Gay Marriage

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay marriage

In the last decade gay rights have been a hot topic. Many changes have occurred in many nations. The Netherlands adopted gay marriage, as did many of the states of North America. A debate rages between those for and those against, often based upon different viewpoints about rights origination from various religions and philosophies.

People on con side argue it is unnatural. That it is untraditional. That is debases conventional marriage. That it is against God. That only those who can produce children can be married.

People on the pro side argue that gays and lesbians can have meaningful commitments just like us, and ought to have those relationship validated in the same manner as we do, by marriage.

And you know what?

Both are right..

Let me explain.

Traditional Marriage

In early societies children were very important. Children meant survival and continuation of the group. They also meant security for the parents in old age, and survival of the line, or as we now know it, the genes. How do you secure the birth and raising of children? An important and immediate question for any society. In hunter-gatherer groups the right to mate could be secured by mere strength. The alpha male and his lieutenants could easily dominate the few dozen people in their groups. However in larger groups this was no longer possible. In order to make people work together there would have to be regulation in this area.

More important questions popped up when mankind moved beyond the mere hunter-gatherer groups to form the early settled societies. What is yours and what is mine, who belongs to whom, who inherits what? It all has to be regulated in order for a society to work.

For this reason marriage was devised. A social vehicle to bind two people into an exclusive child rearing relationship, the cornerstone of any early society. This institute provided not only secure child rearing but also social structure. It provided exclusivity to a relationship, thus securing posterity and ownership of both wife and child.

Of course, you can not just marry two people. In order to give the relationship true meaning and weight in society, a ritual is needed. Depending on the society, these rituals could vary immensely.

Usually however, since it provides absolute meaning, absolute truth, and absolute values, religion was involved to seal the deal. A marriage by God has true meaning, since God is absolute, and needs no other explanation or validation. Marriage was devised as a sacred ritual between a man and a woman, before God.

Marriage thus was permanent and divorce virtually unheard off. A divorce would not only break the sacred oath to God, but also destabilize the tribe. Every child producing couple counted towards the survival and power of the settlement.

Gay has always existed. In some early societies, people did not pay much attention to gay relationships, nor declared it an abomination. In Roman and Greek society, gay was accepted, but not taken seriously. How could they. Sex with another man or another woman is perhaps pleasurable, but what function does it have? No ritual was devised for a gay relationship.

In other societies however, it was seen as an abomination. How could God, whom we used to give marriage 'true' or more correctly, absolute meaning, ordain a non-child producing relationship? Man and woman exist to make children, marriage is the holy vehicle for that, why accept something that makes no sense at all: gay? It does not have a function, and it subverts or undermines the holy marriage. Man and man can't have children! It's a mockery. People who do it are unnatural and should be punished.

So this is why marriage became not only a tradition, but a sacred institute, not to be subverted by any means. It is the natural binding of man and woman before God in order to produce children. It secures the survival of the tribe and regulates society. It is completely understandable and even justified that people today seek to safeguard this institution from change.

Now let's take a look at the other side. Why are they also right?

Modern Marriage

Societies evolve. From alpha male led hunter-gatherer groups of a few dozen individuals to modern capitalist democracies involving millions of people. Across the world different societies in different stages of development are to be admired. Compare for instance the modern Americans to the relatively primitive Papoea's in New Guinea.

Knowledge also evolves. We used to think the sun went around the earth. Now we know that it is satellites that go around the earth, often sending us unwanted emails about Viagra. The sun remains at the center, if a bit wobbly.

Today we also know this: gay has always existed, and is common among many species of mammal. There are gay horses, dogs, cats, goats, mice, monkey's and apes. It is genetic. It is in the brain. Sexual attraction can be set on the same sex.

Our knowledge of gays themselves also increased. We know gay people can and do have the same feelings for each other as we do for our spouses. We know gay people are just like us. They are lawyers, businessmen, truck drivers, civil servants, teachers, criminals, police officers, construction workers, soldiers, politicians and even clergymen. They wake up in the morning and go to work or school. They pay taxes. They sometimes cherish their parents, or fight with them. They love going on a holiday and detest Monday mornings. When they grow up they often have multiple relationships before finding the one true person they want to live with. Just like us. And when they do, they want the relationship validated. They want it to mean something in society. They want to bind with their partner in a meaningful and traditionally accepted way. Again, just like us. They do not just want a piece of paper granting a certain civil and legal status, or a box on the tax form. They want the ritual we all know as the ultimate declaration of a meaningful relationship. They want marriage. It is the natural choice.

