Thursday, October 12, 2017

One argument for gay marriage

Historically, people in society depended upon successful reproduction. Hence, barren women were considered cursed (though in the Bible they ended up getting pregnant eventually, starting with Sarah). Think about how people were taken care of in their old age before Social Security. An underpopulated country would be less able to defend itself in a war, for example. But now, this isn't the case. We don't feel that reproductive success is necessary for our happiness, and the world is getting overpopulated. It doesn't bother me that I have only stepchildren, not children. We now choose our own mates (something that most people didn't do through most of the history of the world), and so nowadays we ought to be able to choose our mates in accordance with our sexual orientation, since we are no longer motivated by the need for successful reproduction.

It's something to think about.

3 comments:

18983b41-18c7-405b-8f69-de06d0954c77 said...

Mr. Green said…
Victor Reppert: individually (to take care of them when they are old, to defend the nation against attack, to work in the fields, etc.)

And to bring about beings made in the image and likeness of God with whom they could share their love, right? No? Anyone...?

nowadays we ought to be able to choose our mates in accordance with our sexual orientation, since we are no longer motivated by the need for successful reproduction.

But none of that amounts to an argument for treating marriage as something that it isn't. It's an argument (and quite a weak one) for something else that isn't marriage. (You mentioned separation of church and state in your other response, but why insist on legally defining this new thing as marriage if there's no intent to impinge upon the real thing?) Parents need to come together to produce children and stay together to raise then properly. That's exactly what marriage is, so if you want to talk about something other than the relationship of begetting and raising of children, then you aren't giving an argument for marriage at all.

Victor Reppert said...

I don't see a univocal definition of marriage in existence. Biblical Christianity says that someone who has an affair with a Playboy bunny, then divorces his wife and marries the bunny, is an adulterer, and not really a married man. Otherwise, what was John the Baptist's complaint with Antipas and Herodias. American law says that so long as the paperwork is in place and the divorces are final, Antipas and Herodias are husband and wife, and JTB has no leg to stand on. Or was that Donald and Melania? Unless, of course, there is a civil conception of marriage that is distinct from holy matrimony.

If there is a long-time gay relationship that is functionally a marriage, then for stuff like Social Security, insurance benefits, I don't have a problem with government treating it as marriage. But holy matrimony is another issue, and that has to be settled by the Church. I consider a gay relationships that shows fidelity over a long period of time to be closer to marriage as understood by Christianity than the serial polygamy practiced by some people.

18983b41-18c7-405b-8f69-de06d0954c77 said...

Mr. Green said…
Unless, of course, there is a civil conception of marriage that is distinct from holy matrimony.

Holy matrimony is not a different thing from matrimony; it's the same thing, just... holier. Just as when you were baptised, you did not cease to exist and get instantly replaced with a holy pod-replicate; you were the same person, christened. Some marriages are defective marriages; that does not make a non-marriage into a marriage, any more than a defective two-legged dog is a bird.

But yes, lots of civil concepts do break with reality. That's no reason to go along with the pretence, surely?

If there is a long-time gay relationship that is functionally a marriage

...which there isn't, the whole point is that that's not how human biology works...

gay relationships that shows fidelity over a long period of time to be closer to marriage as understood by Christianity than the serial polygamy practiced by some people.

I gather that you are focussing on the fidelity; but one can be faithful to, say, a business contract, among many other things. Does that make some life-long business partners close to Christian marriage than serial polygamists? And if so, do you call those relationships "marriages" too?