I’m starting off the week by sharing a cogent essay by John Corvino (pictured at right) on how best to respond to a particular argument often used by opponents of same-gender civil marriage. It’s an argument that goes like this: because marriage has been heterosexual “always and everywhere,” then any type of marriage arrangement involving two people of the same gender is out of the question.This particular piece by Corvino was first published by Between the Lines on September 17, 2009.
_________________________________________
Always and Everywhere?
By John Corvino
Between the Lines
September 17, 2009
By John Corvino
Between the Lines
September 17, 2009
Marriage equality opponents frequently claim that marriage has been heterosexual since ... well, since forever, and that it is arrogant and foolish to tinker with such a pervasive human institution.
Whatever its logical shortcomings, the “always and everywhere” argument is rhetorically effective. Even gay rights advocates concede that marriage equality seemed unthinkable just a decade or two ago. Imagine how novel it appears to those who, unlike us, have no direct stake in the issue.
It’s tempting to respond that lots of things that seemed unthinkable a few decades ago – iPhones, Facebook, Sarah Palin – are, for better or worse, now familiar. But the reluctance to tinker with marriage is deep-seated. The “always and everywhere” argument demands a response that is not only logically sound but also rhetorically compelling.
Several responses are worth pondering. I’ve given them each names for convenience:
False premise: The claim that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual suffers from what should be a fatal flaw: it is simply not true. Same-sex marriages have been documented in a number of cultures, notably some African and Pacific Island cultures.
Marriage equality opponents retort that these marriages are not quite the same as modern same-sex marriages, since they typically involve a kind of gender transformation of one of the partners. But this response is a red herring. Sure, homosexual marriages in these cultures look different from ours in various respects – but so do their heterosexual marriages. More important, it is doubtful that opponents would abandon their objection to contemporary same-sex marriages as long as one partner agreed to be the “wife” and the other the “husband.”
The real problem with the “false premise” response is rhetorical: The response depends on anthropological data unfamiliar to most people, and it appeals to “exotic” cultures whose practices most Americans find irrelevant.
Heteronormativity: Rhetorical considerations would also weigh against using words like “heteronormativity” when responding to people’s basic fears about marriage. But it’s nonetheless true that the “always and everywhere” argument begs the question against those who argue – quite rightly – that the heterosexual majority tends to oppress the homosexual minority always and everywhere. Because of that oppression, recorded history often ignores or erases our lives and commitments.
Keep in mind that just a few decades ago, gays and lesbians were still considered mentally ill in much of the western world; even today, gays are stoned to death in parts of the world. Against that backdrop, it’s not surprising that same-sex marriage seems newfangled. The marriage equality movement owes as much to an improved understanding of sexuality as it does to changing views about marriage.
Not Mandatory: Even granting the (false) premise that marriage has been heterosexual “always and everywhere,” so what? No one is proposing that same-sex marriage be made mandatory. Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist “always and everywhere” for those who seek it, even while society recognizes that it's not appropriate for everyone. The opponents’ argument seems to play on the irrational notion that giving marriage to gays somehow means taking it away from straights.
Non-Sequitur: Let’s concede to marriage equality opponents that history and tradition are important, and that we should be cautious about changes to major social institutions. Yet even if (contrary to fact) marriage were heterosexual “always and everywhere,” it does not follow that marriage cannot expand and evolve. One should never confuse a reasonable caution with a stubborn complacency.
Increasingly, that complacency is more than stubborn – it’s unconscionable. Marriage equality opponents can no longer ignore the fact that we fall in love, just like they do; that our relationships have positive effects in our lives and the lives of those around us, and that we reasonably seek to protect and nurture these relationships. If not marriage for us, then what?
Ultimately, the problem with the “always and everywhere” argument is that each new same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it. Whatever happened in the past, we have marriage equality now – in a small but growing number of places. These same-sex marriages are by and large bearing good fruit. If ignoring tradition is “arrogant and foolish,” ignoring the evidence unfolding before us is exponentially so.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, click here.
For more of John Corvino at The Wild Reed, see:
Human Sex: Weird and Silly, Messy and Sublime
Two Upcoming Events of Special Interest to Twin Cities-area LGBT Catholics
See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Changing Face of “Traditional Marriage”
On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition
The Real Gay Agenda
Naming and Confronting Bigotry
What Straights Can Learn from Gay Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage: Still Very Much on the Archbishop’s Mind
The Same People
An Ironic Truth
A Catholic Voice for Marriage Equality at the State Capitol
“We Can Make It Happen”
Michael, John Corvino is of course entirely accurate in claiming the argument as presented is simply false. Unfortunately the claim is made so frequently that it is believed without question, and many who disagree with the conclusion don't recognise the premise is simply false.
ReplyDeleteTo add to Corvino's points, I offer some further details in support:
In addition to the modern examples of same gender marriage he quotes, in classical times it was recognised in Rome, in parts of Greece, in Egypt and in Canaan. Elsewhere, same sex marriages were
found in China and Japan.
