Wednesday, March 18, 2009

To Fitz and the People at Opine editorials

I've read all responses there. The opinion there is too dogmatically closed-minded to be worth discussing any further. Forgive me if I feel it not worth the effort to post there, but I don't wish to give the impression that I enjoy talking to walls. You have all decided that your definition of marriage is the only one worth pursuing despite many different traditions of marriage throughout history.

There have been legitimate polygamous (polyandry in the Himalayas) in relationships that had to do with property rights. There are legitimate historical marriages that are political, as in medieval/renaissance Europe, the Roman Republic/Empire, various middle east tradition. In Heiyan Japan, the promiscuity among the courts both married and not was not only accepted, but expected. Shit, Egyptian nobility, Pharaohs in particular would marry siblings as a matter of course. While i wouldn't advocate that for reasons of genetic disease, it is a fact.

Marriage must evolve with the society. If you want to post this over there, be my guest, but I won't take part in further discussion there. This "one man one woman" garbage, with all your arguments is a weak facade lacking in any real historical impetus to cover up one fact. You are afraid of change and are personally disgusted by homosexuality. Of course, you'll deny your homophobia, but your kind always do.

edit: To those who accuse me of not arguing in good faith, I suggest looking at your own arguments from the other side and realizing how ridiculous and hatemongering they sound if you want to be taken seriously. As for the person who used the old "I won't answer your question until you acknowledge my point" remember that the burden of proof is on you to prove your lame analogy, not me. If you can't demonstrate how on an individual level same sex marriage will damage someone's benefits of marriage on a personal level, your analogy fails. Completely.


  1. I'm sorry you won’t be joining us in the future.

    The retort you offer can (fairly) be described also as "dogmatically closed-minded". Obviously people have strong opinions on many issues, but a willingness to engage in argument with adversaries is one suggestion that minds can be persuaded.

    I know you consider history to be your forte - but the list of different traditions of marriage through history is rather lacking in scope. Being as familiar as I am in these arguments I have seen many lists more thorough & compelling than the one you compile.

    Your assertion that Marriage must evolve with the society' is just that, an assertion - and one that lacks any specificity or substance regarding how it ought change or why.

    At this point you start imputing motives and dismissing your adversaries as vile in multiple ways... all this is conjecture -convenient and self serving at that.

    My only finale point would be that it is the nature of social institutions and social science that they operate on a …well…society wide level. Proving discreet and demonstrable harms to specific (hypothetical) individuals is by the very nature of this debate a transparently unreasonable request.

  2. Actually, I disagree with you completely. to call a list of varying marriage customs closed-minded is ridiculous. I stopped arguing on your site, as there was no point.

    My list is incomplete, as I do not see a need to go into greater detail. A comprehensive analysis of marriage was not my goal, simply a demonstration in varying marriages in culture. My specialty is not social anthropology, which is a very narrow subsect of history (not even usually history really), but mostly a focus in Roman History.

    And you all make assertions without basis all the time. The marriage for procreation argument, the awful analogy of the diploma, which, no matter how many times he repeats it, still doesn't work. You assert that a same sex marriage is counterfeit even when legal. So, yeah, apparently assertion is fair game with you guys.

    Obviously marriage needs to evolve in the direction that society wishes. If the society wishes homosexual union to be legitimate, it needs to allow it. If it is deemed legal, calling it counterfeit is a denialist joke.

    And no, I am not dismissing you all on no evidence. The bigotry is plain. No rationale why it is harmful has been presented, only circumstancial evidence. To me, that says you have an ulterior motive.

    And no. Its not unreasonable to ask why hypothetically it would hurt an individual's marriage, because if there's no legitimate, specific reason it would then the argument that these unions are somehow akin to counterfeit diplomas is insulting at best.

    I will close with one thing that I have not said anywhere as of yet, and that is my personal opinion on marriage. My open, and completely subjective bias if you will:

    I feel that governments having a part in marriage is unnecessary. Marriage is a very personal thing, and as any cultural construct it is not static and should not be mandated by laws, but by individuals in agreement in what they believe a marriage is to them, be it secular, religious, homosexual or heterosexual. If they want to protect property rights in case of separation, make a contract. People should be able to have lists of people allowed to visit them in the hospital in case of emergency. We are a melting pot. A macrocosm of most cultures on the planet, and narrowly defining marriage is not sensible to that reality. I wouldn't abolish marriage, but I would certainly get government out of the business of sanctioning/denying it.

  3. Critic wrote:

    > Obviously marriage needs to evolve in the direction that society wishes. If the society wishes homosexual union to be legitimate, it needs to allow it. If it is deemed legal, calling it counterfeit is a denialist joke.

    I think you are putting the cart before the horse. First, there is no doubt in my mind that marriage will evolve in the direction society wishes.

    But neither assertion answers where marriage should evolve to.

    However, your second (I think you call them "assertions without basis") suffers from even more superficial inaccuracy. Society can, and has legitimized homosexuality without altering the definition of marriage. Your background is Roman history? Roman anthropology is rich ground for viewing how marriage exists in such societies.

    But even today in western society homosexuality is not only de-criminalized (a move I support btw) it is recognized with government protections and benefits. All without taking away from marriage what so many people have found value in: Marriage Equality as the quality of each gender's representation in each marriage, and responsible procreation. In short it is when we learn to love the other parent of the child you two create, to support them fully as well as the child, that the love and identity of the child is best developed. Its the humanitarian integration of the sexes, the mutual support of the other, and the child learns that social integration from the two people who's identities integrated to create their own.

    If you thought that re-defining marriage would harm that value in any way as practiced in marriage, would you still call for its re-definition?

    1. On Lawm, famous for his fears, not so much for reason. I've been discussing this with him for a week or two, and still await a concise and cogent statement of his rationale for opposing same sex marriage. I would advise others not to waste their time with Mr. Lawn, or his blog.