My latest from Culture 11. Excerpt:
Earlier this week I published a newspaper column in which I observed that the victory of social conservatives in California's Proposition 8 fight was, alas, a Pyrrhic one. Though no consensus on gay marriage now exists, the trend lines are not in traditionalists' favor, in large part because our culture has lost its understanding of what marriage is for. That is, marriage no longer has a settled meaning beyond a nominalist one: it is a contract formalizing the positive emotions two people (for now) have for one another, and binding them in a legal and social framework.We no longer possess a belief that marriage has a purpose beyond itself, that it signifies something greater than the will of individuals wishing to be married. This is the result of a radically individualist culture that views ethical truths as little more than statements of preference. What we've lost is, to use a philosophical term, a teleology - that is, the belief that our actions are all geared toward a final goal, and must be judged by whether or not they lead toward, or away, from this goal. Absent a shared teleology, however general, our politics become even more fractious and combative, as rational argument - which democratic deliberation requires - becomes all but impossible.
Why? Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in his acclaimed work After Virtue, explains it:
It is easy also to understand why protest becomes a distinctive moral feature of the modern age and why indignation is a predominant modern emotion. 'To protest' and its Latin predecessors and French cognates are originally as often or more often positive as negative; to protest was once to bear witness to something and only as a consequence of that allegiance to bear witness against something else.But protest is now almost entirely that negative phenomenon which characteristically occurs as a reaction to the alleged invasion of someone's rights in the name of someone else's utility. The self-assertive shrillness of protest arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure that protestors can never win an argument; the indignant self-righteousness arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure equally that the protestor can never lose an argument either. Hence the utterance of protest is characteristically addressed to those who already share the protestors' premises. The effects of incommensurability ensure that the protestors rarely have anyone else to talk to but themselves. This is not to say that protest cannot be effective; it is to say that it cannot be rationally effective and that its dominant modes of expression give evidence of a certain perhaps unconscious awareness of this.
It's useful to comprehend the gay activist community's reaction to the Prop 8 win in light of MacIntyre's insight.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Re: But the issue at hand is whether this is a good definition of marriage.
Whether it's a good definition or not, its the one people have, and have had for generations, if not centuries going on millennia. If you try to change that to suit some cause du jour then aren't you the radical trying to upend long-established norms?
Re: Just because we've recently limited our explicit definition marriage to "two people who loooove each other"
You did not read my post. We did not "recently" do this at all. It's been the norm for an exceedingly long time, pretty much since women came to be seen as full human beings (at least spiritually) not as property, bedtoys, or brood-mares. And you can blame Christianity for that (though Plato may have laid the foundation) though I rather think it's a good thing. Coming back to my point, if homosexuality had come out the closet in, say, 1500 and been accepted as it is now then the 16th century would have been dealing with the gay marriage issue, because that era did not see mariage as appreciably different than we do (with the exception of royalty, but they were so numerically few as not to matter-- and their outlook on marriage led to royal mistresses galore, and beheaded wives).
Re: People who really know good marriage from the inside know it's a lot more than "two people who loooove each other
Agree that "All you need is love" is just a song title. For the everyday slog of life you need a lot more-- the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, and plain old elbow grease when he leaves burnt food on the dishes or her cold cream is gobbed all over the bathroom faucets. But people marry for love (or at least we hope they do in the ideal world). Money, children, housework, etc. are not part of it. Even most traditional wedding liturgies gush about love, while the rest is just an afterthought.
That's just the way it is, and, again, if you want to change it, then aren't you the radical?
But people marry for love (or at least we hope they do in the ideal world). Money, children, housework, etc. are not part of it.
But they are part of it. That's the point. The part we often talk about in our sentimental art is the gushy gooey love, but the actual wedding vows were wiser:
"for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness, and in health"
These are not merely stages for the acting-out of romantic love: these are the meat and potatoes of a real, full life lived together. And everyone who hasn't had their common sense scrubbed away and replaced with a fresh coat of ideology knows it. (I stole that last line from Jonah Goldberg.)
