Chapter Nine: Draft Three: The New Ethos
Chapter 9:
Homosexual Marriage:
Redefining Marriage by Making It Meaningless:
Disguising the Ethos of Death as Tolerance and Diversity
“Marriage as an institution is right in theory, though it may not necessarily be right in practice, as evidenced by the high rates of divorce in the U.S. Marriage does, however, have many practical implications-psychologically, socially, physically, financially, and legally. It is not just another life-style choice. Marriage as an institution is interminable because of its benefits to society as a whole, to men, and to women, and particularly to children and adolescents. In creating a template for behavior, marriage is unique in granting certain rights and privileges and in creating certain expectations and responsibilities sanctioned by society. Individuals may not always follow these norms, but they know when they have transgressed. No other institution offers the same promise of permanence...”
- Sylvia R. Karasu, M.D. [1]
Concerned citizens on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage worry about the continued existence of society and culture as they know it. And, as in the case of the Ethos of Anti-Culture and the Ethos of Death, the reverence for and the celebration of human life constitutes the essence of the debate over same-sex marriage. No one wants to talk about it, but there is actually a reason that, for thousands of years, the definition of marriage has been reserved for the celebration of sexual relationships between men and women. But, no longer is it universally thought of as a spiritual, religious celebration of the potential for life and the continuation of the species. Today, many people do not even think of marriage as a spiritual and religious celebration. They think of it only in its legal terms, and, in the USA, that is acceptable. There is an anti-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights, and, while it is not actually in the Constitution, Americans often describe the effect of that clause with terms like “Separation of Church and State.” That is fine, and I am not suggesting that people be forced to accept my spiritual values.
What I am suggesting is that everyone remember why marriage became an object of spiritual veneration and became a special, legally protected institution, the importance of which goes far beyond anyone’s concerns for religion and spirituality. Around the world, in most living cultures, marriage has reached this status because it is fundamentally important for the future of the human race. Why is it fundamentally important? Because it is the ideal arrangement for the production of and the enculturation of new humans, new citizens. For this reason is it celebrated in religion and protected by law. Thus, I am asking my readers to consider and understand that the concern for heterosexual marriage is so fundamental to human nature and the best interests of humanity that it not only transcends any matters of law that it actually transcends matters of religion and spirituality. The reason that law and religion are both obsessed with sexuality and marriage is because human nature itself has as its first priority sexual reproduction and the welfare of its offspring. That is priority number one, above and beyond everything else. Everything else is a luxury. To forget this fact is to forget why marriage has always been so important in human societies. To forget this fact is to forget what it means to be human. All the same, most people in the USA have forgotten this fact.
The ideals separating the two positions in this battle represent moral and spiritual differences so basic and fundamental that they have truly separated the two sides into irreconcilable camps. At the same time, this difference runs so deep and is so basic that most people on both sides are completely blind to its true source. As in every other chapter of this book, it is a question of priorities. A person’s number one priority defines his Ethos. Is the veneration of the divinely established and eternal cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth the first and most important principle in one’s cosmology and morality? Does that priority transcend the concern for everything else, including concerns for quality of life? Does that concern inform and focus the other ideals of one’s world view, including love, individual freedom, ambition, justice, good, evil, etc.? Or, are there priorities within that person’s world view more important than the reverence for life, other priorities like charity, compassion, tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness, equality, and kindness? Who could possibly chose life over compassion, tolerance, and inclusiveness? How a person answers these questions reveals to the whole world which side he has taken in this debate over same-sex marriage, the side of Life, or the side of Death.
When the government, or any institution, blesses the marriage of a man and a woman, it celebrates the potential for the generation of life, the continuation of the species, and the production of new citizens. The persons involved may not be consciously aware of what they are doing, but that is what they are doing, participating in an eternal, never-ending cycle of humanity. Marriage celebrates the glorious generative power of the mother and the father, the very essence of life, the greatest gift offered to the human race by its Creator through the power of the Holy Spirit. When the government blesses the union of a homosexual couple and declares it to be marriage-using the same term that has previously been reserved for heterosexual couples-that government says to those homosexuals and to the rest of the world that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual marriages. It says to the whole world that the government and the people it represents see no difference whatsoever in those two relationships and that homosexuals are appropriate role models and leaders for their citizens, including those citizens who, in good faith, cannot accept them as such. In doing so, the government also says to the whole world that the inclusion of homosexual people in every role of our society is more important than the collective will of all the people ruled by that government. It also says to everyone that their inclusion is more important than society’s reverence for and celebration of the eternal cycle of life and is more important than the traditional role of marriage in the preservation of our species and our culture. Whether the representatives of the government like it or not, what they are saying to all their citizens is that homosexual marriage is so very important that it justifies reconstructing the whole fabric of humanity and of the most ancient, revered elements of human cultures around the world, so very important that people must be forced to redefine what it means to be human.
Those who put their reverence for life before all else continue in a timeless tradition that represents the origin and root of all spiritual experience and the root of virtually every law ever written by any governmental official anywhere. Those people are adherents of the Ethos of Life. Those who place other priorities above this reverence for life and who, at the same time, make those things the focus of their own mission to the world-they often demonstrate to the rest of the world that kindness, compassion, and inclusion are more important than Life itself. Whether they know it or not, they decisively break with the most ancient human experiences and traditions; they break with the essence of human existence. At the expense of humanity itself, they make themselves adherents of the Ethos of Death, an act of supreme selfishness and indiscriminate destruction.
