Recently, a protracted conversation broke out via Google+ (here) between myself and Simon, after I made the bold statement “Those god-botherers really must stop interfering in our relationships…” and linked to a previous article I’d blogged “Religion’s Cruelty over gay marriage” here.
Whilst I do honestly respect Simon’s views, I either don’t agree with them or I don’t understand them, which then makes me believe I don’t agree with them. However, I thought they were well worth lifting from Google+ and presenting to the wider audience of this very vessel. I am very grateful for Simon’s calm approach whilst trying to explain to me why I’m wrong.
Simon’s reply:
Not sure that I completely agree. Marriage is always, and always has been, by definition, the joining of a man and woman together with the potential of pro-creation. If you make marriage acceptable between two people of the same sex, you have destroyed that definition. I don’t think it’s necessary for people to be married – straight , or gay , to live together any more these days because so many people have adopted such a casual, easy come, easy go attitide to relationship , it’s probably just simpler for many to simply live together.
That way, traditionalists still have the option of marriage, as it is, with all it’s traditional values. If they want it.
My reply:
So, by your definition, should marriage be disallowed between a heterosexual couple when either or both are unable to reproduce? I mean, if after x years they haven’t produced offspring should they have their marriage annulled?
Or is it acceptable if they reproduce via artificial means, like by using sperm donors or a third party’s eggs?
If it’s acceptable for a married heterosexual couple to still be married and yet produce children via these sorts of methods, why can’t it be acceptable for a homosexual couple to be married and reproduce in this way?
A lot of couples decide not to have children. Should they not be allowed to marry either?
Personally I think the whole marriage thing is stupid, and I tend to agree it makes sense to just live together. But if others want to get married for whatever reasons, why should I stop them? Gay, straight, mixed race, terminally ill, or whatever, what’s it got to do with me? What’s it got to do with anybody?
Simon’s reply:
Since you asked, in my opinion, in the majority of cases, if you don’t intent to reproduce/have children, in a heterosexual, then you might as well just live together. I only think it’s best to marry if you have children so it brings stability to the family and makes the parents a proper family unit. If you don’t want that stability, I think it’s best to not have children. A lot of social issues with young people these days come out of lack of a strong family unit.
No, I don’t think childless married couples should have their marriage void because it was their choice to marry and make the commitment to each other, although, again, unless both partners actually really want a marriage certificate, I would question the point in marrying in the first place.
I am not preaching double standards because I don’t think gay couples have a ‘right’ to marry because there simply is no reason for doing so, imo.
My reply:
So, at the end of the day it’s about the children.
I guess I have a problem with understanding the difference a child might have in upbringing with parents who are married compared to parents who are not married.
Apart from the surname thing, I don’t see what the difference truly is. Parents can be loving and ‘perfect’ yet unmarried, or they can be ghastly and awful yet married (and vice versa) surely?
Single parents by choice or not by choice (one died, for example) can also provide stability. As can two parents of the same sex. Equally they may not provide stability.
I’m not seeing what the ‘stability’ or ‘proper unit’ thing is, and how a marriage certificate creates it, to be honest.
So if you don’t get why marriage should bring some stability to a family unit, then you just need to look at what the definition of marriage is – or just recollect the marriage vows themselves.
If you do not think that the promises that you make at a marriage service form a commitment to each other, then by default, you are saying that you do not believe in marriage or recognize it’s value. If that is the case, then why would you be bothered if gays can marry or not as the whole exercise is meaningless anyway.
My reply:
Well, from that point of view, I’d completely agree, marriage is completely meaningless. I personally don’t see the point of it.
However, some people seem to want to get married (or have a wedding), and even though I personally don’t get it or see any point to people getting married, if that’s what they want to do, that should be what they are allowed to do, straight or gay, imho.
Simon’s reply:
I guess that brings our discussion full circle really.
I conclude that because you see no real point in marriage these days, you see no harm in just making it the joining of any couple of people, of any mixture of sexes and so completely re-defining it’s definition.
In my opinion however, by completely re-defining it’s definition, you have destroyed it’s meaning and value for those hetrosexual couples that choose to commit to the traditional path of marriage, and so have in essence, destroyed it’s whole purpose as a statement.
Some interesting points raised I think and a worthwhile conversation.
My reply:
Before accepting responsibility for single-handedly destroying the concept of heterosexual marriage, I’m still a tad confused as to where in the vows there is any reference to it being all about procreation.
The vows, the ‘contract’ if you like, is for lifetime exclusivity (well, except for Mormons and Muslims, of course, where only the women must be exclusive) based on ‘love’. It seems to be about a commitment between the two getting married, and doesn’t mention a requirement to reproduce.
It is in that context that it seems to me that if two people of the same sex feel the need to endorse their relationship with a marriage, there’s no difference between their needs and those of two people of opposite sexes.
Should not those from the heterosexual community who feel the need to publicly affirm their own love via marrying be happy that homosexual couples with exactly the same motives are given exactly the same rights? That’s the question I find very hard to say no to, in the same way I would find it hard to deny marriage between two heterosexual people of different races or religions.
England's England 