"Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like the Us and Them tone and take on history - as if all heterosexuals were part of a club with newsletters and a collective agenda.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>as if all heterosexuals were part of a club with newsletters and a collective agenda.
:hides the 'Hetero Times' beneath seat cushion:
Too right!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ahem. I'm a little wary of the notion that all marriages throughout history were for economic reasons. I don't think we have nearly enough information on, say, the lower classes in seventh century Europe, to make such a call.
Someone prove me wrong?
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I don't think that we can say that _all_ marriages throughout history were for economic reasons, but it does seem like the general trend in the past.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Someone prove me wrong?
What kind of proof would be involved to prove you are wrong? How on earth would someone prove that we have 'enough information on...the lower classes...', etc.?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
read Chaucer?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What makes you think that the lower classes of seventh century Europe got married?
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Economic reasons have always been an important part of legal marriage. But at core, the biological impulse that is expressed in economic terms is far more basic and universal: i.e., what will best provide for the enhancement of my descendants' chances of reproduction?
What is new (and absurd) is the untying of marriage from concern for the benefit of the offspring - whether done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. If marriage isn't working for children, then it isn't working at all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
says you
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you have any support for that rather bizzare claim...either one actually?
edit: Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert, but from what I know of ancient marriages, there are plenty of examples where the welfare of the ofspring (especially when you're including all the offspring as opposed to the first born son) were far from being of primary importance.
Secondly, there are a great deal of benefits that come along with marriage that are not focused on the children. Marriage provides a socially recognized and supported bonding between two people. The two participants develop around each other with a depth and stability that benefits both themselves and society as a whole. This is true whether or not they have children.
edit 2: Honestly, I find the description of marriage as being either about children or meaningless a desacralization of a very important relationship. Supporting children is, to me, a very important reason why we also support the marriage relationship, but we also benefit from good marriages between people who do not and are not going to have children. Because I support marriage, I find that definition something to be opposed.
[ July 05, 2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nice ripostes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>it does seem like the general trend in the past.
That's just the thing. From the past, we have records of a very small subset of the population-- ie, the wealthy and the noble. The wealthy and the noble set no stock at all in the doings of the poor and the. . . um. . . ignoble. And thus, no record was made of the lives of the GENERAL populace.
So, how can we judge what the general trend was when no record exists to give evidence to our claims?
Am I wrong?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>What makes you think that the lower classes of seventh century Europe got married?
Hey, I can admit that I may be wrong. Can you show me how?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:What is new (and absurd) is the untying of marriage from concern for the benefit of the offspring-
Or rather, the tying-on of a different class of couples to that very same biologically-driven economic expression. I see no reason to assume that one marriage benefit (such as choice of partner) has any particular priority over another (such as concern for offspring).
The author of the article is trying to convince us that this tie-on would be in the spirit of other social trends undergone for the benefit of heterosexual--if not "heteronormative" or "heteroidyllic"--couples.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, You're disputing that the description of marriage is not necessarily correct because we don't have reliable evidence as to the attitudes of subsets of the population. But, I'd suggest because it fits in with what we know of the period and wat we know of subsequent history, you're making the assumption that they did get married, which has little more evidence than their attiudes towards it. In the same way, the assumption that their attitudes were similar to the prevelant ones that we do know of that time and that are evidenced in the populations descended from the people in these gray area ones is the most reasonable, though by no means definitive one.
[ July 05, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In any case, here is some interesting reading on medeival peasantry and their families.
*I haven't taken a look at all of them-- really, I just read the first bit of the first-- but I thought the headings interesting enough to link them here.*
>>you're making the assumption that they did get married, which has little more evidence than their attiudes towards it,
I think that there is an inertia of evidence that marriage was performed among 7th century peasantry that does not speak to the specifics, Squick.
We know what the attitudes of illegitimacy were; I've found a site (although I cringe-- it's a romance novelists site) that talks very briefly about medeival marriages, to include, presumably, among the lower classes.
Squick, can you provide further evidence to support the idea that marriage throughout history, for the majority of people on earth, has been MAINLY an economic affair?
Thanks!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I can't. The best I think I'd be able to do is show that across a wide variety of cultures, what records we do have suggest that the economic reasoning was one of the primary drives for marriage customs and that this holds true for the cultures that our society descended from.
It's possible that the situation was different for people in the areas we don't know much about. So, what's the point? The argument that, in our culture, the economic aspect of marriage was traditionally of primary importance is the most tenable one. From what I can tell, that's what this article (which I didn't read) is based on.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:By Carolingian times, the Catholic church had begun to make a significant impact on Frankish family life and marital and sexual attitudes. Marriages in Frankish society were arranged by fathers or uncles to meet the needs of the extended family. Although wives were expected to be faithful to their husbands, Frankish aristocrats often kept concubines, either slave girls or free women from their estates. Even the "most Christian king" Charlemagne kept a number of concubines.
To limit such sexual license, the church increasingly emphasized its role in marriage and attempted to Christianize it. Although marriage was a civil arrangement, priests tried to add their blessings and strengthen the concept of a special marriage ceremony. To stabilize marriages, the church also began to emphasize monogamy and permanence. A Frankish church council in 789 stipulated that marriage was "indissoluble" and condemned the practice of concubinage and easy divorce, and during the reign of Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840), the church formally prohibited divorce.
The acceptance and spread of the Catholic church's indissolubility of marriage encouraged the development of the nuclear family at the expense of the extended family. Although the kin was still an influential social and political force, the conjugal unit came to be seen as the basic unit of society. The new practice of young couples establishing their own households brought a dynamic element to European society.
