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.
