So recently, I've heard what seems like an inordinate amount of people claim that same sex marriage is a logical impossibility; that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Many people like to lend support for same-sex civil unions, but get out of supporting gay marriage by using the above claim. There are a number of problems with this.
Opponents of SSM like to promote the idea that gay marriage is some silly modern fad that goes against tradition and everyone will forget about in time. But this is simply historically false. The first instances of definite-for-real marriage between members of the same sex happened in the early Roman Empire (Emperor Nero himself had one), and there are examples of same-sex partnerships which may or may not have been on a similar vein to marriage from even earlier, in ancient China.
Of course, anti-SSM types will still say that these somehow weren't real marriages, and that the people of yonder had some misguided perception about what marriage is. The natural question to ask, then, is where does this infallible definition of marriage come from?
Many claim it comes from religion, specifically Christianity. The problem with this is that marriage has existed for far longer than the Christian tradition, or even the Juedo-Christian tradition. Plus, we have a secular, state-run institution of marriage today anyway. It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that the institution of marriage belongs to and can be defined by the Church.
Other's make argument in regard to procreation. Same-sex relations don't make babies, therefore they aren't valuable enough to be recognised as marriage. Or so the argument goes.
There are two problems with this:
a) Marriage is not, and has never been, just about making babies. It is about recognising and celebrating the decision of two people to live their lives together, and in a broader sense, the need of humans to be connected to one another.
b) Many gay people or same sex couples raise children anyway, through adoption or through IVF or various other kinds of science, and marriage makes it easier for these children to be raised by the couple whom are considered the child's parents by all involved. Thus, if protection of children is a function of marriage, then same-sex marriage fulfills this wonderfully.
In short, the definition of marriage has never been fixed down. It is a strong societal institution, yes, but it is one which has evolved and developed fluidly to best accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.
You may see marriage as a sacrament, or baby-making process, or some other such thing which excludes same-sex couples, and that's fine. Whatever. But you do not have the power to declare that as the one and only correct definition of marriage, nor the right to make everyone else follow that definition.
It's laughable when anti-SSM organisations accuse progay activists of enforcing their definition of marriage on everyone else. Because that's exactly what a) the antigay camp want to do, and b) the progay camp want to prevent. The antigays want the world to conform to their views on social institution, and exclude everyone who doesn't. The progays want to open up the institution of marriage so that no one camp is able to dictate what family should look like to everyone else.
So is same-sex marriage an oxymoron?
No.
Marriage = an institution which allows legal and social recognition of a couple's commitment to each other*
Same-sex = something which occurs between two people of the same genitalia
There is nothing in those two concepts which is contradictory.
Lets' celebrate love and commitment in all the forms it takes.
The end.
* roughly, anyway; no definition of something like marriage is ever perfect.
Opponents of SSM like to promote the idea that gay marriage is some silly modern fad that goes against tradition and everyone will forget about in time. But this is simply historically false. The first instances of definite-for-real marriage between members of the same sex happened in the early Roman Empire (Emperor Nero himself had one), and there are examples of same-sex partnerships which may or may not have been on a similar vein to marriage from even earlier, in ancient China.
Of course, anti-SSM types will still say that these somehow weren't real marriages, and that the people of yonder had some misguided perception about what marriage is. The natural question to ask, then, is where does this infallible definition of marriage come from?
Many claim it comes from religion, specifically Christianity. The problem with this is that marriage has existed for far longer than the Christian tradition, or even the Juedo-Christian tradition. Plus, we have a secular, state-run institution of marriage today anyway. It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that the institution of marriage belongs to and can be defined by the Church.
Other's make argument in regard to procreation. Same-sex relations don't make babies, therefore they aren't valuable enough to be recognised as marriage. Or so the argument goes.
There are two problems with this:
a) Marriage is not, and has never been, just about making babies. It is about recognising and celebrating the decision of two people to live their lives together, and in a broader sense, the need of humans to be connected to one another.
b) Many gay people or same sex couples raise children anyway, through adoption or through IVF or various other kinds of science, and marriage makes it easier for these children to be raised by the couple whom are considered the child's parents by all involved. Thus, if protection of children is a function of marriage, then same-sex marriage fulfills this wonderfully.
In short, the definition of marriage has never been fixed down. It is a strong societal institution, yes, but it is one which has evolved and developed fluidly to best accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.
You may see marriage as a sacrament, or baby-making process, or some other such thing which excludes same-sex couples, and that's fine. Whatever. But you do not have the power to declare that as the one and only correct definition of marriage, nor the right to make everyone else follow that definition.
It's laughable when anti-SSM organisations accuse progay activists of enforcing their definition of marriage on everyone else. Because that's exactly what a) the antigay camp want to do, and b) the progay camp want to prevent. The antigays want the world to conform to their views on social institution, and exclude everyone who doesn't. The progays want to open up the institution of marriage so that no one camp is able to dictate what family should look like to everyone else.
So is same-sex marriage an oxymoron?
No.
Marriage = an institution which allows legal and social recognition of a couple's commitment to each other*
Same-sex = something which occurs between two people of the same genitalia
There is nothing in those two concepts which is contradictory.
Lets' celebrate love and commitment in all the forms it takes.
The end.
* roughly, anyway; no definition of something like marriage is ever perfect.
I recently tried to persuade a bisexual friend of mine that same-sex marriage was a good idea... it didn't seem as easy as I thought it would be.
ReplyDeleteNicely put mate :)
ReplyDeleteJon: There is an extensive movement by LGBTers against any kind of same-sex union. They seem to argue along the lines of "why would we want to make gayness similar to straightness in any way?" It seems a bit silly to me. What arguments did your friend give?
ReplyDeleteLiam: Yay, thanks! :D