what I understand "civil unions" to be; an attempt, I fear, at a "separate but equal" designation that fails for the same reasons other "separate but equal" projects like Jim Crow laws and Apartheid have failed. We have history that tells us it's a wrong-headed approach with failed results but we try to apply it to this "problem" as some kind of fudge.

Fundamentally, we simply want to have the same access to civil marriage to the person of one's choice that any other citizen has.

Whether our particular faith communities would recognize and/or celebrate our marriages is really an issue for each faith community to sort out for themselves. That's no different than the status quo with regards to each faith community exercising it's own discretion about whether two people should be joined or not.

For myself and my faith community, I view the theology being around the joining of two people's lives together; a couple discovering ways of growing in Christ in a union with another person that stretches and teaches in unique ways. The union could be open to the possibility of children based on the discernment of the couple -- with a same-sex couple, deciding to have a family is generally a much more intentional decision. Yet more spiritual stretching and growing!

Again, like MT, I'm suspicious of the perspective that marriage is about procreation and family because we don't proscribe marriage to people who cannot or choose not to procreate or have children and there are opposite-sex couples who choose to have children in the same ways that same-sex couples do (surrogacy, adoption, etc.).

People who are against marriage for same-sex couples, I suspect, simply believe that opposite-sex love is better and superior to same-sex love. I imagine they don't want to say that quite that bluntly when arguing their case in the public square but I'm clear that's the basis of their arguments.

In the realm of religion, the arguments can be made about superiority one way or another as faith communities figure out what they want to do but I don't think it has a place in the civil marriage debate.

The relative superiority or inferiority of the love between two people has never been a criteria for civil marriage. The criteria is two, unencumbered people of majority age who have the wherewithal to make the decision.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

[Overused]

I was going to quote a particular paragraph of iGeek's post, but then I found another paragraph I wanted to quote, and another, and another.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Frankly, I suspect SSM opposition comes down to a failure of imagination.

The first failure of imagination is equating marriage with sexuality, e.g., marriage legitimizes sexual activity, so therefore That's What Marriage Is Really About -- not companionship, not procreation, not sharing work or money or enjoyment, not teaming up to face life's challenges with somebody who'll get your back, etc. Just sex.

The second failure of imagination is that MY sex (that is, the sexual activity I engage in) is fine, but other forms of sex make me go all queasy inside, and therefore they must be Wrong and Nobody Should Ever Do Them, and anyone who does is obviously flying in the face of what God and/or Nature intended.

So basically, opposition comes down to the same ol' same ol': SSM legitimizes something that makes me squirm; therefore it Must Be Wrong.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I don't think that's at all fair. I'll admit to having doubts about same sex marriage in a church context (as opposed to the blessing of same sex relationships). I also have friends who would vote against same sex civil marriage.

Firstly, sexuality (and the possibility of procreation, which is a huge part of sexuality) ARE pretty central to marriage. Its the sexual dimension which distinguishes marriage from other forms of close, life long companionship.

Secondly, same gender sex is not my personally cup of tea, but I'm not terribly grossed out by it and I don't think for a moment that the ick factor is a useful barometer of whether something's right or wrong.

[ 06. June 2011, 14:37: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Firstly, sexuality (and the possibility of procreation, which is a huge part of sexuality) ARE pretty central to marriage. Its the sexual dimension which distinguishes marriage from other forms of close, life long companionship.

Yet I've never heard people wanting to forbid the marriages of 70 year olds. They happen more and more these days although they may have less sex than they would have had 50 years ago and will certainly not be having children together. Does that mean our national morals are a disaster? Maybe it just means some couples will be happy together? I see no reason why the marriage of two same sex people would be less productive than that of two 70 year olds and quite a few why it would be more.

(And I say that without worrying much about offending any elderly people on the ship because I truly intend absolutely no criticism of those who choose to get married at 70+.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I don't think that's at all fair. I'll admit to having doubts about same sex marriage in a church context (as opposed to the blessing of same sex relationships). I also have friends who would vote against same sex civil marriage.

Firstly, sexuality (and the possibility of procreation, which is a huge part of sexuality) ARE pretty central to marriage. Its the sexual dimension which distinguishes marriage from other forms of close, life long companionship.

Secondly, same gender sex is not my personally cup of tea, but I'm not terribly grossed out by it and I don't think for a moment that the ick factor is a useful barometer of whether something's right or wrong.

