aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South

Friday, July 28, 2006

The Great Gay Marriage Debate - Part 1a

Guest Post by Lyn Perry. Part 1a in our Gay Marriage Debate: Lyn answers my post on Bloggin’ Outloud.

First, thanks again to Joe who agreed so graciously to start an argument on this topic when I emailed him out of the blue a few weeks back.  I truly want to understand the basis for his conclusion that gay marriage - or as Joe prefers, “marriage equality” - is right and necessary in American society today.  So I use the word argument intentionally as it refers to a course of reasoning or a set of statements which lead to a logical conclusion.  (Plus, tongue-in-cheek, I like the word because it sounds controversial and usually controversy draws a crowd ... or readership, lol.)

My purpose is not so much to convert you, the reader, to my point of view (although that is a given in any discussion if we’re honest). Rather I want us to understand each other’s positions, exact our own thinking on this topic, and generate further points to consider. Thoughtful comments and civil dialog are always welcome. Joe and I will cross-post our entries at each other’s blogs so that more people can participate in the discussion.  Thank you in advance for joining the debate.

In light of what Joe has already written at my blog, Bloggin’ Outloud, I could simply turn this into a series of point/counterpoint posts. I’d rather not.  So instead of rebutting every assertion or statement, I’ll basically take some themes, interact with them and develop a few further points for reflection.  I do, however, want to react to reframing the topic as “marriage equality” in an effort “to normalize gay in every way” (Joe’s words).

The truth is marriage is not equalizing, nor should it be used as an equalizing tool in order to assuage a marginalized (or so it is perceived) constituency. For two basic reasons, which I’ll elucidate directly. My contention is that there is an inherent advantage to being married (in the traditional sense, ie, in a lifelong healthy bond between one man and one woman) and that that advantage is not only to be enjoyed by the couple but it is to be protected for the benefit of society as a whole.

Marriage is not a platform for “equal rights” or “inclusivity.” By it’s very nature it is exclusive (when two come together, 6 billion others are left out) and that has proven to be the most effective means by which the human race - and more narrowly society and culture - propagates.  The most stable and foundational unit in society is the household (the Greek word is oikos) and at the core of the household is a husband and wife.  Economic stability is dependent on the preservation of this unit for even our word economy “can be traced back to the Greek word oikonomos, ‘one who manages a household,’ derived from oikos, ‘house,’ and nemein, ‘to manage.’ “

A defined and static oikos benefits society by providing a stable foundation on which a nation may build; healthy marriages translate directly into healthy clans, tribes, and nations. (As to the studies Joe refers to that substantiate the normalcy of same gender relationships and the positive impact these unions may have on marriage, children, etc, I can cite opposing statistics and resources. This particular aspect to this argument probably does call for a prolonged point/counterpoint upon which I’m not inclined to expound at this point.)

It seems to me that the proponants of same gender marriage seek to normalize an unconventional expression of the family unit and thus put same gender relationships on equal footing as the traditional family structure.  I believe that this is tantamount to replacing the core of the oikos; and, as I stated above, marriage should not be manipulated in this manner, for two fundamental reasons.

First, it can’t be done.  Marriage is already defined as a union between one man and one woman.  I admit this is a biblical proposition; and we’ll wrestle with that “500 pound gorilla” (lol) next week. However, if you’ll follow the analogy that I’ve used before, I’ll share my bias openly:

This is a biblical issue and isn’t really open to discussion. People may attempt to redefine marriage, but the genesis of the concept is found in the garden. Marriage can’t be anything else than what it already is. Gay “marriage” is a contradiction of terms.

It would be like trying to redefine a square as a shape with three sides. Despite the sincerity of the creative geometry student, we would tell her, no, what you’ve described is a triangle. Although related to a square in that it has sides, a triangle is a completely different concept. We don’t entertain the idea that this child may be right or that he has a different perspective. A square is what it is. Pass or fail.

So marriage can not be used as an equalizing tool for same gender participants because it already excludes them by definition.

Second, although I am not in Joe’s shoes of course, I contend that there is no need to seek marriage equality.  Most of the benefits and perceived advantages that are enjoyed by married couples are already available to non-married individuals who seek them.  Wills, living wills, trusts, living trusts, powers of attorney, check writing privileges, domestic partnership benefits, and many other forms of government and/or business practices provide a legal framework where two people can enjoy substantially the same benefits that married couples do. 

Now I do support the effort of same gender couples who seek hospital visitation rights and - if not government mandated but market-inspired - “spousal” benefits at one’s place of employment.  I didn’t join the boycott of Disney a few years ago because I believe if a company wants to provide benefits to whomever, they have that right.  Of course, people have the right to not shop there anymore as well.  The issue of benefits is a complex one yet seems at this point reasonably resolved.  Therefore, due to the substantive rights already available to non-married couples, the platform of marriage need not be utilized to advance this cause.

So what is the inherent advantage that marriage (traditionally and definitionally understood) has that should be protected for the benefit of society?  Honor.  Husbands and wives enjoy a cultural and societal stamp of approval that other relationships do not and should not experience.  As the core of the oikos (the foundational unit of our species’ stability), the husband/wife relationship serves as an inviolate standard that actually keeps society as a whole from disintegrating.

Melodramatic? Consider the logical conclusion I posited in an earlier post:

What advocates of same-gender unions don’t seem to realize is that if gender is negotiable, then so is the number. Why stop at two? Why not have 3, 5, or 25 people enter into a domestic-partnership so that everyone involved can benefit by our current laws?

Or what about the age restriction? Why 18? Or 16? Why not allow children to enter into a “marriage” with an adult? Who’s to say that this would be inappropriate? Oh, but children can’t enter contracts, you say. Why not? That’s just another arbitrary law that we’ve decided upon. Let’s change it. Children are people too.

You see, the issue is not whether a government should legislate a certain morality - all laws are enacted moral restrictions - the question is to whose moral standard do we adhere? My premise is that we should continue to honor, respect, support, and defend husband/wife marriage, otherwise we will see the breakdown of the oikos and subsequent breakdown of our civilization.  I think we see the beginning signs of this already.

With regard to Joe’s final point, that homosexuality isn’t unnatural, who cares if there are instances in the animal kingdom of same sex acts and/or preferences?  There is promiscuity as well.  And monogamy.  So what?  Marriage is a gift that God has given to humanity.  There is a moral basis to our relationships that is absent in the rest of creation.  To argue that humanity should take our cues from other living creatures is to argue that we are merely animals ourselves.

And this premise, I suspect, will lead us into a biblical/moral discussion that is best left until next time.  In fact, I think Joe and I have agreed that I will write a piece on this aspect of our dialog, post it here at his blog, and then Joe will have the opportunity to write a rebuttal piece which will be posted at Bloggin’ Outloud.  Until then, gentle bloggers, the mic is open.