One of the barriers to communication between those who favor marriage equality and those who don’t is the whole issue of sterile heterosexual couples. Opponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) explain over and over that there is one and only one legitimate justification for marriage, and that’s providing the best possible environment for rearing children. Which is to say, a woman and a man.
Just to show I’m not making this up, here’s a couple of representative quotes. First, one from a liberal, Susan “gay marriage is like a funeral for the living” Shell:
Or as conservative columnist Eve “gays can’t marry because in the books I like men are men and women are women” Tushnet puts it:
Okay, I think I get it. So what we have is the Platonic Ideal environment for kids, which look something like this:
To decide which infertile couples are allowed to get married, what we have to do is see which of them more resembles the Ideal you see above. So consider these two couples.
and 
Now, most folks who favor same-sex marriage tend to be suspicious of this whole approach to deciding marriage rights. But when they go along with it for the sake of argument, they generally think “well, two gay parents and a child is more like two bio-parents and a child than it is like a childless couple.” In visual terms, people who want marriage equality see this:
This shows just how immature and selfish pro-SSM people are. They’re clearly thinking only of themselves and are utterly ignoring the children. This is the COUPLE-CENTERED VIEW.
In contrast, people who are against same-sex marriage look at it this way:
See how focused on children this view is? Totally unlike those selfish, “pleasure for adults is the only thing that matters” people who favor same-sex-marriage, this view focuses on what really matters. That’s why this is called the CHILD-CENTERED VIEW.
Gosh, I’m glad that’s been all cleared up..
Terrific!!!!!
Amp! You’re so sarcastic in this post. And you highlighted people’ naughty bits.
I love it!!!!!
Ha!
Somebody ought to tell Mrs. Gallagher that the marrying couple stands under the chuppah. What a pathetic attempt to seem hip and inclusive.
Also:
There have been enough horror stories of abusive parental couples over the years that we can’t say that _a_ man and _a_ woman are the “ideal” environment for raising children. And couples who wish to adopt have to go through stringent screening. By the anti-SSM argument, this should all be swept aside in favor of “they’ve got one man and one woman, it must be good.”
In fact, a lot of the same conservative essentialists prate on, in different contexts, about how women have the nurturing gene and men don’t. This is nonsense, but let’s say it’s true. In which case two women might be a much better child-caring environment than only one woman and a man. Might alleviate some of that testosterone poisoning, too.
hahahahahah! thanks, Amp, good one.
uh, mythago, the people “around the chuppa” are generally the family (and friends) of those under it, which is why you have to think beyond those groups to get a sense of the larger future…
Okay. That was funny. You know, society spent practically an entire generation equalizing “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children, which can otherwise be described as decoupling parenthood from marriage. You owe those support $$ whether you said “I do” or not. The only issue is one of proof.
Nor is parenthood essential to marriage. Even St. Augustine understood that (though he didn’t condone artificial means to forestall the possibility of children, he never doubted that the childless were as married as their child-full counterparts).
Nor is a heterosexual relationship essential to parenthood. People adopt. They use donor sperm. And so on.
Now, marriage is far more likely to support an emotional as well as financial bond between a child and both of his or her parents and is therefore a good thing. So if the issue is to protect children through the establishment of a presumed permanent bond between those who are the child’s “parents” . . . it should be inclusive.
But what you often find, of course, is that “traditional marriage” for opponents of SSM is a term that incorporates a whole host of objections to various trends, including assisted reproduction, adoption by single people, the use of contraception, and so on. So, whether in silence or sotto voce, these arguments have been “built in” to the opposition to SSM. Which makes arguing on straightforward grounds pretty well impossible.
>>But what you often find, of course, is that “traditional marriage” for opponents of SSM is a term that incorporates a whole host of objections
You can see this host of objections at sites like FamilyScholars.com
The problem is that quite often, the arguments for legalzing SSM are exactly the same as the arguments for strengtening marrriage in general. After all, in many ways, promoting marriage is promoting marriage!
Brilliant, Amp!
And like I told a pollster that called me the other night to get my views on SSM, “equal rights is equal rights.” :-)
You are a very funny person and a great cartoonist.
Also, with this post I realize: you really like vests, don’t you?
Nice one, Amp. Good to see nonsense being called nonsense.