From Western Civilization: A Brief History by Jackson Spielvogel Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2005
That's all the information I could find in the textbook on marriage in that era.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'd like to point out that dividing people into "hetero-" and "homo-" is mostly a cultural thing. Besides the ancient Greeks, there are plenty of primitive societies where people have relations with both sexes. There are also primitive societies where what we would call "pedophilia" is absolutely the norm.
Human sexuality is entirely learned, in my view.
Marriage will have to change with the times, one way or another. It has before (arranged vs. love marriages, in China and India right now), and if we go on as a society, it will again.
To complicate the matter further, I personally know Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica who pair-bond for life, but never marry. They are all Christians, wear Western-style clothes, and were converted by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Sort of off topic, but is it a bad thing that I've read that book by Spielvogel before?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not exactly reading it by choice, I'm in Western Civ 102 right now. My major required a two-semester sequence in history, that is the only reason I'm reading. it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I personally know Guaymi Indians in Costa Rica who pair-bond for life, but never marry.
My brother ran into that all the time in Ecuador. I don't know if it was because divorce was so severely frowned on but extramarital sex wasn't, but he was always running into couples that had been together for 30 years but had never gotten married. Many resisted - too big of a commitment.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Ah, I read it in an AP European History class back in high school. I may see it again when I finally get around to taking a European History course (among a few others) to finish off my bachelor's in history.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
katharina, I'm talking about a reservation of 20,000 people where nobody has every gotten married. The choice does not exist for them, unless they leave the reservation. They do have Christian churches and services on the reservation, however. That is their religion. They're all Catholic, as far as I know.
The reservation is a 3-hour hike through steep hillsides of virgin rain forest from the nearest road. I never hiked all the way there, but I know plenty of people who did. There were two Guaymi families who lived on the farm where I stayed for a while. They made babies and weren't married. (The younger men also apparently played around on their "wives" [or "baby-mama"s, or whatever you want to call their live-in girlfriends], and sometimes got kicked out of the house for it.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:What is new (and absurd) is the untying of marriage from concern for the benefit of the offspring - whether done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. If marriage isn't working for children, then it isn't working at all.
Which brings to my mind two questions: what about heterosexual marriages that have no intention/possibility of producing or raising children? Are they then invalid? And what about homosexual marriages where the participants intend to raise children, whether from previous marriages or insemination or adoption? Are they justified?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What about when, in 25 years or so from now, someone perfects the technology that will allow a gay couple to have their own child with the same genetic sharing as a straight couple?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think he was saying that the new and absurd problem is that people get married with no intention of having children or with no intention of making children a priority. We now see marriage as something just for the couple, not something to perpetuate our culture, society, and species.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are plenty of benefits to society for a couple being married other than children.
And some people who get married with the notion that having children is what you do (or just aren't responsible enough to hold off on it until they're ready) certainly cause far more problems to society (and their children) by having children.
A logical conclusion of that interpretation is that anyone who does not wish to have children should never have sex (since OSC's view definitely includes sex outside of marriage being wrong). If the objection is attempted that people shouldn't have sex until they're ready to deal with the consequences (including children) anyways, consider the case of the married couple who doesn't want to have children yet; a desire not to have children is not equivalent to not being able to deal with the consequences of children.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are we having a problem perpetuating our culture, society, and species? I'm far more concerned about people who think that having children is no big deal, which includes but is obviously not limited to people who think that because they are married, they're ready to have kids.
There are people who are incapable of having kids. There are people who don't want kids and/or think that they would make terrible parents. Slash isn't around anymore, but he was a good example of this. I'm not prepared to say that it is absurd that these people should be allowed to marry or that we would be right to say that their marriages are meaningless and are not a good thing for society.
I think kids are amazing and I want to have a whole mess of my own, but I'm not going to try to trick people into having them or say something like "You shouldn't be allowed to marry if you aren't going to have kids." There are reasons why people can't or don't want kids, some of which are legitimate, and yet these people's marriages are of value. I think many of the cultural influences on this aren't particularly healthy and I am working to try to change the cultural perspective. But, as I said, I find the defintion of marriage as only meaningful if it is for kids very objectionable and an offense to the institution of marriage.
[ July 05, 2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
When discussing SSM (or no fault divorce, or live-in boy/girlfirends etc.) the first question which needs to be asked is: What is the purpose of marriage? The Massachusetts supreme court defined marriage solely in terms of a romantic relationship. While this is clearly a component of marriage, is this really what marriage is all about?
From a societal standpoint marriage is about stability for the society. There are a host of assumptions made and benefits granted which are meant to enhance the stability that marriage offers to society. Here are a few mixed examples along with the areas they address: the presumption of paternity (social& economic), automatic inheritance by surviving spouse (economic), requirement to care for offspring (social and economic), presumption of fidelity (social), marriage as an indicator of maturity (social) etc.
