GibburtThe gay marriage: All animals are equal but some are (apparently) more equal than others
If you would want to defend that you have a certain right, but you would not want to extend that same right to your neigbor, there is an easy strategy to follow: first find a distinguishing quality between you and your neighbor. This should not be too difficult since everybody differs from one another in all kinds of aspects. An example could be that the neighbor wears glasses. Then you take that feature and argue that because of this feature he should not be allowed to have this right, for example people with glasses are not allowed to use the public bus system. And presto no more people with glasses on public buses (this last step of course will only work if you can convince enough other people of your idea).
Obviously the above can be a very valid way of reasoning but only – and I mean only – if the feature selected is related to the right under discussion. In other words it would be nonsense to provide a student loan to someone who is not studying.
Something similar happened here. Attempting to speak out against the gay marriage, this blogger argued that the state ratifies heterosexual marriages, because of the ability of heterosexual couples to have children. Thus it follows that, since homosexual couples are unable to have children, it would make no sense if they would have the right to get married. One of my objections here is, that if this line of argument was to be followed consistently, it would mean that heterosexual couples without children should not have the right to be married either.
More importantly however is the question whether the ability to have children should be a valid argument in the first place, because in my view marriage is lot more than just the creation of another unit for baby production. Among other things it is the public confirmation of your partner choice and I do not see why one’s sexual orientation should have an influence on the right to thi public confirmation. Of course I will not deny that having children is a very common follow-up to marriage, but so is buying a house. Does this mean that next I will be denied the opportunity to marry if I cannot afford to buy a house?
We have spent the better part of mankind’s long existence fighting about which race, religion, class or preference is better than the other. Can’t we at least agree that in those cases where we have to differentiate, we will do it with care?
yeah, let’s make it a law that as soon as the wife reaches menopause, the marriage is revoked.
You think the only purpose of marriage is to publicly announce that you want to be with your partner?
no Lisa, the most important reason why people marry is that they receive great tax benefits
Lisa,
I think marriage has many reasons but through the eyes of the state (and thats what matters when it comes to ratification of the marriage by the state ) there is a practical aspect to marriage (you know the contract which says what happens when one partner dies, or when a baby is born etc….) and a public aspect which – in my eyes – revolves around the confirmation of the state of your partner choice.
I agree Robert, and it’s the public aspect that raises the question: why has the state been supporting the institute of marriage throughout the ages? There are probably hundreds of possible constellations for people to join together, but only the specific “one female, one male” has been the cornerstone of Western society.
At this moment I have no clear or comprehensive explanation for this, but my thoughts go in the direction of control and stability. Maybe I’d like to elaborate on this tomorrow, or maybe you can explain why the state would care to confirm what partner I choose.
Cedric,
It is not so much that the State should care about which partner you choose (of course the sate does as recognized by the fact that the same sex marriage is still illegal in most countries), but that the State publicly accepts you and your partner is being part of it. I think you are right that the States true interest lies in stability, but marriage is one of the many tools the state has for that. According to many psychologists companionship is a very fundamental need for us and by publicly accepting the fulfillment of that need I think the State furthers its own goals of stability.
Interesting thought. I guess those psychologists didn’t read Plato
I was thinking along these lines:
Before there were any reliable tools for birth control, marriage almost automatically means children. Especially where this was combined with a (christian) doctrine of sex being exclusive to marriage.
People with small children tend to be less prone to take risks. You just don’t want to end up in jail for protesting against the gov if you have a few mouths to feed. (protesters in conflict areas are mostly teens or early tweens) People with children rather wait ’till the storm is over.
So this could be a reason why the state rather has people with children than without.
[...] 5 1. Russia still loves Stalin 2. The gay marriage: All animals are equal but some are more equal than others 3. Giving 4.The fall of the DSB bank 5. Succes, [...]