>> “equal rights is equal rights.” :-)
That too! :0!
uh, mythago, the people “around the chuppa” are generally the family (and friends) of those under it, which is why you have to think beyond those groups to get a sense of the larger future…
But she was implying that the future-people in question were the offpsring of the couple. If you don’t read it as referring to the children of the marriage, then as she writes it, marriage is about the future of everyone present EXCEPT the married couple.
ROFL…
how succinct and funny! Excellent!
>>marriage is about the future of everyone present EXCEPT the married couple.
Who knows? Maybe that IS what she means.
I’m only half kidding….
Occassionally, reading different rhetoric surrounding the whole debate, I get the impression that an opponent of SSM somehow sees marriage as a great sacrifice a couple makes for the benefit of socieiy. Never thinking of themselves, they bind themselves to some appropriate, respectable person with whom they can procreate and then produce off spring. All for the good of the fatherland, mind you.
Naturally, difficulties ensue. They quibble. But, selfless creatures that they are, they stay together for the kids — and remain together, quibbling long after the kids grow up. ( Gotta stay together for the grandkids?)
I always think: Boy! I’m glad I didn’t sacrifice for the sake of the fatherland! I married a great guy who I love. It’s been a lot of fun. Seems to have worked for lo these twenty years. I hope that for everyone.
Male homosexual marriage will not destroy marriage itself. Male SSM will brings state to endorsement of homosexuality as a viable choice for male sexual release.
The same slippery sloge arguments claiming pedophilia and incest will be next were made in the pre-loving years. The only difference between loving and SSM debate is that during the “Loving” era the slippery slope included “men marrying men”; “imagine the horror”. That is absurd — “no homosexual is going to want to get married because two people of the same race want to get married without committing a crime”.
Who knows? Maybe that IS what she means.
Yeah…ew….
I think the problem here is the word ‘Mariage’. This is a religious term to signify a covenent between man/woman and god to produce more believers … err, I mean children. Religious organizations do have the right to say who can join them and who can partake of their ‘mariage covenent’. So I say, screw ’em. Drop the stupid word mariage (Church and State should be separate) and have happy ‘Partnering’ ‘Domestic Partners’ ‘Significant Others’ or whatever. Make it a partnership between 2 or more consenting adults with a legal contract concerning wealth and support of any children that are acquired through mergers and acquisitions. So there. :-)
You flatter people like Maggie Gallagher and Eve Tushnet by pretending that their opposition to SSM flows from some principled belief about the nature and effects of marriage and parenting and so on. They oppose gay marriage because they are anti-gay bigots. In the case of those particular women, the primary source of that bigotry is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
But of course, they’re not going admit that. They have to maintain the pretense that their position is principled and reasoned and well-intentioned. So what Tushnet and Gallagher do is to try to fashion an argument that will permit the various forms of non-traditional civil marriage they endorse (interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, marriage involving partners who are infertile or criminals or alcoholics or divorcees, etc.) while simultaneously excluding gay marriage. The fact that they are so spectacularly unsuccessful at finding such an argument betrays the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their position, and explains why they increasingly fall back on uttering meaningless mantras like “gay marriage denies that children need a mother and a father” in their effort to keep their religious prejudices enshrined in civil law.
The problem is that you can’t attack the argument by saying “You’re a bigot,” whether or not it’s true. You peel apart the stupid arguments until the anti-SSM proponent is left with no choice but to either concede they are wrong, or retreat into open bigotry.
Well, if you live in a strictly gendered world where men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then yes, marriage is a huge struggle that can only be understood as a sacrifice for the greater good. If homosexuals can marry, then everyone will just be running around marrying their friends instead of their sword gender enemies and society will fall apart.
Or I think that’s the logic.
Yes, we must attack their arguments. We must also attack their bigotry, whether it’s open or disguised.
the cartoons are funny, but mean-spirited. it says you don’t understand their arguments, and aren’t interested in trying to, and are just out to score points.
in the abortion context, i’ve respected your position because you’ve seemed respectful of people with other positions.
now i’ll spend more time questioning your sincerity. one of the characteristics of my personality type is we take things literally and don’t get jokes.
from my new more jaundiced perspective, i’ll take a second look at where you stand on the marriage rights of aardvark-americans and polyfidelitous folks.
it’s no-win for you.
if you oppose equal rights for aardvarks, you
can be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency.
if you support them, you are crazy and open to ridicule.
if you won’t take a position, you can be accused of cowardice.