Now, it seems that the article has brought up some good points. Some heterosexuals HAVE messed up marriage (insofar as marriage exists to provide societal stability). Some of these changes are legal and some are social, but clearly there has been a trend to make marriage less of a societal stabilizer. For example, the existence of no-fault divorce is a huge undermining influence on the stability of marriage. The high rate of infidelity in marriage also serves to undermine stability. Changes in the way that the economy works have also changed the inherent stability of the family, and hence the way that society treats marriage. For example, currently the individual is the basic economic unit of society whereas this role was played by the family for most of human history. This change makes children into a liability rather than an asset and greatly reduces the economic benefit of the division of labor between husband and wife. When applied to SSM, the argument is made that a family with two husbands or two wives is equivalent to one with a husband and a wife. While this may be true in purely economic terms, it seems to me that there are other considerations. For example, sexual dimorphism exists for a sound biological purpose. I think that there are real and important differences between men and women and that marriage exists precisely because mean and women are complementary to each other- emotionally, physically, biologically and so on.
From where I stand (and of course many Hatrackers will disagree), the answer to the downslide in stability due to the changes in marriage is to fix the problems with these changes, not to continuously redefine marriage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And yet, the reputable studies that have come out looking at the children of gay parents show them to not have significant differences in terms of developmental or psychological health from children of straight parents. The children of single parents, on the other hand, are significantly worse off than either.
The "Golden Age" of American marriage never was. It exists only in the fantasies of a subset of the population. If there was a steep decline the quality of marriage, it happened way before the 50s.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:And yet, the reputable studies that have come out looking at the children of gay parents show them to not have significant differences in terms of developmental or psychological health from children of straight parents.
That is an interesting categorical statement. By any chance are any of these reputable studies available online, and if so, can you link to them?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And here you go. Those are only the ones I could link quickly to that occured on Hatrack. There are others. edit: I haven't gone though it thoroughly, but here's a summary on this issue.
[ July 05, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Now that marriage is not necessary for economic reasons, now that women aren't forced into unwanted marriages by kidnapping, rape, societal pressure, or sheer penury, then perhaps we will all discover the TRUE reasons for being married. Maybe we'll find that marriage is far far better when it's a willing choice rather than a compulsion. This enormous increase in free agency and economic freedom is a fantastic thing for women and also for men too, and for society as a whole.
It fosters the formation of true partnerships, which are what real marriages are. In the past, far too many marriages were not true partnerships, but were one partner (the economically independent one) alone dominating, with the other partner relegated to the status of domestic servant or even domestic chattel. The fact that such marriages are less available in our society (despite the buy-a-wife-from-russia services that still exist to tap into economically dependent pools of potential spouses) means that people will be forced to learn the better way, (that some few have practiced all along), that people must find a change of heart, and that is very much for their betterment and the betterment of society.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Squick- well, I think that you only linked to one summary of a real, peer reviewed study. Not that you had time to find more, of course. I reckon that having a mother and father is a real advantage, but I suspect that such an advantage, when taken in conjunction with all of the many other factors a kid faces in growing up, might be difficult to tease out in any kind of study.
At any rate, perhaps I am wrong and gay families are just as grand as traditional families, in all the ways we can measure. If that is so then it is certainly good news for the children in gay families.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Rather than arguing about the "Real Reasons" for marriage, we'd probably be better off discussing the "Real Benefits" of marriage.
After all, the initial reasoning behind the creation of an institution might have nothing to do with the reason that the same institution persists for generations.
Look at evolution as an example. Why do we have opposable thumbs? To a creationist, we have thumbs "to pick things up" or "because God wanted us to have thumbs". There is a conscious purpose there, and as humans, we usually assume that there is a conscious purpose behind just about everything we see.
But ask an evolutionist why we have opposable thumbs, and he'll say "because the populations that possessed that trait survived, while the populations that did not have it died out".
So when we ask ourselves about the value of marriage, the conscious initial purpose for creating it is irrelevant. We should be asking, why does every dominant society on earth possess marriage customs, and what survival value do they offer these societies? Then as we consider changing our customs, we should carefully examine what survival value we might LOSE (or gain) by making the change.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
There are also really good reasons for people NOT to have children. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion, but I thhink it's true.
Both my parents had a genetic disease, one that eventually (indirectly) killed them both. Yet, they chose to have me and my sister togther, and my sister and I have both had children.
Probably, my parents shoulldn't have had biological children together. They didn't know they both had the disease, even though each one of the knew they had a parent with it. I cannot honestly wish my life away, however, I do see why people with genetic diseases might wish to adopt or not have children at all.
Our own Slash the Berzerker haas taken great steps to ensure that he and his wife will never have children. At first I thought that was one of the saddest things I'd ever heard, that these two wonderful people I admire would leave no part of themeselves behind, at least in flesh. I think the world might be the poorer for it. However, i have come to see the reasons for their choice, and I support it. I had to make a similar choice and chose differently, but I still think they are right.
Finally, we don't really need a lot more people. I mean, lets face it.
The truth is that marriage has been devalued quite nicely without any help from the recently vilified Homosexual Lobby (tm).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: For example, currently the individual is the basic economic unit of society whereas this role was played by the family for most of human history.
I think this is kind of incorrect. Communities, large groups of people in an extended family, were the basic economic unit of a society for most of history. The ability of one family, one husband and wife, to raise and provide adequately for their children is very recent.
quote: For example, sexual dimorphism exists for a sound biological purpose. I think that there are real and important differences between men and women and that marriage exists precisely because mean and women are complementary to each other- emotionally, physically, biologically and so on.
Given that two parent families, families where the same two parents were solely responsible for an infant's welfare, that lasted for more than, say, ten years were questionable throughout history because of death and social realities, why would the human organism be such that it is most healthy when a social arrangement presents itself that has edit: rarely been present? That is, if children historically have been raised by many people rather than just the husband and wife, why would the human organism have developed where this arrangement results in the 'most health', so to speak, for the child?