In case of misunderstanding: I am by no means claiming that the "ick factor" IS a useful barometer of right or wrong; quite the contrary. I am claiming that some people probably use it this way, consciously or unconsciously, though.

The possibility of procreation through sexual activity is certainly a core issue for many heterosexual couples in OR out of marriage. In fact, it may be MORE of an issue for unmarried couples than for married ones, at least among those who still regard the "legitimacy" of offspring as important/valuable.

However, I also think that many people confuse or conflate the legitimizing of offspring with the legitimizing of sexual activity (in evidence of same, I am posting from a country where Planned Parenthood estimates that nearly 50% of all pregnancies are "unplanned").

In this day and age, the two phenomena -- sex and procreation -- have effectively been disconnected through medical technology and ordinary practice; they need not be (though apparently still frequently are) related to each other.

[ 06. June 2011, 17:41: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Firstly, sexuality (and the possibility of procreation, which is a huge part of sexuality) ARE pretty central to marriage.

Not "are" (or "is") but "were" (or "was"). Sex and procreation have been separate things for 50 years, give or take, now. Marriage as an institution has been evolving over the course of history. Oh, it's evolving again. Surprise.

quote:
Its the sexual dimension which distinguishes marriage from other forms of close, life long companionship.

Yup. I have sex with my husband and I'm in agreement that dimension distinguishes our relationship as something special.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Firstly, sexuality (and the possibility of procreation, which is a huge part of sexuality) ARE pretty central to marriage.
Not "are" (or "is") but "were" (or "was"). Sex and procreation have been separate things for 50 years, give or take, now. Marriage as an institution has been evolving over the course of history. Oh, it's evolving again. Surprise.

Whoa, wait. Leaving aside procreation, are you saying sex no longer has anything to do with marriage? Cos that's silly.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ Judging by the rest of iGeek's post, I don't think that's what he was saying. I think what he was challenging was the proposition that procreation was a central part of sexuality.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Judging by the rest of iGeek's post, I don't think that's what he was saying. I think what he was challenging was the proposition that procreation was a central part of sexuality.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. And of course that's true; the "sexual revolution" was in large part made possible by the Pill, which uncoupled (pun intended) sex from reproduction, if not perfectly, quite significantly.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

I can't agree that "sex and procreation are separate things." I think that for women at least, they are always linked, and always will be (except, of course, for exceptions such as same-sex sex and sex in which at least one partner is known to be infertile).

Birth control isn't 100% effective - even when it's used 100% of the time (which it's not). Women - even gay women - are very aware of this. This might account for the varied points of view on this very thread, in fact.

[ 09. June 2011, 14:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(Of course, I guess that could be just me; maybe other women have different opinions. Would be interested to know, actually....)

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't agree that "sex and procreation are separate things." I think that for women at least, they are always linked, and always will be (except, of course, for exceptions such as same-sex sex and sex in which at least one partner is known to be infertile).

Birth control isn't 100% effective - even when it's used 100% of the time (which it's not). Women - even gay women - are very aware of this. This might account for the varied points of view on this very thread, in fact.

Not 100% effective, no. But massively more efective than anything widely available prior to 1850 or so.

The Pill and its analogues effectively put a woman statistically in charge (should she wish to use this medical technology), for the first time in human history, over which of her male partners procreate.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Birth control isn't 100% effective - even when it's used 100% of the time (which it's not). Women - even gay women - are very aware of this.

Most (many) women in their 20s-50s may be, but I wouldn't gamble my reproductive health on it. A lot of teenage girls probably aren't, even if their parents allow them to stay in class for sex education lessons. Plus all the news stories about infertility suggest that getting pregnant is harder than you might think so they are more likely to fall for the 'can't get pregnant if you only do it once' myth.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't agree that "sex and procreation are separate things." I think that for women at least, they are always linked, and always will be (except, of course, for exceptions such as same-sex sex and sex in which at least one partner is known to be infertile).

Birth control isn't 100% effective - even when it's used 100% of the time (which it's not). Women - even gay women - are very aware of this. This might account for the varied points of view on this very thread, in fact.
Not 100% effective, no. But massively more efective than anything widely available prior to 1850 or so.

The Pill and its analogues effectively put a woman statistically in charge (should she wish to use this medical technology), for the first time in human history, over which of her male partners procreate.

Except that a woman has to actually use them. And the very fact that she does (and must, and must remember to) gives the lie to the idea that "sex and reproduction are separate things." They're just not. The pill - and other contraceptives used by women - have side effects, as well.