i’ve never felt too invested in the gay marriage thing, in part because i’ve never had a boyfriend more than two weeks.
of my friends, jim and evo didn’t seem to need social approval. brian and graham, on the other hand, who had been together since wwII, like my parents, played the part of a gentleman and his butler, and were closeted, with costs.
the compulsory hetero-monogamy of my parents didn’t appeal. i figured i’d either be living in a commune, a line marriage, or alone and bitter.
my long term other-sex relationship eventually ended, different expectations, lots of baggage from our childhood, and i’m currently exploring option 3, with its attendant depression and alienation.
hmmm. if same sex marriage is legalized, is this a good time to get in on the ground floor of the mail-order husband industry?
aardvark:
the cartoons are funny, but mean-spirited. it says you don’t understand their arguments, and aren’t interested in trying to,
Okay, why don’t you explain their arguments to us then, if you really think you understand those arguments and we don’t.
one of the characteristics of my personality type is we take things literally and don’t get jokes.
This is amp’s problem why?
wonderful! the same points I’ve been trying to make in arguements for months, but with visual aids (everyone knows people learn better with visual aids)
curious: did you just whip those up for this, or have those sketches been sitting around and you decided to use them for this? they are quite nice.
While the post is funny (very funy really), I also have to agree with aardvark to an extent. It is funny in a mocking and reductive way.
However, aardvark, I don’t think you should take the fact that Amp, after ages of attempting to reason with the anti-marriage position, has given up on attempting to reason with it and has decided to simply mock it, to mean anything negative regarding his true feelings about anti-abortion arguments (or those who hold them). Indeed, I think it shows the opposite. If he truly thought that the anti-abortion position was as dumb and reprehensible as the anti-marriage position, then it is likely that you would have seen him fall back to mockery (as he has here).
I don’t think it is fair, though, to say that he doesn’t understand their arguments. I think he understands them perfectly well, he just thinks they are contemptible and worthy of mockery.
As to why I would say this is reductive and mocking, it is true that the arguments of the anti-marriage faction boil down to an essentialist and limiting understanding of gender, but it is unfair to equate such an obsession with gender with a focus on genitalia.
As to the question of aardvark marriages, whatever. As to the question of polyfidelitous marriages, I favor them on general principle, but do not see a way to trivially fit them into the currently existing institution. To make same-sex marriage fit into the current institution, you merely need to change the paperwork. All of the existing rights, priveleges, and responsibilities map instantly to a same-sex marriage (since we have spent nearly 200 years making marriage rights and responsibilities non-sex specific). To make a poly marriage fit into the existing institution is far less simple, since a contract between three or more people will always require far more specificity and adjustment than a contract between two people. To raise an obvious question that is entirely absent from current marital law, does a poly marriage end when any member decides to dissolve the marriage, or does an individual member simple leave the marraige? If it is a common property state, does the common property remain with the marriage when one member leaves, or does the common property divide up whenever any member leaves? You may think that one option or the other is more reasonable. I may disagree. The important point is that these are entirely undecided matters within the institution of couple marriage, so the creation of poly marriage would require the construction of a new institution, not merely the expansion of the existing generic institution of marriage.
Thank you for not raising the idiotic question of incestuous and child marriages.
Mythago:
What in aardvark’s post suggests that it is Amp’s problem? Perhaps it is Amp’s problem to exactly the extent that it bothers him to lose some of aardvark’s respect.
I’ve clashed with Don P. before, but on this subject he is right. These people are bigots seeking a slapdash justification for their bigotry. Nothing more.
(I have no personal stake in this race. I am a straight man in a straight marriage. But I don’t feel threatened by other people’s marriages.)
Great job, Amp. And I loved your illustrations, especially the way everyone is smiling. :D
It’s interesting how infertility or “they aren’t able to reproduce” is so often brought up. Just because you are lesbian or gay does not mean you cannot reproduce. There are lots of lesbian mothers out there, for instance.
That “marriage is for reproduction” argument would not have permitted my parents to marry. My mother could not have children. I and my sister are adopted. I guess we weren’t a “real” family. *snicker*
>>As to the question of polyfidelitous marriages, I favor them on general principle, but do not see a way to trivially fit them into the currently existing institution.
I don’t favor them— and also see the same problem. The number of specifics you need to write are endless, and I’m not sure it’s possible to have a sort of “agreed upon standard.”
