Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not sure what you mean by whether I "take them into account."

Take for example a bisexual woman who has a child - or children - with a husband, and then becomes widowed. Say she falls in love with a woman a couple of years later and wishes to marry her.

That's one of the various scenarios where bisexuality enters the fray of same sex marriage. My question is do you consider situations like this in the same picture as gays and lesbians in regards to same sex marriage?

Thanks for the feedback.

No problem.

 

[McBell]

If you suppose that the (arbitrary) criterion for marriage is just "seeking to marry" then you'd be, in principle, committed to allowing any configuration of individuals who "seek to marry" to be able to "marry."

STILL waiting for you to present a legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Take for example a bisexual woman who has a child - or children - with a husband, and then becomes widowed. Say she falls in love with a woman a couple of years later and wishes to marry her.

That's one of the various scenarios where bisexuality enters the fray of same sex marriage. My question is do you consider situations like this in the same picture as gays and lesbians in regards to same sex marriage?

Well I don't think it makes sense of two people of the same-sex "marrying" one another. For marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. No other union is similar to this insofar as this is the only sort of union that is essentially ordered towards procreation. On a more practical note, I'd say that the widow has an obligation to her children to find a husband so that the children may be provided a relationship with both a mother and a father -- even if a stepfather -- for the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes.

In light of this, you'll see many supporters of ssm accept the (obviously false) supposition that men and women are interchangeable and that there is no difference between a man and a woman, mother or a father.

No problem.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

And explain to me how any of those hypothetical scenarios would be enough of a problem to stop same-sex couples from getting married.

What the heck are you saying brother? This just doesn't make sense. I don't know what you are asking me.

I mean, as it stands right now (and as long as everyone involved consented), there would be nothing stopping siblings, a polyamorous group, or an entire town from all adopting each other. This fact hasn't been an obstacle to allowing adoption; why should it be an obstacle to same-sex marriage?

Source? I highly doubt that. Adoption is tedious. And it's no surprise that is! For adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not with just any irresponsible couple.

Edit: just so you're aware, "seeking to marry" is not my only criterion for marriage. It's also not arbitrary - you aren't in favour of forced marriages, are you?

[/QUOTE]

Could you get the point instead of asking me rhetorical questions?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I'm fine with any two consenting adults. Their reasons for wanting to marry are their own business, not mine.

Alas the absurd is embraced. And not even consistently, at any rate. See, the only reason that marriage has been limited to two people has been precisely because of the union between a man and a woman and its inherent link with children. Now, supporters of ssm will want to have nothing to do with talk of children and procreation (lest they admit that their position is groundless), so they will do away with any sort of procreative criterion. But there lies the rub; if you do away with the procreative criterion, then you have no non-arbitrary way to restrict "marriage" to just two people. For, if marriage just is the recognizing of "loving commitments," then logic demands that, say, 5 individuals who are "lovingly committed" should be able to "marry." Indeed, there simply is no non-arbitrary way to disallow any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry." So logic demands that you would be committed to, say, allowing 50 individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry." Or the entire state of California to be able to "marry," and so forth. In principle, there would be no non-arbitrary basis for disallowing any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to "marry."

 

[Alceste]

Alas the absurd is embraced. And not even consistently, at any rate. See, the only reason that marriage has been limited to two people has been precisely because of the union between a man and a woman and its inherent link with children. Now, supporters of ssm will want to have nothing to do with talk of children and procreation (lest they admit that their position is groundless), so they will do away with any sort of procreative criterion. But there lies the rub; if you do away with the procreative criterion, then you have no non-arbitrary way to restrict "marriage" to just two people. For, if marriage just is the recognizing of "loving commitments," then logic demands that, say, 5 individuals who are "lovingly committed" should be able to "marry." Indeed, there simply is no non-arbitrary way to disallow any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry." So logic demands that you would be committed to, say, allowing 50 individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry." Or the entire state of California to be able to "marry," and so forth. In principle, there would be no non-arbitrary basis for disallowing any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to "marry."

You're back to defending a position that would require marriage to be banned for childless heterosexuals, I see.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You're back to defending a position that would require marriage to be banned for childless heterosexuals, I see.

That's it? That's your reply? I'll give you another chance to actually respond. But allow me to answer this objection once again.

An infertile man can marry a woman (or vice versa) because all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result. The state still takes an interest in these marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Infertility is a tragic defect, but calling something a defect only makes sense if it ought to be working a certain way to begin with.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well I don't think it makes sense of two people of the same-sex "marrying" one another. For marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. No other union is similar to this insofar as this is the only sort of union that is ordered towards procreation. On a more practical note, I'd say that the widow has an obligation to her children to find a husband so that the children may be provided a relationship with both a mother and a father -- even if a stepfather -- for the differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes.