Traditionally an important part of marriage is children. Gays can not produce children. This is a hard fact. Of course they can and do obtain them via surrogates, traditional marriage or adoption... Data from various countries supports the notion that lesbian mothers or gay fathers can provide children with the same support we can, and have no influence on their sexual orientation. But this is besides the point. The hard fact seems not so relevant anymore. The continuation of the tribe is not threatened by a small percentage of relationships that do not produce children, since our societies no longer consist of a few hundred members, but millions. Child mortality has also vastly been reduced by modern medicine.

Regulation of society by binding a man forever and exclusively to a woman also seems a dated property of marriage. Many marriages end in divorce. Most of us have multiple relationships in our lives. Marriage of course still regulates and provides for a lot of matters, like material ownership and legal and civil status. However society is no longer dependent on people staying together, not even for the rearing of children.

Religion also is no longer the only provider of marriage. Many couples marry outside the church. And today there are many religions and so many strands of each religion. The meaning of marriage in modern society is no longer defined by religion. A Muslim marriage carries the same weight and meaning as a Christian or Hindu marriage. Of course for many people it is still a religious bond, but even though we believe our own religion to be the only true one, we still recognize the marriages before other Gods. And thus the social vehicle of marriage has become independent of a particular religion.

This is why the gay community is also right. Marriage has changed. It is no longer bound to the rearing of children or religion. Society is not dependent for survival on marriage. Yet marriage still is the ultimate existing validation of a relationship. Gays merely seek equal validation for their relationships.

The Choice

So now what do we do? Do we grant gays a vehicle to validate their relationships? Should it be called marriage or something else? Who ultimately has more rights to the institute of marriage?

It was predictable that the issue about gay relationships popped up in the West first. We are at a stage that we can see beyond the traditions and beliefs of the past, and understand that gay is natural. We can recognize that gays want a validation of their relationship.

Technically, we could deny gays the institute of marriage. Tradition defines it as a bond between man and woman. There is no denying modern societies need an equal institute for gays. It has become merely a question of title. They will just have to call it something else. They could call it civil commitment, or a declaration of partnership, or...?

There are reasons to overlook this tradition born technicality. Gays want the same recognition and validation for the same type of relationship we engage in. They want the same social benefits that marriage brings us. The new institution would be the same in practicality. Marriage already exists. Why create something new?

It comes down to our principles. What do we hold more dear? Life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness? Or tradition? Christians used be murdered in the Roman Empire for their non traditional faith. Protestants used to be executed for the same thing in medieval times. Traditions change. Do we choose to be petty, and force gays to create a new institution, or even go so far as to deny them validation of their relationships? Or do we choose to evolve as a society?

Fears

Gays seem fickle, and so do their relationships. Years of gay pride parades, movies and television shows have engraved this image of gay in our minds. Fringe characters marching in outrageous costumes are seen as representing all gays. This is not true. Your teacher is gay, your landlady is gay, your doctor is gay. Heck, your neighbor is gay. Perhaps even your own brother or sister. Maybe you never knew. Do they act all that odd? Do they go through a million partners every day? No. Most don't. Most gays are in fact perfectly boring human beings. People that you know. They slave away at normal jobs and have a relationship or two before finding the one. Gays and lesbians look for stable exclusive life-long partnerships. Just like we do. An example is the show Will and Grace. Jack is the stereotypical feminine and fickle gay person. An oddity in society. Will however is how most gays are. Boring... normal...

Another fear: does gay marriage debase traditional marriage? Could you marry a goat now? Well perhaps those people that are mean and petty should marry goats. It would make for great comedy. What is marriage, foremost, in our modern world, if not the recognition of a meaningful and permanent relationship between two people? Why would a man deeply in love with another man, debase the marriage between a man deeply in love with a woman? Marriage is meant to validate a meaningful amorous relationship between two equals, not between a man and an unsuspecting goat or a Hollywood woman and her chihuahua.

Conclusion

The argument against is gay marriage is both understandable and technically justified. It should be respected. But not honored. It is not of this time anymore. We have evolved. In the new world, as we know it today in the West, and many other parts of the world, we recognize what marriage means today and what it meant in the past. It was the sacred natural institute that bound man and woman before God in order to produce children. Today it is the ultimate validation of a relationship between two adults. Our fears about gays are unjustified. They are just people, nothing more or less. We should be noble, and grant equal rights to our fellow human beings. The lifting of the principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness above tradition is what has always evolved societies. This was true in the Roman world, as it is true today.