I’ve been wondering… if in a polymarriage of 3, one dies, are the remaining two still married? What about properties and resposibilities? If one gives birth, what are the child custody rights and responsibilities of the others?
All legal questions *can* be resolved, but what’s the sort of “template” for the legal status?
>>That “marriage is for reproduction” argument would not have permitted my parents to marry.
Actually, I wouldn’t be able to be married either! Lucky for me, I am.
If we were to permit polygamy, we would have to write a whole new set of rules, guided in part by the rules that have developed to deal with property rights after divorce. I don’t favor this approach, I think generally it is a bad idea for women’s rights, but I do have to say that there are societies that grapple with this phenomenon. I had a client from an African country with large population of Muslims, Christians and Animists — and I just about fell over when I saw that her marriage license required the parties to indicate whether they intended to contract a polygamous or monogamous marriage. Thus, the first issue is “full disclosure” so a woman who intends to be someone’s only wife can’t be blindsided or coerced after the fact into accepting another wife. Just thought I’d share.
Well, if you live in a strictly gendered world where men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then yes, marriage is a huge struggle that can only be understood as a sacrifice for the greater good.
You’ve put your finger right on it there. Opposition to homosexuality makes perfect sense in a context where gender roles are fixed and stepping outside those roles is somehow destructive to the fabric of society. This is why all the talk of children needing male and female role models in order to grow up healthy; this is why all the talk about sexual complementarity; this is why transsexuals rank among the evils that permitting SSM today will encourage tomorrow. To say it comes down to anti-gay bigotry is true as far as it goes but unhelpful: disapproval of homosexuality is a symptom of a bigger cause.
As for SSM I could care less. I love the way people say that SSM will be the downfall of society. Just like the Roman Empire, Man-Man love was only a small fraction of the downfall of the Roman Empire. Overextention of the military, civilian misapplication of military power, demagoguery and the objectification of women through gay sex. “Women are for child rearing; Men are for loving and caring.” The common thought of the male ruling class. I say let men marry. This will put a quell on women’s rights and all of the other benefits that sanctioning gay sex provided for women. I could provide sperm for women to have children and while women are taking care of their children, us men can go to work to take care of ourselves, have sex in bath houses after a hard day and not have to deal with women and kids holding us back. I don’t think there is a better argument for SSM marriage than that. If there is let me know. I remember my best friend when I was growing up – boy do I wish I could have married him, we would have had a blast – oh well, I guess now other young men will not have to face the stigma that women put on male homosexuality anymore and it will soon be commonplace to date and marry your best friend – as it should be.
While the post is funny (very funy really), I also have to agree with aardvark to an extent. It is funny in a mocking and reductive way.
Gosh, mocking anti-gay bigotry. How awful. Next thing you know, we’ll be mocking racism too.
disapproval of homosexuality is a symptom of a bigger cause
I’d say that it’s less a symptom than an element. Homophobia and sexism feed on and support each other (though I’d argue sexism is the wider problem): even societies that approved of sex between men saw being the ‘receiving’ partner as being womanly and inferior, and either appropriate only for boys or a mark of an unmanly man. You still get this attitude with men who deny they’re gay, because they’re always the one *getting* the blowjob.
Charles, what I meant is that it’s not ampersand’s responsibility to avoid humor to cater to people who simply don’t get jokes, ever. Mockery is pointless when you’re saying “my opponents are just bozos!” without more–but that’s not what ampersand is doing. The humor and mockery is illuminating exactly the crux of the anti-SSM arguments.
mythago:
Homophobia and sexism feed on and support each other (though I’d argue sexism is the wider problem): even societies that approved of sex between men saw being the ‘receiving’ partner as being womanly and inferior, and either appropriate only for boys or a mark of an unmanly man.
Castigation by women of sex between men was the catalyst for modern equal rights of women. Homophobia (a term wholly misapplied) and sexism feed on each other but only inversely. It was not until the gay men lobby courted women (by saying we are just like you) that women were duped into believing that Men not needing women is a good thing. The modern feminist, not realizing that gay sex was historically about subjugation — You still get this attitude with men who deny they’re gay, because they’re always the one *getting* the blowjob — embraced the gay lobby for a perceived common goal of equality. Women’s sanctioning gay men has the same benefits of gay men sanctioning man-boy love. It is a bad deal for both. I say women must realize this before they are left in the dark ages, economically and socially.
J Stevenson:
With all due respect, which isn’t much, your claims are just batty.