[ July 05, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure if I should be amused or insulted by the implication that I and others haven't considered the long term effect on society.
Hey, news flash. Many of the pro-gay marriage people have considered this. For example, as I have to keep bring up and then substantiate, there doesn't seem to be bad effects on children to having gay parents. We know this. We've studied it, just like we've extensively studied whether or not being gay constitutes a psychopathology (it doesn't). I wouldn't be for gay marriage if I thought that there was a good chance that it would destroy society. I care about marriage. I care about kids. I am also a person who takes integrity and rsponsiblity seriously. So are most if the people who make up the APA, the ASA, the AAP, and all the other organizations who know whath they are talking about and have offered clear statements in support of gay marriage.
To date, I've yet to see the opponents of gay marraige offer up a single good reason why we should think that allowing gay marriage would be a bad thing for society. It's like debating the scientific merits of creationism. There aren't any. But there are enough people who are not willing to let the fact that the central (and often only real) part of their argument is their own bigotry or "God says it's wrong." in any way deter them from pushing their agenda.
That's why we think the anti-gay people are ultimately foolish. They haven't yielded an actual credible argument, except for the might makes right of democracy. You want to look at people who aren't thinking beyond their very limited (and wrong) focus, look at them. Charging the pro-gay marriage people with not thinking about the wider ramifications of allowing this is an empty criticism, or would be if the actual state of things had much to do with the gay marriage debate.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:I think this is kind of incorrect. Communities, large groups of people in an extended family, were the basic economic unit of a society for most of history. The ability of one family, one husband and wife, to raise and provide adequately for their children is very recent.
I guess it depends on your view of history. Certain tribal hunter gatherers are a big part of history, but of course there was a huge economic revolution with the development of agriculture, and I think it accurate to say that in agricultural economies the family is the basic societal unit, more so than tribal groups.
quote: Given that two parent families, families where the same two parents were solely responsible for an infant's welfare, that lasted for more than, say, ten years were questionable throughout history because of death and social realities, why would the human organism be such that it is most healthy when a social arrangement presents itself that has never been present? That is, if children historically have been raised by many people rather than just the husband and wife, why would the human organism have developed where this arrangement results in the 'most health', so to speak, for the child?
I don't believe I said what you are implying that I said. My point is that women and men have clearly distinct biological attributes which result in distinct behavioral attributes. For example, it is not coincidence that men generally have much more muscle mass while women have more body fat. I would be surprised if in addition to differences in the amount and location of body tissues there are not also neurological and behavioral differences that are also present. This is true whether there is one man and ten women or three men and six women or whatever ratio you would like to apply.
[ July 05, 2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, who was your post aimed at?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Jacare, does that imply that every man in a marriage contributes an identical element (not the entire experience, but at least one necessary and positive element) to parenthood because of something inherent to the male gender?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:That's why we think the anti-gay people are ultimately foolish. They haven't yielded an actual credible argument, except for the might makes right of democracy. You want to look at people who aren't thinking beyond their very limited (and wrong) focus, look at them. Charging the pro-gay marriage people with not thinking about the wider ramifications of allowing this is an empty criticism, or would be if the actual state of things had much to do with the gay marriage debate.
I think that you attribute to your position much more rational weight than it, in fact, posseses. We can debate the benefits to children, to society in general and so on, but ultimately the social institutions of any society have no more basis than the set of shared beliefs of those who are members of the society. If you prefer to have a society where gays may marry each other, well and good. But do not pretend that you have a scientific or rational reason for this preference while your opponents do not. This is simply not the case.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dabbler, I think it SHOULD be possible to recognize general trends without being forced to prove them in every individual case.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, does that imply that every man in a marriage contributes an identical element (not the entire experience, but at least one necessary and positive element) to parenthood because of something inherent to the male gender?
Of course not. What it implies is that as a generalization men have certain qualities which women lack and vice versa.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I guess it depends on your view of history. Certain tribal hunter gatherers are a big part of history, but of course there was a huge economic revolution with the development of agriculture, and I think it accurate to say that in agricultural economies the family is the basic societal unit, more so that tribal groups.
I don't believe it's 'the family' so much as 'families'. Everyone worked together to bring in crops. Even in mercantile families, there were large extended kinships that tied large groups of people together. Because of the constant threat of war, people would band together for security as much as possible. So, children wouldn't have been raised by one family, even during the very brief period of time when children were children.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that two parent families, families where the same two parents were solely responsible for an infant's welfare, that lasted for more than, say, ten years were questionable throughout history because of death and social realities, why would the human organism be such that it is most healthy when a social arrangement presents itself that has never been present? That is, if children historically have been raised by many people rather than just the husband and wife, why would the human organism have developed where this arrangement results in the 'most health', so to speak, for the child? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe I said what you are implying that I said. My point is that women and men have clearly distinct biological attributes which result in distinct behavioral attributes. For example, it is not coincidence that men generally have much more muscle mass while women have more body fat. I would be surprised if in addition to differences in the amount and location of body tissues there are not also neurological and behavioral differences that are also present. This is true whether there is one man and ten women or three men and six women or whatever ratio you would like to apply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, it doesn't matter if the same man and woman stay together as long as there is a man and woman around to 'raise' the child?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What it implies is that as a generalization men have certain qualities which women lack and vice versa.