I disagree. The order for procreation is for sperm to fertilize an egg, and for the resulting zygote to have conditions necessary to gestate into a fetus that becomes viable. Gender and biological sex IMO has little to do with that. Human females are rare, indeed, given that we have a menstrual cycle rather than an estrus cycle, and have the ability to mate at any time - including when we are infertile. Post-menopausal women continue to have sex well past the times when we are fertile.

In light of this, you'll see many supporters of ssm accept the (obviously false) supposition that men and women are interchangeable and that there is no difference between a man and a woman, mother or a father.

I don't. I'm attracted to both genders, and I find a difference between the two. .... I do, however, find more overlap than not, and there are elements of imposed cultural gender roles along with hormonal biological differences.

My understanding is that children do better in households where there are two parents/guardians more so than single parent/guardian households. More likely because our economic model requires us to separate our work life from our home life and our school life. It's a relief to know that children fare as well if they are raised by a mother and their grandmother in the same household, or a father and their uncle, as the man and woman who provided the sperm and the egg....whether they get along or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What the heck are you saying brother?

Don't call me "brother".

This just doesn't make sense. I don't know what you are asking me.

I'm asking you to address a few things:

- would legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily lead to any of the consequences you listed off?
- how often would they happen if they were legal?
- how bad would they be if they did happen?

Source? I highly doubt that.

Source for what? That abortion is legal?

Adoption is tedious. And it's no surprise that is! For adoption exists to provide children with the parents they need, not with just any irresponsible couple.

I was referring to adult adoption, which is legal in many places. The point of adult adoption isn't to provide children with parents.

Could you get the point instead of asking me rhetorical questions?

I made my point: that it's not arbitrary to only grant marriage to people who seek it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know, Sovereign Dream... I get the distinct feeling that what you truly want is to express your passionate feelings of rejection of what you see as illegitimate marriage.

Maybe it is unfair of me to think that, but it sure is how your writing comes across.

Expressing passionate feelings is all fair and good. I sure can't claim to never have needed it.

I will however advise you to attempt to seek either that expression or feedback from others at any given time. Seeking both at the same time is not likely to work well.

It is ok if you have to brace and shield yourself before asking for feedback. It can be a taxing task, and all the more worthwhile for it.

Just try to be aware of whether you want to listen or to be heard at any given moment, and do not confuse the two if it turns out that you need to choose.

Alas the absurd is embraced. And not even consistently, at any rate.

It is true that many marriages are indeed absurd. Then again, it is a very personal matter, and it can be very difficult for those from outside to accurately tell whether any given pairing makes sense as a marriage or not.

See, the only reason that marriage has been limited to two people has been precisely because of the union between a man and a woman and its inherent link with children.

That may well be true for many people. It demonstrably isn't always true.

You may attempt to show why it should be always true, why such a conception of marriage centered on the idea of a nuclear family is definitely superior to all others. Assuming that anyone else takes that as a given is not likely to help your case, though.

Now, supporters of ssm will want to have nothing to do with talk of children and procreation (lest they admit that their position is groundless), so they will do away with any sort of procreative criterion. But there lies the rub; if you do away with the procreative criterion, then you have no non-arbitrary way to restrict "marriage" to just two people.

Marriages are always arbitrary. That is their reason for being, you know.

Heck, I often kid that all marriages are discriminatory. And it is true, too: one is hard-pressed to find even a single person who does not give differentiated treatment to his or her spouse

For, if marriage just is the recognizing of "loving commitments," then logic demands that, say, 5 individuals who are "lovingly committed" should be able to "marry."

Which they should. We will probably reach that point someday.

Indeed, there simply is no non-arbitrary way to disallow any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry."

Yep.

And that is not a problem.

So logic demands that you would be committed to, say, allowing 50 individuals who are "lovingly committed" to be able to "marry." Or the entire state of California to be able to "marry," and so forth. In principle, there would be no non-arbitrary basis for disallowing any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to "marry."

True.

Why does it incense you so much that marriages are inherently arbitrary?

 

[LuisDantas]

This was meant for Alceste, but I will jump in anyway. Sorry if it is inconvenient for either of you two.

(...)

An infertile man can marry a woman (or vice versa) because all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects.

You realize that this is as vague and arbitrary a distinction as they come, right? I'm fairly certain that there is no magical force resulting from just the simple fact that a couple of adults of opposite genders that makes then somehow "entitled for marriage".

If I understood what you mean by "capable of engaging in the kind of act that unites them", it must follow that you either have a very mechanical view of what would make a marriage "possible" - a view which I find most unadvisable, mind you - or you are very optimistic indeed about the emotional consequences of having opposite genders in and of itself.

Quite frankly, I don't think you have considered the matter with a lot of depth or seriousness at all.

In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result.

Are you truly saying that a marriage is only legitimate when the couple is willing to have children? That is a very exotic definition of marriage, I hope you realize that. Also a less-than-fair one, to say the least.

The state still takes an interest in these marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Infertility is a tragic defect, but calling something a defect only makes sense if it ought to be working a certain way to begin with.