“Gay sex was historically about subjugation,” was it? “Castigation by women of sex between men was the catalyst for modern equal rights of women,” was it? And you know this, how?
For god’s sake, don’t encourage him. :-P
* * *
RA wrote: Also, with this post I realize: you really like vests, don’t you?
Heck yeah!
* * *
Karpad: curious: did you just whip those up for this, or have those sketches been sitting around and you decided to use them for this? they are quite nice.
Thanks! I whipped them up for this post.
* * *
Aardvark, I’m sorry to have disappointed you. I’d respond in detail, but I think Charles’ response really says everything I’d want to say.
Look, I’ve been trying very hard to understand anti-SSM arguments for a long time now, and it’s become frustrating. Far more, I think, than arguments against abortion (or affirmative action, or the minimum wage, or a thousand other things I favor), the anti-SSM arguments simply make no sense. To say “we want to foster the best environment for children to be raised in, which is marraige, therefore same-sex couples with children absolutely must not be allowed to get married, unlike childless heterosexual couples” is gibberish, and I’m sick of pretending it’s anything other than gibberish.
Yeah, the post & accompanying illustrations were both funny & mean. But, really, that’s what the anti-SSM argument boils down to and it’s something that I’ve been saying for some time – just not as entertainingly. If you think about every single justification used by the anti-SSM crowd it boils down to fear, hate or disapproval of homosexuality. All the excuses (and the elaborate and faulty logic used in support of said excuses) are just to cover for their disapproval of homosexuality. On the good side, at least our society has advanced to the point where it is not acceptable to say that homosexuals should be denied their constitutional rights because they are evil. On the bad side, we now have to spend lots of time pointing out that this is what they’re saying.
Amp, you’re right.
J Stevenson, I withdraw my questions.
Now, now, it’s a good illustration of another nonsensical mindset: All Oppression Is Women’s Doing.
From a song I heard a while back (sorry I can’t recall and thusly credit the author):
“It’s only a wee-wee, so what’s the big deal.
It’s only a wee-wee, so what’s all the fuss?
It’s only a wee-wee, and everyone’s got one,
There’s better things to discuss.”
Ed
“Gay sex was historically about subjugation,”
During the Greek, Roman, Egyptian Empires man-man sex was commonplace. Commonplace was the leader and his protege, knights and the squires, etc. In addition, women were only for childrearing and childbearing. You still see these practices today in several “third-world” countries that have not embraced women’s equal rights (Africa, China, Middle Eastern nations and parts of South America).
For instance, in Africa where women are typically relegated to a “hole in the storm” men will gladly receive satisfaction through any orafice (animals, inanimate objects – Judge on the bench – women, and of course other men). The benefit of receiving satisfaction from another man is that a man will also share a bond that cannot be understood by a woman (whether that bond is engendered by nature or nurture is still at issue). Nevertheless, in modern societies where women have been treated as equals and not as a “port in a storm” those countries and their populations have thrived. Where women were subjugated and not brought into the “Men’s club”, where sex, male caring and male nepotism are rampant those societies have sputtered and are for the most part failing.
I know this may be cause for disbelief, but a man would be kidding himself if he did not believe that most young men, if left to their own devices, without the social stigma created by women, would have sex everyday, with anything.
As one post said — “love was made up by men to get women to have sex with them in the back seat of a car.” Women are the purveyors of monogamy. Without them and the social stigma they put on a lack therof, men would never practice it. To think otherwise would be naïve .
BTW — I love your blog. I am new to reading blogs and your posts (and your guests posts) are extremely thought provoking.
Don P: “With all due respect, which isn’t much, your claims are just batty.
“Gay sex was historically about subjugation,” was it? “Castigation by women of sex between men was the catalyst for modern equal rights of women,” was it? And you know this, how?”
Answer: An article on bitheway.org/bi/roman.htm was one source. The article lists several excellent source publications, such as, “Women’s Life in Greece & Rome: A Source Book in Translation.” There are many other historical studies and commentaries which cite historical facts.
There are many other publications and studies regarding the link between subjugation of women and male homosexuality.
So if the article you reference is ‘one source,’ what are your other sources?
I get a 404 error at that page.
Amp,
I love the cartoons, and I think the are very effective at communicating many things all at once. I particular:
The bizarre claim that the “child-centered” view requires us force some parents to remain unwed. I just feel like blinking when people explain to me that, although I have undergone a hysterectomy, I am “presumed” procreative! Presumed by whom? Someone who doesn’t know a woman needs a uterus to give birth?!