This may be true. However, I sincerely believe that expectations and inculcation of gender roles has more to do with this than biology. It's like learning a language; most people speak the language of the country they grew up in, but that doesn't mean that they were biologically predispositioned to. Women can and often do take on supposedly "male" attributes when they are needed, and vice versa. I think adult men and women are often very different, but that is a great deal in part because we have chosen to expect different things from them.
In other words, I believe that an intelligent, responsible human being can figure out or be taught how to do just about anything when they are called upon to do so, even if it isn't in their traditional gender role description.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't disagree that men and women are biologically different in many ways, by the way. I hope that's clear.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Jane Jacobs makes a very good case for the idea that children are more effectively civilized when they live in an environment where many adults are available to supervise and react appropriately to their behavior, so that they gain a sense of responsibility, not just to a couple of people that they can easily evade, but to EVERYONE they meet in society.
However, the need for a strong community does not automatically reduce the need for a strong and effective core family environment. Both may be equally necessary, for different purposes.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
For those of you interested... Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 17(3):309-312, June 2005. Greenfeld, Dorothy A
abstract of a review of papers on same sex couples and their children. You need to buy the article or get it through an institution to read the full one (this is common for research articles, for those of you unfamiliar with them). I could probably snag a copy the next time I'm on campus, but that won't be for several days.
The main problems with current studies is that they are small sample sizes, and generally focus on lesbian parenting teams. I believe this is because there are more lesbian parenting teams. I don't know enough about similar research questions to know if the sample size is too small, though obviously the larger the sample size the better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dabbler, when you say "through an institution," does that mean from anywhere on a University's network? This is how HeinOnline works, and I can VPN in to get articles from there. Would the same thing work on this type of paper? Or does one generally have to log in?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But do not pretend that you have a scientific or rational reason for this preference while your opponents do not. This is simply not the case.
Then what is it? 4 years I've been reading debates on it on Hatrack and I've yet to see an actual, legitimate case put forward. Mine is very clear. I think that marraige is a good arrangement that provides great benefits to the peopel in it and the society around them. Certainly this is an accepted thing I think on both sides of the debate. I think that extending marriage to gay couples will allow many of the same benefits we as a society gain from allowing straight marriage. And the science supports this idea , as so so many responsible organizations who study it have attested to.
Maybe I'm missing the solid arguments of the other side Jacare. Perhaps you could tell them to me. Because what I've seen rarely rises above the level of your assertion that a child needs both father and mother. And usually it's much worse.
---
Geoff, it was aimed right at you.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Many institutions automatically subscribe to certain journals. If you use the institution's portal webpage for PubMed, for example, then PubMed knows you're at that institution (I think it checks your incoming IP as well) and provides automatic access.
So, you can try it . If you click on FullText on that link while on a university IP, the journal might check for your IP and automatically let you in, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cool, I'll try it tomorrow night. That could be a very helpful thing to know. Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
So Jacare, to follow up, is this true?
As a generalization men have certain qualities which women lack which are necessary for meeting the standards of parenting.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:This may be true. However, I sincerely believe that expectations and inculcation of gender roles has more to do with this than biology. It's like learning a language; most people speak the language of the country they grew up in, but that doesn't mean that they had to. Women can and often do take on supposedly "male" attributes when they are needed, and vice versa. I think adult men and women are often very different, but that is a great in part because we have chosen to expect different things from them.
In other words, I believe that an intelligent, responsible human being can figure out or be taught how to do just about anything, even if it isn't in their traditional gender role description.
Certainly there are many things we associate with gender which are completely due to societal expectation. Nonetheless, I find it extremely likely that men and women are generally wired differently. Recent studies seem to bear this out, with women and men generally applying completely different strategies in things like how they remember how to get somewhere (eg landmarks vs abstract maps).
quote: I don't believe it's 'the family' so much as 'families'. Everyone worked together to bring in crops. Even in mercantile families, there were large extended kinships that tied large groups of people together. Because of the constant threat of war, people would band together for security as much as possible. So, children wouldn't have been raised by one family, even during the very brief period of time when children were children.
Again, it is all a matter of how you choose to view it. The very fact that the concept of ownership accompanies agriculture would generally work to discourage cooperation beyond closely related family. Certainly there was generational mixing- when I refer to family I don't mean necessarily "nuclear family". Nonetheless, in all of the societies we have discussed it is interesting to note that to the best of my knowledge they all included a strong division of labor between men and women.
quote:So, it doesn't matter if the same man and woman stay together as long as there is a man and woman around to 'raise' the child?
Strictly from the standpoint of general sexual dimorphic characteristics I would say no, it doesn't matter. However, there are other matters which are also important.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Dagonee: Brown makes theirs available through their Library information page on their website. It's on a page called Electronic Resources. Yours might have something similar.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:onetheless, I find it extremely likely that men and women are generally wired differently. Recent studies seem to bear this out, with women and men generally applying completely different strategies in things like how they remember how to get somewhere (eg landmarks vs abstract maps).
No, they don't. Most of the studies of the differences between genders have shown that, while there are certainly differences in biological structure, there is a very, very strong role played by socialization. This is especially well borne out by cross-cultural comparisions.
You don't get to just say stuff and thus it makes it true. There are biologicla/neurological differences between men and women, but to imply that they dominate in the very wide context we're talking about here is not at all in line with the literature.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Certainly there are many things we associate with gender which are completely due to societal expectation. Nonetheless, I find it extremely likely that men and women are generally wired differently. Recent studies seem to bear this out, with women and men generally applying completely different strategies in things like how they remember how to get somewhere (eg landmarks vs abstract maps).