All good marriages that I've ever witnessed have intrinsically involved (and were acknowledged by the participants to have involved) a lot more than romance. Every single gosh darn marriage advice book I've ever read says, "Romance is merely the icing on the cake. It is not the foundation." Thomas Aquinas says marriage is first of all a friendship.
Just because romance is all people talk about (and it isn't) doesn't mean that's all they experience it as and all they know it to be. There are some who do, I agree. They're called divorcees.
Re: But they are part of it.
I misstated myself. Yes, other considerations exist in marriage, but few people let those considerations become paramount. And when they do we do not look kindly on them. Financial issues matter very much in a marriage, but a person who marries for money is regarded as disreputable. Children are often part of marriage, but a man who picked a wife solely on the basis of her genetic endowment would be thought cold and unworthy of that wife. Again: people marry (usually) for love.
Re: Thomas Aquinas says marriage is first of all a friendship.
He is absolutely right, but friendship is also a form of love.
lancelot,
"Without a widespread revival of traditional religion, there is literally no hope for the future of America as a free republic"
Pray tell, exactly which "traditional relligion" would that be? Baptist? (If so, which version? Southern Baptist? National Baptist? Heck, Anabaptist?) Or should it be Catholicism? Or what about Presbyterianism? Or - hey, America touts its 'freedom of religion' - why not Judaism? (again, which branch? Both the Reformed and even the, ahem, Conservative branches advocate for same-sex marriage. And remember, for jews, Judaism is "traditional religion".) What of the Anglicans? Why not Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Shintoism? Universalist/Unitarianism?
Sorry, there's simply no such thing as "traditional religion", let alone a revival of THE One True Religion (TM). Too many people have died over the differences for that to happen, let alone for it to effect a "revival" of a "free" repbulic. Gay Americans are NOT "free" under your rules. And your dismissive contempt for judges who are doing their job holds no hope for a just America. How sad.
ms,
What does "to regain the original meaning of marriage" mean? So many here (and elsewhere) have posted on the various "original meanings" of marriage, so it's unclear.
You SAY "And yes--I understand that all heterosexual couples can't have children", but I don't think you really do. If you did, you would vote to take away their '"right" to marry too, since they can no more procreate than I and my husband can.
Such hypocrisy.
Anglican,
You (falsely, imo) decry gay people as 'haters of religious folk'. Guess you haven't heard of the many faiths (and their members - people of faith, all) that do (or would) marry gay folks. I am a lifelong member of faith communities (served as a deacon for 10 years, a sign language interpreter for 18 years, etc.)
You ignore the hate from the religious right - many's the time right here on Rod's blog gays and their relationships are compared to beastiality, necrophilia, rape, "marryin' a plant", child molesters, rapists, etc. Try and tell me this is not hateful (nevermind bald-faced lies - aka the bearing of false witness, aka a SIN!).
Be healed, I say.
Anglican,
You ask, "Why can't GLBT,people simply accept and take advantage of the civil union law already on the books in California?"
Because separate but (un)equal is not equal. It is UN-Constitutional (the equal protections clause). And because it does NOT confer the 1,176 FEDERAL rights and obligations of marriage.
Tell us, would YOU settle for a "civil union"?
Thought not.
And that poor Erin Manning; she's "getting a little tired of the "homophobia" canard". Tuff. WE are getting more than a little tired of the 'marriage is for procreation' canard. WE are getting more than a little tired of your repeated, odious comparisons of our marriages to "marryin' a plant", and "just roomies, shckin' up, sharin' stuff". WE are getting more than a little tired of your constant 'my religion is right' and your "marriages" are nothing more than [fill-in-the-blank].
BE tired, Erin. Mayve then you'll give it a rest. (Doubt it though. You are encouraged - and enabled - by Rod to keep on doin' it.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.