And of course, there are over a million abortions every year, too, which points to the reality of what's happening.

The point is that women are and have to be aware of a very real connection between sex and reproduction.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(Sorry, meant to say "there are over a million abortions in the U.S. every year."

There are lots more than that worldwide.)

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

As Orfeo intuited, I didn't mean to infer that sex wasn't part of marriage. In fact, in the not-quoted follow-up paragraph I made precisely the opposite point in my own situation (as one of a same-sex married couple).

I was asserting that sex and procreation are separate things and that for many couples in developed countries (regardless of gender mix), procreation is an intentional decision.

Quite apart from that, in my cultural context the validity of a marriage isn't predicated on whether children are involved.

Rather, "lifelong committed relationships characterized by `fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God' " is more operative. I expect that to result in a range of physical intimacies but I can imagine marriage relationships that do not. Sex is a strong marker of a marriage relationship but not, in my mind, essential.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Let's not forget that contraception is becoming more and more divorced from sex. If you have to remember condoms for every encounter that may keep the risks in your mind, and of course, remembering to take a pill each day keeps it in the back of your mind (though it's not as obviously connected with the act itself as condoms are). However, an increasing number of women are going for long term methods such as coils and contraceptive implants which require nothing more than a visit to a clinic every few years, thus taking contraception off the agenda entirely as a day to day concern. I imagine these are set to grow in popularity in years to come, not least because they are so much more reliable than other methods.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that women are and have to be aware of a very real connection between sex and reproduction.

Much more so than men, certainly! Men don't have to worry about getting pregnant; sex for them needn't have any long-term repercussions at all, to which witness the pandemic of "deadbeat dads." Indeed it is a measure of how well or poorly a given man associates sex with reproduction to ask whether he intends to stay and help take care of a possible resulting child from the liaison. Which is one of the important reasons for marriage (at least according to Oscar Wilde in "Our Town"!).

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Let's not forget that contraception is becoming more and more divorced from sex. If you have to remember condoms for every encounter that may keep the risks in your mind, and of course, remembering to take a pill each day keeps it in the back of your mind (though it's not as obviously connected with the act itself as condoms are). However, an increasing number of women are going for long term methods such as coils and contraceptive implants which require nothing more than a visit to a clinic every few years, thus taking contraception off the agenda entirely as a day to day concern. I imagine these are set to grow in popularity in years to come, not least because they are so much more reliable than other methods.

Perhaps true - but many of these methods DO have side effects, and that likely won't change. And women often have to switch between methods and then have times when they are fertile. And some women won't have the money to pay for them.

The point, really, is that women are NEVER able to say breezily that "sex is separate from reproduction." It's just not true; women ALWAYS have to consider the reproductive reality.

I mean, consider the fact that you didn't mention any similar long-term methods for men! That's interesting right there, don't you think? Women are the ones expected to take both the risk and responsibility for the reproductive reality of heterosexual sex. I think this has to be acknowledged, that's all - and I think denying it is something of a bad argument for same-sex marriage. It's quite a big deal, I think.

[ 13. June 2011, 15:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Vasectomy.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Vasectomy.

Permanent. I mean, I could just as well say, "Hysterectomy."

I mean, are you arguing that men are using this method for birth control before having kids? I doubt it very, very strongly - but they still want to have sex.

[ 13. June 2011, 22:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Vasectomy.
Permanent. I mean, I could just as well say, "Hysterectomy."

Or "tubal ligation".

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I mean, are you arguing that men are using this method for birth control before having kids? I doubt it very, very strongly - but they still want to have sex.

Ummm, people still use contraception after they've had kids.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Yes, I'm making the point that it's hard to believe that vasectomy - since it's permanent - is ever used as a normal method of birth control in young people, or at least before people have kids. A young man would not use it, just as a young woman would not get sterilized - but the young woman still has to deal with contraception if she's going to have sex.

In fact, this blog post points out that the worldwide rate of vasectomy is very low - and that it's one-fifth the rate of female sterilization (I guess either via hysterectomy or tubal ligation). A few things could account for that, I guess: some of these sterilizations in women could be for medical reasons; the female reproductive system is much more complicated and more can go wrong. But it's a surprising statistic to me, even so. (The post also calls vasectomy "highly underutilized.")

Anyway, my point was that sterilization is likely not the contraceptive method used when both men and women are most likely to want to have lots of sex.

[ 14. June 2011, 12:30: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0