I forgot to say:
I don’t think this post is any meaner than comments such as, “I get it. You don’t have any children, do you? That’s why you can’t understand…” and the like.
mythago: In order to save bandwidth I emailed my answer to you.
lucia (and I’m sure you knew this), to those people it’s that men and women can, in general, make babies; that an individual man or woman can’t make babies, or make babies with their spouse, is irrelevant to the Greater Principle.
mythago:
And my response to that claim is to ask why gay marriage is therefore not also irrelevant to that Greater Principle. If civil marriage is fundamentally about men and women making and raising children, but is resilient enough to accommodate the large number of heterosexual couples who cannot make babies (and who have no desire to adopt or raise other people’s babies), why should we think it is not also resilient enough to accommodate a much smaller number of same-sex couples?
(Understand, I don’t accept their premise that what marriage is about is making babies; I’m just saying that even if one grants that premise their argument for excluding gay couples still doesn’t make sense.)
Stevenson, for all the historical blather that you have to “support” your argument, you have managed to mix up the Roman Empire with ancient Greece. *BRAAAP* Try again.
Women had alot more freedom in the Roman Empire than they did in ancient Greece. And while it is true that in ancient Greece well-off men treated wives as baby machines and considered true sexual love only possible outside the house, it wasn’t homosexual sex in the sense of a sexual orientation. Lovers were younger men or (gasp!) actual women, concubines.
As far as you can tell from reading actual writers from ancient Greece, as a general rule genuine homosexuals who had relationships between equals seem to be looked down upon. The rule of thumb was that well-off men never had sex with equals–it was always younger men, wives, or concubines. And from what I can get off Plato, it seems that concubines might have actually gotten the most respect out of all, considering that they were literate and relatively free compared to slaves and wives.
Damn… I arrived late. I wanted to say “OMG Brilliant!!!” but now that I’m the 30th person to say it, I feel kinda unoriginal, but I can’t think of anything else to say.
Well, here goes:
OMG Brilliant!!!
In other news, I’d say J Stevenson is compelled to oppose opposite-sex marraige as well. Homosexual relationships may have frequently contained elements of domination and inequality, but heterosexual relationships have, if anything, more so.
Amanda,
I did not confuse the Greeks with the Romans. The Romans shunned the Greek view of unfettered male sexual labido as much as possible. Concubines were more erudite than “wives” and slaves. I also agree that concubines were also realtively free; their education enabled them to articulately advocate the need to reign in the male libido. In the beds of their male lovers they advocated the greater good of society was for their lover to limit his desires to one sex. A hypothosis is that the concubine’s advocacy was the catalyst for monogamous relationships. Imagine, monogamous relationsip concept started by “the other woman.” In theory this was the first of many revolutions for equality for women. When woemen were able to free the male libido from its homosexual desires or rather subside his homosexual desires, women would then be able to take the place of the young men who shared the education and love of their powerful lovers and mentors. Of course this took hundreds of years.
Julian: I agree by sheer numbers — heterosexual relationships have contained more incidents of dominance. As an interesting research topic — what is the percentage of submissive/dominance relationships in gay male relationsips? I don’t think there could be an accurate study, just like heterosexual – Evangelical relationships, the submissive party may not even know they are not equal.
For a thought provoking alternative point of view (if at all possible, ignore the fundamentalist rhetoric and focus on the thesis), here is a post by Dennis Prager (a rightwing religious zealot): http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml.
I am not on either side of the issue, but I do like to explore alternative points of view. This one is arguably as well put together as “Ampersand’s” piece above.
A hypothosis is that the concubine’s advocacy was the catalyst for monogamous relationships.
Monogamy for women existed long before the Greeks.
women would then be able to take the place of the young men who shared the education and love of their powerful lovers and mentors
No. Those young men grew into mature men, and then took their rightful place as the dominant sex. Heterai were privileged women, but nonetheless women.
Mythago: “Those young men grew into mature men, and then took their rightful place as the dominant sex.”
True. However, with sex between men marginalized, women conceptually would have more time with their “master”. Then, around 3000 years later women would be able to sit at the table with men as partners. Perhaps it was coincidental, but with male-male sex out of the picture, women were able to exert more power over their men.