A legal definition of marriage that demands an effort to breed would be both exceedingly arbitrary, redundant, unneeded and inappropriate, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An infertile man can marry a woman (or vice versa) because all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively.

If you want to engage in a pivmo-centric worldview, that's your business, but what possible justification can you have to make this the be-all and end-all of marriage... especially since there's absolutely nothing in the laws of your country or mine forbidding sex or procreation outside of marriage?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I disagree.

Disagree with what?

The order for procreation is for sperm to fertilize an egg, and for the resulting zygote to have conditions necessary to gestate into a fetus that becomes viable. Gender and biological sex IMO has little to do with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the order for procreation." Furthermore, what do you mean that "gender and biological sex has little to do with that [ostensibly, procreation]"? It's quite obvious how gender has to do with procreation.

Human females are rare, indeed, given that we have a menstrual cycle rather than an estrus cycle, and have the ability to mate at any time - including when we are infertile. Post-menopausal women continue to have sex well past the times when we are fertile.

Human females are rare? What?

I don't. I'm attracted to both genders, and I find a difference between the two. .... I do, however, find more overlap than not, and there are elements of imposed cultural gender roles along with hormonal biological differences.

My understanding is that children do better in households where there are two parents/guardians more so than single parent/guardian households. More likely because our economic model requires us to separate our work life from our home life and our school life. It's a relief to know that children fare as well if they are raised by a mother and their grandmother in the same household, or a father and their uncle, as the man and woman who provided the sperm and the egg....whether they get along or not.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Why does it incense you so much that marriages are inherently arbitrary?

Except that, unlike the view of the supporter of ssm (which you concede is arbitrary), the view of marriage I endorse is not at all arbitrary!

Que viva Brazil.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except that, unlike the view of the supporter of ssm (which you concede is arbitrary), the view of marriage I endorse is not at all arbitrary!

I must assume that you failed to understand my post entirely.

What part of "marriage is always inherently arbitrary" do you have trouble in understanding?

Que viva Brazil.

Dude, you would be hard pressed to find someone less attached to the concept of nationality than me. Nor is it even relevant to this discussion anyway.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You realize that this is as vague and arbitrary a distinction as they come, right? I'm fairly certain that there is no magical force resulting from just the simple fact that a couple of adults of opposite genders that makes then somehow "entitled for marriage".

The reason the government has an interest in opposite-sex couples is because they are precisely the kind of union that is essentially procreative in nature.

If I understood what you mean by "capable of engaging in the kind of act that unites them", it must follow that you either have a very mechanical view of what would make a marriage "possible" - a view which I find most unadvisable, mind you - or you are very optimistic indeed about the emotional consequences of having opposite genders in and of itself.

Not sure what you're saying.

Quite frankly, I don't think you have considered the matter with a lot of depth or seriousness at all.Are you truly saying that a marriage is only legitimate when the couple is willing to have children? That is a very exotic definition of marriage, I hope you realize that. Also a less-than-fair one, to say the least.

No, not the willingness to have children; the inherent capacity to have children.

A legal definition of marriage that demands an effort to breed would be both exceedingly arbitrary, redundant, unneeded and inappropriate, though.

I agree; I don't support such supposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Human females are rare? What?

They're rare compared to other mammals. Most other mammals go into heat only when fertile. Humans are one of the few animals that still have a sex drive when the female is infertile and that doesn't show outward signs of ovulation.

If human sexuality was "intrinsically ordered" to procreation, we wouldn't be this way. We can see plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where sex only happens when there's the potential to conceive... humans aren't one of them.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

What part of "marriage is always inherently arbitrary" do you have trouble in understanding?

What part of "that's only conditionally true" do you have trouble in understanding?

I didn't bother responding to the rest because it was mostly an unintelligible mess. I'm not sure if English being your second language (as in my case) or sloppy thinking is to blame.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason the government has an interest in opposite-sex couples is because they are precisely the kind of union that is essentially procreative in nature.

To the extent that it is even true, it is a mistake.

Not sure what you're saying.

That the pivno (thanks, Penguin) view that you offer does not hold much water at all.

No, not the willingness to have children; the inherent capacity to have children.

Have you ever heard of a society where sterile men or women (e.g., those past the reproductive age) were forbidden to marry?

Are you proposing that such societies should be the norm?

I agree; I don't support such supposition.

Your alternative isn't much better at all.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

They're rare compared to other mammals. Most other mammals go into heat only when fertile. Humans are one of the few animals that still have a sex drive when the female is infertile and that doesn't show outward signs of ovulation.

If human sexuality was "intrinsically ordered" to procreation, we wouldn't be this way. We can see plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where sex only happens when there's the potential to conceive... humans aren't one of them.

I'm not saying that "human sexuality" is intrinsically ordered towards procreation; I'm saying that the sexual union between a man and a woman is ordered towards procreation. The very fact that you have to take measures to prevent pregnancy (e.g. contraception) is evidence of this obviousity.