|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why do gay people want to get married?
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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).
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Amen.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
"marriage" seems to work just fine in Canada.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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. "
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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+.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ 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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Of course, I guess that could be just me; maybe other women have different opinions. Would be interested to know, actually....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Sorry, meant to say "there are over a million abortions in the U.S. every year."
There are lots more than that worldwide.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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"!).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
Vasectomy.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