I believe that. When it comes to parenting, however, I don't that there are some things only a female could do, and some things only a male could do. I've seen too many warm, supportive, nurturing men and practical, cum-high-expectations, evaluating, independence-instilling women to believe that. I think that parents who love their kids and are willing to learn can learn how to do whatever it takes to fill their needs.
I still believe in the value of having a mother and father (among other reasons, they are valuable as role models for what they are, and no person of the opposite gender could model the same thing), but I don't think that men and women are each only biologically capable of being a certain kind of parent.
Often by the times they have reached adulthood they have internalized the expectations of them to such an extant it is hard to learn other skills and characteristics, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't. Human beings have intelligence and have learned how to survive in a thousand different ways. Surely we can learn how to be the kind of parent needed, even if it isn't in the gender description.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Oh and if it bothers you that I haven't voiced that much of an opinion yet...
Anecdotally, I can't imagine that there is much of a commonality in fathers and how they raise their children. Or mothers. And I have seen an amazing breadth of experience in being raised and the kinds of parents and parenting people have had. Yet these people turn out similarly functional and content. Therefore I find it hard to believe that a child is missing something by not having a father. I can see the case much more clearly that a child needs two parents. After all, there are simple concepts of time management and having a cooperative (or maybe not so cooperative) management team in the parents.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think that marraige is a good arrangement that provides great benefits to the peopel in it and the society around them. Certainly this is an accepted thing I think on both sides of the debate. I think that extending marriage to gay couples will allow many of the same benefits we as a society gain from allowing straight marriage. And the science supports this idea , as so so many responsible organizations who study it have attested to.
There are many possible human combinations for societal constructs. For example, Ursula LeGuin's construct where the men hang out and fish and the women stay in clan groups in cities and raise the children, with the two groups only interacting when it is time to mate. There is the tribal idea where everyone in the group lives together and the men provide food while the women provide clothing and raise children. Society could be structured with solely homosexual relationships with men and women only reluctantly joining in order to have children.
These are just a few possibilities.
So tell me, which one is the scientifically supported one? Why should I prefer your model over any other one which is available?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Squick, you seem to have a habit lately of reading the most combative, one-sided possible interpretations into all of my posts.
In this case, I saw that people were arguing over the "original purpose" of marriage, an argument which I saw as irrelevant. I made a post to that effect. And you freaked out like I had personally insulted you and your entire "side" in this debate, when my post was aimed at BOTH sides, equally, and wasn't even all that terribly critical. In fact, it probably benefits YOUR side more, because it is usually the opponents of gay marriage that first drag the "original purpose" concept into the fray (though once it arrives, both sides are equally capable of making irrelevant and unfounded assertions about it).
If I seemed to show preference to the idea of losing survival value (versus gaining survival value) through a change to the institution in my final statement, it was only because I assumed that no one would even suggest a change unless they saw a clear and obvious benefit. It is the potential losses that usually need to be examined after the idea of a change has been proposed. But I specifically included the parenthetical "(or gain)" so that people would not take it as a partisan rebuke.
But I guess if you put enough effort into taking offense, you can accomplish it under just about any circumstances.
[ July 05, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Jacare, I'd prefer that society not prefer either homosexual or heterosexual couples over the other. Especially since they seem to be relatively similar in the things that matter to the abstract society (stability, ability to parent, economic viability).
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: But I guess if you put enough effort into taking offense, you can accomplish it under just about any circumstances.
Actually, when you get really good at it, it's no effort at all. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: No, they don't. Most of the studies of the differences between genders have shown that, while there are certainly differences in biological structure, there is a very, very strong role played by socialization. This is especially well borne out by cross-cultural comparisions.
You don't get to just say stuff and thus it makes it true. There are biologicla/neurological differences between men and women, but to imply that they dominate in the very wide context we're talking about here is not at all in line with the literature.
You don't just get to say stuff and that makes it true. But to imply that there are no differences in the context we are discussing is not at all supported in the literature.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, I'd prefer that society not prefer either homosexual or heterosexual couples over the other. Especially since they seem to be relatively similar in the things that matter to the abstract society (stability, ability to parent, economic viability).
Society can support a lot of different structures, but the simple fact is that groups which believe similar things will clump together to form communities, and those communities generally want to do things the way they think is right. When there are enough dissimilarities between communities then they inevitably split.
Now whether homosexual marriage is likely fodder for that split or not I can't say, but I don't believe that any society will exist for very long which includes huge differences in social customs between communities. The set of shared beliefs simply dwindles at some point and the different societies can no longer agree.
I'll take this discussion up again tomorrow, if it is still around.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Subcultures and countercultures with different customs CAN exist and survive for a very long time within larger communities (as Mormonism, for example, proves), but this survival seems to be contingent upon the smaller society maintaining a couple of things ...
1. They have to have a strong, unique identity as a subculture that they value at LEAST as much as their identity as members of the larger culture.
2. They have to see the larger culture as pliable, and at least marginally accepting of their subculture. IE, Mormons could not exist as a part of the United States until the irresoluble conflict over polygamy came to an end. But after it DID, the relationship became friendly and accepting enough that Mormons could live within the United States and consider themselves both Mormon AND American.
The case of gay marriage is interesting because, unlike Mormons around the turn of the century, the pro-gay-marriage camp seems completely unwilling to alter their expectations about their marriage customs for the sake of belonging to a larger society. According to the party-line position, the only way to come to a friendly resolution is for the larger culture to change in response to the subculture's demands. The equivalent would be for the United States to have legalized polygamy in 1896 in order to bring Utah in as a state without altering its existing culture.
