Marry me and be my, erm, thingo

What is marriage for?

It's a serious question, and one that needs to be answered. People generally get married without really asking it. (Personally, I am married for a rather confused set of reasons, including that my wife needed a visa, that I believe the formal commitment makes a couple something more than just cofuckers and that is a good thing, and I just plain assumed that people do that kind of thing.)

Is it for having kids?

A French court has said so. I could see its point of view if it made any difference these days whether your parents are married or even cohabiting. Maybe it does in Begles, but it sure doesn't anywhere I've lived. (It's not a French thing -- a survey quoted in this article said 64% are in favour of gay marriages.)

I'm going to repeat what I said in MW in response to the notion that it is a fundamental principle that marriage should be heterosexual:

"You understand that there's a difference between saying that marriage
is fundamentally a union of man and woman and that it is a fundamental
principle that it should be restricted to a male and a female?

The former is arguably true and not exceptionable. It is a fact about
the societies we live in and reflects that we largely form
heterosexual couples. It says something about the purpose for
couple-forming *as we perceive it*. You may proceed from this
understanding to discuss whether you feel this perception ought to
change and whether it serves a broader purpose.

The latter is arguably false and is certainly exceptionable. You'd
need to lay out the principle involved, and substantiate it. You would
need, in so doing, to take care not to confuse principle with
prejudice. The former *can* be substantiated; the latter *cannot*,
although those that hold prejudices often expend a great deal of
energy in trying to prove they are based in anything but groupthink,
fear and hatred, most often of the self. You would further need to
take care that you didn't rely on a notion of the inherent
desirability of conservatism, in other words, that you didn't simply
appeal to its having always been that way. You might always have been
blind, but that doesn't make an operation to give you sight
undesirable."

To be honest, I do believe that marriage is fundamentally about a man and woman and creating a family (although this does not necessarily include having kids, and I recognise that the 'traditional' family model is one of many possible) and that it existed and to some extent exists to mark a couple off as a unit that excludes others from sex (one would assume to assure paternity) and to provide mutual support etc etc. But in saying that, I think it becomes plain to anyone who stops for thought that, in this as in many other things, what is is not necessarily what should be, and as I noted in MW, what is does not have to continue to be, if we wish it to change.

(Before I am taken to task as an old stick in the mud, I should note that I hold that belief because it is one I have assumed without ever really thinking about it, and when I do think about it, no other idea works better. If marriages are not about families, however we define the latter, what the hell are they about? Of course, two men can make a family together or two women, or three of each or eight, all mixed. So can a woman and a child, a man and children... I think you're with me, anyway. If you do not believe so, you need to do some pretty fancy arguing and simply defining a family as man, woman, children will not do, because there are just too many of us who do not have that and what use are words that do not mean enough?)

So does my perception need to change? No. What a thing is fundamentally is not all it is. I do believe there is still some use to the concept of marriage as union for family-building and the model that has parents married to provide stability for children (through having a stable relationship) is good, perfectly useable if we extend it to other partnerships and not in itself exceptionable. I also believe that a child ought to have male and female role models -- or models at least -- although these need not at all be their parents. (I'm not going into why I believe this, but I do think my belief is well founded.) This is not to say that there is anything wrong with other ways of being, or that being married is necessarily better than not being (although I do believe the commitment is better than its lack where there are children -- however, marriage without the commitment, or when it is gone, is no better, and in some ways worse, than its simple lack).

Ultimately, families are about love or they are about nothing and marriage is about creating a place where you can love and be loved, or it too is about nothing.

The gay guys in Begles? If they love each other, and will continue to love each other and anyone else who enters their family at any time, let them be married. Where's the problem?

posted by Dr Zen @ 4:51 pm