Ampersand: I can’t wait for tomorrow. TTFN.
Condemnation of homosexuality in this culture derives from Jewish and Christian sources, which also advocated subjugation of women to men.
1. Judaic Law death penalty for homosexual acts, mentioned in Leviticus
2. Pauline citation of same (remember, Paul was a Jew fully conversant with the Law before he converted).
3. Many Pauline statements about women’s subjection to man, inability to speak in church (because women not made in God’s image, but only a second-hand copy of Adam), and so forth.
So I just don’t see where women enforced condemnation of male homosexuality in the Judaeo-Christian cultures. They didn’t have the power to enforce anything, and the priests had done the job already anyway.
Greek and Roman practice is irrelevant to consideration of sexual mores in modern Europe and America.
women conceptually would have more time with their “master”
I’m really not following the logic here. Greek prostitutes discouraged their male clients from having sex with boys so that, millenia down the road, women would have men’s full attention?
I hesitate to wade again into the cesspool of J Stevenson’s theories, but monogamy certainly predates Roman culture.
Anthropologists categorize homo sapiens as a mildly polygamous species. Polygamy has been observed in all or virtually all human societies for which we have recorded histories. High-ranking men typically acquire exclusive sexual access to multiple women. This tends to deprive other men of any sexual access to women, creating conflict. The greater size and strength of men compared to women, a pattern common to most mammal species, is most likely the result of an evolutionary arms race fueled by competition amoung males for sexual access to females.
The prevailing anthropological theory about the origin of institutionalized monogamy is that it arose to reduce conflict between men for sexual access to women. If each man only gets one woman, then every man can have one.
thanks charles.
Posted by Don P
aardvark:
Okay, why don’t you explain their arguments to us then, if you really think you understand those arguments and we don’t.
No, i don’t get it either, that’s why i was disappointed that amp didn’t get it either, but was just setting up a joke.
To take a wild guess, the advocates of compulsary hetero-monagamy see life as difficult and dangerous, and that certain rules like ‘don’t eat lobster’ or ‘marriage is one man + one woman’ have allowed people and cultures to survive where others perished, that is is important to conserve the memes that aid in survival. the straight and narrow path through the valley of the shadow of death has hazards like aids and communism and decadence, that should be avoided by the pilgrim.
but i don’t think this holds up, traditional marriage was a man, a woman, and an extended kinship network of her sisters and her cousins and her aunts. nuclear marriage is new, has a low success rate, and is devolving into serial monagamy or single-person households, with the isolated singles trying to find community in new social institutions, as vonegutt discusses.
j. stevenson: welcome. it can be a tough room. you’ve shown you can listen to feedback, thanked our gracious host, and begun to cite sources.
i think you have something to add. i agree that looking to greece and rome helps explain where we are now, and that i haven’t kept up with the literature on that. i’ve been reading xenophon on sparta as part of trying to understand and combat state-sponsored violence against young black males in memphis, but that approach leaves out women’s perpectives.
“The same slippery sloge arguments claiming pedophilia and incest will be next were made in the pre-loving years.”
Actually, the people arguing in favor of pedophilia and incest are very much *against* same-sex marriage.
Lots of people in these societies believe that if they give up their centuries-old traditions such as
– pedophilia (marrying off a 8-year-old daughter, raping a 10-year-old wife on the wedding night, etc.)
– incest (marrying off one’s son’s daughter to one’s other son’s son, 9 months later blaming the recessive-gene birth defects on hospital racism instead of inbreeding, etc.)
– polygamy (paying several cattle each to 5 men to buy 5 girls’ hands in marriage), etc.
– teen pregnancy (pressuring one’s 13-year-old daughter-in-law to bear one grandsons immediately instead of waiting for high school graduation or even wider hips)
– etc.
and switch to respecting marriage between a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman…
…then they’ll end up on the slippery slope to things like same-sex marriage and interracial marriage and intercaste marriage.
Fortunately, lots of other people in these societies (for a Masaai example: 12-year-old girls who don’t want to be married off, fathers and tribal chiefs who want the girls to stay in school and not get raped, etc.) can be proud of all the good in their cultures and condemn the bad customs in their cultures at the same time! :D
Yeah, I’m gonna have to stringently argue on the Rome point: Romans didn’t approve of homosexuality *in any form*. It was less bad to be on the “giving” end, but nonetheless, it was uncool.