I support the idea of civil unions (in theory, at least), because it allows the gay-marriage camp to live within America as a subculture and obtain all the legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples receive, while allowing the larger, dominant culture to retain its identity. This way, members of both cultures can feel like they have preserved their way of life, without having to destroy or permanently alter the other in the process.
People often react to this idea like I'm suggesting "separate but equal" schooling or something, which I don't understand at ALL. What is so terrible about belonging to a subculture with different customs from the larger society? I think it's awesome, and I belong to a subculture that most people think is weird I have just enough in common with the rest of America to feel like a genuine citizen, and yet there is ALSO something special about my marriage and other customs that makes me stand out. And MY subculture even GAVE UP a treasured marriage practice before becoming a part of this country.
[ July 05, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The equivalent would be for the United States to have legalized polygamy in 1896 in order to bring Utah in as a state without altering its existing culture.
That would indeed have been the right thing. Just because a wrong was committed a hundred years ago doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake now.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You know what? I think people who hold marriage as a deeply sacred union should take offense at the trivialising of it by making the argument all about the name.
The name doesn't matter shit. The name isn't what makes marriage marriage and it boggles me that people hold it to such a high degree of importance.
Posted by Diana Bailey (Member # 8313) on :
Perhaps Roman Catholic canon law can shed some light on Chris Bridge's first question about hetersexual marriage, as well as provide some support for OSC's contention that children are fundamental to marriage. One of the few grounds for declaring a marriage invalid under canon law is if a couple decides not to have children;a couple must be open to the possibility of having children (the church is considerably - and far more controversially - less clear about whether a couple must at all times be open to conception).That does not mean that a couple who cannot have children is not married, or that marriage between persons past child-bearing age is not allowed. In fact, the Church assumes all marriages are valid unless one partner challenges that assumption after a divorce.But it does mean that children are considered one of the blessings of marriage,and a couple who decides from the beginning not to have any children, or if one partner does, that marriage can, when reviewed by the Catholic tribunal, be declared invalid. This does not deny the reality of the relationship that existed. It simply concludes that one element considered by the Catholic Church to be essential for a lasting, indissoluble union was missing.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
King, I think people who favor legalizing both gay marriage and polygamy at least have the distinction of being consistent Right now, I lean towards thinking that while both can be handled in a positive and beneficial way, that doesn't automatically make it the best idea to incorporate them into mainstream society.
Jebus, there is much more power in the naming of things than you would like to admit. This debate is as much about two conflicting cultures learning to live at peace with one another as it is about legal privileges. If a name helps to accomplish that, then don't poo-pooh it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
This is the guy who thinks swear words should carry no offensive weight. After all, they're just words, right?
Jebus is young and has much to learn.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This debate is as much about two conflicting cultures learning to live at peace with one another as it is about legal privileges."
I disagree. I think it's about one conflicting culture and one culture with which it believes it's in conflict. The "gay culture" doesn't threaten mainstream culture in any perceptible way.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hoohoo, I'm young with much to learn. Better then being old and knowing nothing, I suppose.
Oh sorry, arrogance is so ugly.
quote:This debate is as much about two conflicting cultures learning to live at peace with one another as it is about legal privileges. If a name helps to accomplish that, then don't poo-pooh it.
I agree and ultimately if it comes down to civil unions for gays or nothing, I will completely support civil unions.
But that doesn't change the fact that the point of marriage, the holy part of marriage, the sacredness of marriage isn't its name. To bring the argument to a point where you just want to secure a name is ridiculous. If you think what someone else is doing isn't marriage, then it isn't marriage to you, and it shouldn't matter what they call it because you know in your heart that it's not really marriage.
quote:This is the guy who thinks swear words should carry no offensive weight. After all, they're just words, right?
Oh and no, that's not what I said. I said swear words shouldn't carry any intrinsic offensiveness.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, If you didn't mean to imply that the question of what the society could lose or gain was one that isn't a central concern to the pro-gay marriage people, than I mistook what you were saying. It sounded to me like the whole "Well, we don't have any idea what will happen and we need to wait to see." charge, which I find both untrue and disrespectful. I'm probably a little too punchy. I'll try to rein that in.
---
Diana,
quote:Perhaps Roman Catholic canon law can shed some light on Chris Bridge's first question about hetersexual marriage, as well as provide some support for OSC's contention that children are fundamental to marriage
I'm not sure why you would think that this is substantive. Are you asserting that we should be following Catholic canon law in this country?
---
Jacare, I'm not sure how any of those links support your position. Could you explain how you think they do?
edit: Also, what the heck do you mean by this?
quote:There are many possible human combinations for societal constructs. For example, Ursula LeGuin's construct where the men hang out and fish and the women stay in clan groups in cities and raise the children, with the two groups only interacting when it is time to mate. There is the tribal idea where everyone in the group lives together and the men provide food while the women provide clothing and raise children. Society could be structured with solely homosexual relationships with men and women only reluctantly joining in order to have children.
These are just a few possibilities.
So tell me, which one is the scientifically supported one? Why should I prefer your model over any other one which is available?
err...I was talking about there being scant evidence to suggest that homosexuals are depraved or that they'll be substandard parents or that they are incapable of partaking in the benefits of marriage. I'm not sure what this "Oh yeah, what social combination does science say is the best one?" thing is trying to prove.