In Christian Europe, liturgical rites for blessing same sex couples as "sworn brothers" occurred in both Eastern and Western branches of the church. Frequently, these couples were buried in shared graves exactly as married couples, with tombstones or other memorials in church drawing attention to their relationships.
To those who point out (rightly) that these were not strictly comparable to modern heterosexual marriage, I agree: but like Corvino, I point out that neither were heterosexual relationships of those times exactly comparable to modern heterosexual arrangements.
"Traditional" marriage is a modern invention.
To question the supposed superiority or normativity (within a culture or across cultures) of heterosexual orientation - that's one thing.
ReplyDeleteNot recognizing that, for humans, female & mail pair-bonding is part & parcel of the sexual reproduction of human children, and that whatever we call this particular kind of human relationship, we find it wherever humans have been, are, or will be - that's another thing. The one completely distinctive thing about hetrosexuality is existence - mine, yours, everyones (notwithstanding current efforts to bring the loving procreation of children out of the privacy of the bedroom and into the laboratory).
People tend to use the word "marriage" to describe the social structure surrounding (among many other things) permanent pair-bonding for reproduction, which bonding creates (we hope) an environment suitable for raising children.
If Dr. Corvino is proposing a different definition of "marriage," or parallel definitions of "marriage," it'd be a service for him tell the rest of us what that definition or those definitions are.
There's alot of crowing in the marriage equality movement about people being denied equal rights. There are no rights without responsibilities. No one sat down 100, 200, 300 or more years ago in the United States and said to themselves "Hmmm...here is where we lay out the responsibilities & rights of marriage. Lets make sure LGBT people don't have them." There was a presumption that the responsibilities & rights that accompany the word "marriage" give a civic, secular, legal foundation to (quoting what I wrote above) "the word "marriage" to describe the social structure surrounding (among many other things) permanent pair- bonding for reproduction, which bonding creates (we hope) an environment suitable for raising children."
If we are now at a moment when this definition needs to change, I suggest we consider all the reasons (good, bad, neutral) why both the civil and/or religious definitions of marriage should or should not change. I wouldn't start with a discussion of why people think they do or don't have "rights." No discussion of rights is complete without a discussion of the corresponding responsibilities.
My big question is not about marriage equality for LGBT persons so much as how the responsibilities & rights of marriage have been distorted towards the interests of men & women in serially monogamous relationships, with nary about about the effects of pre- marital cohabitation, followed by marriage, followed by divorce, followed by cohabitation, possibly followed by a 2nd marriage and a 2nd divorce, does to children.
The question of secular or religious polygamy, polyandry and group marriage (which are also affected by cohabitation, marriage and divorce) - all of which have been among us since time immemorial - also needs to be addressed.
"The claim that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual suffers from what should be a fatal flaw: it is simply not true. Same-sex marriages have been documented in a number of cultures, notably some African and Pacific Island cultures."
ReplyDeleteDocumentation should be provided for this claim. I find it very suspect. I am certainly willing to be proved wrong, but show me.
Everything in this debate rides on how you define marriage. I am skeptical that any culture before our own seperated so fatally the connection between sex and makin' babies. Therein lies the real problem to marrriage "equality"- the inseperable connection between the two ends of marriage - union and procreation. If marriage is simply about romantic, life long commitment, than of course we can speak of homosexual marriage. But if marriage is defined as ESSENTIALLY connected to physical opennes to life, than homosexual union does not a marriage make. Therefore, it seems to me that the real debate is around a definition of "marriage." And, well, people "everywhere and always" have in fact defined marriage as fundamentally about childbirth until recently, even in Africa and in the Pacific Island cultures. True, we've always had homosexual love affairs (see the Platonic dialogues for heaven's sake!) but marriage is a different animal.
Anonymous might find the following links of interest:
ReplyDeleteSame-Sex Marriage Goes Way Back
Homo History
Opponents of Gay Marriage Need A History Lesson
Taking a “Husband”: A History of Gay Marriage
The Ancient and Modern History of Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage is as Old as History
Also, Anonymous says: "If marriage is simply about romantic, life long commitment, than of course we can speak of homosexual marriage. But if marriage is defined as ESSENTIALLY connected to physical openness to life, than homosexual union does not a marriage make."
Well . . . in that case, neither does a union of two heterosexuals past the age of procreation, or where one or both are sterile!
Also, gay couples can and do raise children.
Finally, doesn't that old song say "love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage"? Should we now change the words to "Making babies and marriage . . ."?
The bottom line: Love exists for gays and straights regardless of the ability to procreate. When two people meet and fall in love I don't believe the first or primary concern is for "making babies." It's about creating a loving life together - one that may or may not include future children.
"Love exists for gays and straights regardless of the ability to procreate. When two people meet and fall in love I don't believe the first or primary concern is for "making babies." It's about creating a loving life together - one that may or may not include future children."
ReplyDeleteIf this is a proposed definition of marriage, here are some possible problems with it:
1. It devalues procreation, children, and the life-long sacrifice both can require.
2. It appears its primary focus is internal to the relationship, rather than proposing a balance of internal & external focus.