Ed, if you or anyone intersted is still following the thread –the “wee-wee” song you excerpted above is by Peter Alsop (I can’t believe I know shi’ like that).
The CHILD-CENTERED VIEW splits both the SSM crowd and the Opposite-gender-only crowd.
But it has the added feature of splitting the state interest from purely private sexual conduct. If there are no kids then there is no remaining public purpose, or at least that state interest turns to mush on morality.
If kids are the center what then what are we to make of non-married cohabitating households-of-three where two women each have biological kids? Can the state make such a living arrangement illegal (Edmunds Act)? For what purpose? For the kids sake? Would the children services division rely on rulemaking to declare, as a matter of fact, that a household of three is unhealthy on purely morality grounds for the sake of the kids? How does this compare to the state attitude for two gay married guys raising one of their own biological kids?
The state acceptance of only-two in a household squishes out the ability to rely on a CHILD-CENTERED VIEW without accepting the non-married cohabitating household-of-three where two women each have biological kids.
What we have here is an unsolvable analytical challenge. An atheist has an easy solution but it smacks right up against the morality demands of the SSM folks. The childless SSM folks would just as soon join with childless opposite gender only married folks to smack the happy fertile household-of-three just to get their narrow state recognition of sexual morality.
It is all a bunch of religious junk to me that properly belongs outside the sphere of state involvement. This includes the SSM religious junk as much as it does the Evangelists.
Pingback: mythago
Pingback: Daddy, Papa & Me
Pingback: Auterrific
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Long story; short pier
this post is not true at all. statistics have shown that homosexual parents and heterosexual parents are about the same. some where I heard that they were way better but I can’t find any reliable source that says so and would not trust the man who told me if my life depended on it.
the studies and all the books and dates for homosexual parenting R here @ http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
but enough with scientific facts even though this post seems ignorant of logic or fact.
starting with logic; you highlighted the parents genitals and proposed that that was what made good parents. I hope that NO children will have very much to do with their parents genitals aside from conception and birth. how a penis and a vagina could posibly make better parents is beyond me.
and this view of a penis and a vagina making a good parenting set does not acknowledge hermaphodites. Because homosexuality is not proven birth disorder it cannot B labeled as discrimination to make ANY laws againts them but hermaphrodites are born like that and It is very unfair to say to them genitals R the thing that makes you a fit parent or not.
now enough with logic and statistics, the reason this infuriated me and made me stay up so late when I have school tomarrow writing this is personal experience. my parents are horrible people. my dad does not understand children. he cannot comit to any thing that doesn’t take care of it’self. He is a cruel person, and not accepting of any thing but hard work and solitary resposibility. In short he hates me. he is not at all fit to be a father. My mother is hormonaly, mentaly, and emotionaly unstable. I know U might think every teen ager thinks this but every day screaming at each other and her crying and apologising afterwards… I understand often, maybe even a lot but several times a day is crazy. she is crazy. and no one except her new hubby, my dad, and I know it. because we actualy had to live with her. needless to say she is just as bad as my dad. these people were heterosexual unfortunatly. in a cruel twist of fate they meet and did the all american bourgioesie thing to do and got married. popular culture encouraged her to take the next step and have a child. Not thinking about commitment or long term like he always does, my dad agreed. and I was sent kicking and screaming into this world.
Before I get to my point I need to tell the story of the most wonderful woman I have ever meet. She was born in los angleles and was atracted to girls since middle school. she stayed in denial so much that she did what some lesbians do and picked the manliest man possible to prove she wasn’t gay and married him. My best friend in the whole wolrd was a a result of this mistake but the homosexual woman learned her lesson and finaly excepted who she was. she divorced her hubby with out a good reason and shared custody. They were the perfect family aside form the fact there was only two of them. I always felt she was the perfect mother when I went there. years later the son hated his dad and his mother found an equaly amazing woman from russia to be the love of her life. they are the closest thing I’ve ever had to a family, They R the best family I’ve ever seen. how can you say that same sex marraige supporters don’t think of children?! kelly(The mother who is like mine), and Lina (the russian woman who made kelly complete), cannot be married because of people like you who are ignorant and afraid of what they don’t understand! I know you wont even post this but I owe it to them to write this any ways.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, illustrates the principle that sarcasm does not work on the net.
Oh, and Amp — loved the cartoons. I mostly only knew you from the Ms. boards as someone who posted. Nice to see you less one dimensionally.