[ July 06, 2005, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
quote:What is so terrible about belonging to a subculture with different customs from the larger society? ... And MY subculture even GAVE UP a treasured marriage practice before becoming a part of this country.
Good for them. Well, actually, bad for them. In any event, your sacrifices, be they wise or foolish, have no bearing on the issue at hand. Homosexuals are already part of this country. The terrible part about different customs is when you force them on your enemies. Your subculture gave up a treasured marriage practice, so somehow that gives you the moral weight to deny marriage entirely to another? Well, I have no problem with polygamy or homosexuality, so that gives me the moral weight to grant marriage to homosexuals.
quote:If you think what someone else is doing isn't marriage, then it isn't marriage to you, and it shouldn't matter what they call it because you know in your heart that it's not really marriage.
Or you could turn that around, and refer to homosexual couples that have made a public commitment to each other as married. Some churches already marry them, and civil unions would seem to count as much as heterosexuals getting married by justices of the peace. To say nothing of the couples in Massachusetts. Nothing wrong with swearing, but words do have power. Time for the good guys to start using it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, this house isn't likely to remain divided against itself at these levels for that much longer. As long as the newer generation continues to be exposed to homosexuals as people more or less like themselves, I'm pretty sure contemporary anti-gay stuff is pretty much doomed. I think the people behind it know this, too. That's one of the reasons they're pushing so hard to create a culture war. As soon as they lose the might makes right angle, they've got nothing left.
Posted by Diana Bailey (Member # 8313) on :
Gracious! Who said anything about the desirability of America following canon law, MrSquicky? But given that religious and legal ideas help shape our views,it might be worth considering how one tradition looks at the issue of marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Diana, your summary of canon law is why I'm comfortable with the idea of legalizing civil same sex marriage. Because the current state of civil marriage fails to reflect numerous aspects of things I consider central to marriage, I feel no "threat" from changes to the civil marriage institution.
My preference is to remove government from marriage pretty much altogether, replacing the legal/civil entity called marriage with the concept of a civil union. "Marriage" would be reserved for however the couple defines it. This would simply reflect the existing dichotomy between numerous cultural and religious marital traditions and the common (within each state, at least) legal elements they all share.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Wow, a point that Dag and I agree on. Perhaps the world will end now.
But seriously, I am in complete agreement with Dag on this one. Marriage has both a legal and moral/religious component. Its time that they were formally separated.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I like how Germany deals with the problem: one marriage by an offical in a court of law, and if you want to get married in a church, you're totally free to do that as well.
I think it's important to remember that Christianity does not have a copywrite on the word "marriage." There are plenty of other religions and cultures that also use the term marriage to define a relationship between two adults - and a male and female are not always required. For instance, in Hinduism gay people may be married, and it's called "a marriage."
Given that our country is founded on the principle of seperation between Church and State, I don't think that the state should use one religion's version of marriage over any other's. If you want to call one type of relationship a "marriage" and another a "civil union," then I think you ought to show how calling both a marriage is going to damage society in general.
And I don't think I've EVER seen a successful argument of that type that didn't bring in one religion's definition of marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you want to call one type of relationship a "marriage" and another a "civil union," then I think you ought to show how calling both a marriage is going to damage society in general.
That's why I don't want the government calling anything "marriage."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> Given that our country is founded on the principle of seperation between Church and State . . .
This is a smidgen of hyperbole. The US HAS a seperation of church and state, but it's not the founding principle. There is no one founding principle.
And thank goodness for that. . .
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
How about it's "one of the" founding principles?
Isn't anything in the Bill of Rights or the general Constitution (and maybe Declaration of Independence) typically taken as one of the principles made when this country was founded?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well-- let's keep in mind that separation of Chuch and State has been imperfectly practiced throughout America's history. The idea doesn't appear in the constitution as such-- only that the federal government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.
Seperation of church and state, as a philosophy that has carried through the generations, owes much more (in my understanding) to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and his 'Virginia papers.'
But I may be off base.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Subcultures and countercultures with different customs CAN exist and survive for a very long time within larger communities (as Mormonism, for example, proves), but this survival seems to be contingent upon the smaller society maintaining a couple of things ...
Sure they can. My point is this: subcultures which are a sizeable chunk of the population and which have radically different values from the major population tend to come into conflict. The conflict can be resolved by compromise, one of the parties can be forced to change or a rift can form. Those are pretty much the choices.
In the case of the Mormons and polygamy it was no peaceful solution. The US government forced the Mormons to submit through the use of coercion. Our society is certainly more pluralistic than it was back then, but the question arises: how far can the differences stretch? Communities are formed on the basis of shared values. How many shared values are needed to maintain coherence?
quote: I'm not sure how any of those links support your position. Could you explain how you think they do?
Those links clearly show neural sexual dimorphism and hint at the difference in the way information is processed, which is exactly what I stated earlier.
quote:Also, what the heck do you mean by this?
OK- here is a summary of our argument: you seem to think that society should change marriage customs to allow gays to marry. You think that anyone who disagrees is a fool who cannot form a coherent argument to the contrary. You believe that your position is supported by science.
I said that societal constructs like marriage are simply a matter of culture and preference and hence the position that one construct or another is supported by science is absurd. These things are not quantifiable and hence your argument that no one can raise a coherent argument against your position is also absurd as you also cannot raise a coherent argument for your position except by an appeal to equally ephemeral societal constructs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. If you click on FullText on that link while on a university IP, the journal might check for your IP and automatically let you in, too.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)