3. No mention of a life-long commitment (sic?).
4. Fits in far to nicely with the epidemic of co-habitation, pre-nuptial (sic?) agreements, marriage (which may be open or closed), divorce, and repeating this cycle. This cycle is biased towards instability rather than stability.
5. Reflects a "male" view of relationship.
6. Is not inclusive of the following:
- Women, regardless of sexual orientation.
- Lesbians: are there any reading or writing here? Is the preceding definition of relationship what lesbians hope for?
- Other religions or none at all. A Zen Buddhist critique of this definition might fall back to the Buddha's foundational diagnosis of the human condition that desire inevitably leads to suffering.
- Other cultures. I think I know what the reaction would be if I proposed this definition in Canada or Germany: What's new about this? We've been doing it for years. Move to Honduras, Nigeria or Hong Kong and what happens?
7. Exegetically, this definition truncates the marital imagery of the relationship between Yaweh & Israel (in the Hebrew Bible) and Jesus and the Church (in the Christian Bible). In both sets of scripture marriage without children was seen as an aberration; the gift of children was greatly desired and was the frequent occasion of Divine action & intervention.
I suggest this definition of marriage justifies male misbehavior in modernity and is not a step forward.
Mark . . . Any definition of marriage is going to have "possible problems." The ones you raise in response to my thoughts on Anonymous' comment are not "problems" for me - nor to many others, women and lesbians included. I get the feeling you think that life-long commitment and procreation are always and everywhere important to women - and women only; that men need women to keep them in line. These are all gross stereotypes - and perhaps "possible problems" in your view on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting discussion taking place here - and I appreciate everyone's involvement.
ReplyDeleteDonna, I agree with you that one can too readily stereotype men and women, but the exchange between you and Mark reminds me of the writings of Caroline Jones and others on the masculine and feminine energies. I think their are differences in these energies - energies that each one of us contain within ourselves, regardless of our physical gender.
Following is what I wrote about these energies in a previous Wild Reed post - one inspired by a visit to the Sunnataram Forest Monastery in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales, Australia.
_____________________
As Caroline Jones reminds us, “The West was offered [the understanding of God (i.e., “ultimate reality”) as a mystery ultimately beyond human comprehension and dualities] by the Christian philosopher, Nicholas of Cusa, a cardinal of the Roman church, who spoke of the coincidence of the opposites. Yet as Bede Griffiths points out, ‘for centuries now the western world has been following the path of Yang – of the masculine, active, aggressive, rational, scientific mind – and has brought the world near to destruction. It is time now to recover the path of Yin, of the feminine, passive [i.e. receptive in a dynamic and creative way], patient, intuitive and poetic mind’.”
I’d like to add two points to this conversation: First, many insights of the East can be discerned embedded in the life and teaching of Jesus – especially if one explores the various Gnostic gospels and/or read any of the gospels in their original Aramaic context. Doing so will illuminate the origins of Christianity as being more eastern than western, more esoteric than exoteric. (A book I’ve found to be both helpful and insightful in this matter is Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition by Richard Smoley.)
Second, if one defines “male/female” solely in terms of the anatomical apparatus found between one’s legs, then homosexuality could be condemned in the eastern view because of its failure to embody “the union of opposites,” “the Yin and the Yang.” Yet many concur with Caroline Jones when she notes that when talking about the male/female opposites, we’re actually referring to an “attitude of mind, not with biological gender.” Understanding male/female in this way means that we can confidently say that the tenets of eastern spirituality (along with the esoteric stream of spirituality within Christianity) do not condemn homosexuality.
Yet what about the problem of the overt emphasis on the male “attitude of mind” in the West?
Says Bede Griffiths: “The world today needs to recover [the] sense of feminine power, which is complementary to the masculine and without which [humanity] becomes dominating, sterile, and destructive. But this means that western religion must come to recognize the feminine aspect of God.”
Peace,
Michael
Hi, Donna,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions (at least I think your're asking questions):
1. "I get the feeling you think that life-long commitment and procreation are always and everywhere important to women - and women only."
No, only to some people, regardless of biological sex, sexual orientation or marital status. And in a certain place & time.
But if you have kids, the social science evidence is absolutely clear that the gold standard for the flourishing of children is keeping those kids with their biological parents.
Since I can't father children, and I'm a foster & adoptive parent, I realize I may be putting myself at a disadvantage here, but so be it.
2. "[T]hat men need women to keep them in line."
Now THAT is a gross stereotype. After 25 years of marriage I'm only beginning to learn its really the other way 'round, regardless of what men think is happening or should happen.
The only certain thing in my life besides death and taxes is that I've never once been in charge of any woman I've known. Ever. Even a little bit.
The Church has a definition of marriage. Those who want a different definition seem to have difficulty offering their own, new definition and the reasons for it. The background reading for that different definition may be treatise after treatise, but a succinct definition should at least be possible. That different definition should be debated on its merits and deficiencies - once we can see what it is, beyond somebody saying "you have rights I lack."
Very interesting discussion.
ReplyDeletePeace to all - Mark