While few on either side have had the courage to bring it up, the most remarkable irony found within this struggle is the surrender of one-time sacred rhetorical soil by the radical liberal wing of American politics. Not so long ago, feminists and revisionist historians in Europe and America were fascinated, obsessed really, with the ancient, historical phenomena of the matriarchal society and the fertility cults that venerated and worshipped the generation and continuation of life in the form of the mother goddess discovered under various names and faces throughout the many ancient mythological traditions of Mankind [2]. While the study of these phenomena continue to yield important truths for scholars around the world, their use by the trendy critics of modern culture has largely passed out of fashion. Even so, this once popular trend has left a permanent mark upon the scholarly language of many academic disciplines, and there was a time in which literary critics, philosophers, and even theologians used those phenomena to great rhetorical effect, pointing to examples of ancient cultures which were governed by women, which were spiritually nurtured by women, and which worshipped as a god the fertile, life-giving power of the mother. For many, those cultures served as shining examples of just how wonderful human societies could be when they venerated the female element of humanity rather than repressing and abusing it. This rhetorical strategy actually played an important role in the struggle for women’s rights, and it also had its part to play in the struggle to establish a place for women in the hierarchies of many institutions of Western civilization, including colleges and universities, government bureaucracies, elected offices, and even certain denominations of the Christian Church.
Therefore, it seems particularly strange to find many of those same people equating the fight for legally endorsed homosexual marriages with the struggle for women’s rights, and to find others who are just as willing to equate that fight with the struggle for the civil rights of African Americans. Choosing the Ethos of Death over the Ethos of Life truly has nothing to do with the struggle for women’s rights nor with the struggle for the rights of African Americans. Equating the changing attitudes toward homosexual marriage with those previous struggles is at best a false analogy.
The sacred role of woman as mother, nurturer, and spiritual guide has been venerated throughout the existence of humanity. The Bible and ancient Christian tradition offer examples of women who served the church and who provided role models for others to follow. Woman is the sacred source of the cycle of life. Mary is the Mother of both the Son of Man and the Son of God. She helped God to give the Way and the Life to all humanity. Through the birth of one man from one woman came the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Christian people, the Son of God has become the first representation of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. But, without Woman, that offering could never have been made. Even in modern Christianity, there is a necessary place reserved for the sacred role of the mother and the sacred role of the father. Both are still required, and both must still be venerated as special and different. The path of the Mother and of the Father is not the only way, but it is the way that is best for humanity, for culture, for society, and for most of the living religions of the world. Many people of various religions in the USA believe that marriage has been blessed and sanctified by God, and the vast majority of the people of the USA believe that marriage should only be a relationship between one man and one woman. That definition of marriage should be endorsed and celebrated by the government of the USA and its various states. There is a real difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual union, and it is not in the best interest of our culture and civilization for the government to act as if there were no difference.
Regardless of what some passionate people say to the contrary, it is in fact in the best interest of our culture and our civilization to reserve the endorsement of marriage for relationships between one man and one woman and reason to encourage the parents of children to stay married to one another for the sake of the children. There is even scholarly, scientific evidence to demonstrate this fact. Appearing in the Fall 2005 issue of Future of Children, Paul R. Amato explains his understanding of the evidence clearly:
“First, interventions that increase the share of children growing up with two continuously married biological parents will have modest effects on the percentage of U.S. children experiencing various problems, but could have substantial effects on the number of children experiencing them. From a public health perspective, even a modest decline in percentages, when multiplied by the large number of children in the population, represents a substantial social benefit. That children living in stepfamilies do not tend to have better outcomes, on average, than children growing up in single-parent families suggests that interventions to strengthen marital quality and stability would be most profitable if focused on parents in first marriages. Similarly, interventions to strengthen relationships and encourage marriage among cohabiting couples with children would be most profitable if focused on couples with a first child, rather than couples with children from prior relationships.” [3]
Amato is not alone in this position. Many other scholars have examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that what is best for children is to live in a two-parent home with their biological parents. Every other possibility is less advantageous, and many scholars feel that this is the arrangement that the government should be encouraging [4]. If the US government and its various states are going to endorse and celebrate one kind of marital arrangement, it should be the arrangement that works best for children. While the traditional definition of marriage certainly does not require children’s biological parents to get married and stay married, that is in fact what the traditional arrangement was intended to encourage. That is what societies around the world have encouraged for thousands of years, and that is what the marriage laws and customs of the USA still encourage people to do. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is not going to help the government encourage the biological parents of children to be married and live together.
Homosexual people should have exactly the same rights as everyone else, yet homosexual people do not have any right to demand or expect special privileges or special treatment of any kind. For this reason, no one can or should attempt to secure equal rights and protection for homosexuals by changing human nature, by rewriting the dictionary, by changing the marriage laws of this country, or by legally enforcing a social policy that scientific research has demonstrated to be contrary to the best interest of individual children and the best interest of society of a whole. It is safe to say the any of these drastic measures would constitute special privileges and special treatment.
Far more rational and far closer to fair, would be to handle this matter the way many others have in the past, including many in ancient Greece and Rome. In those societies, certain types of homosexual relationships were common, but, those same men who engaged in long term homosexual relationships still felt the social and human obligation to marry, to reproduce, and to raise a family [5]. Plato went so far as to suggest that, regardless of his preferences, a man had a moral obligation to marry and to reproduce and that that moral obligation was so important that it should be required by law:
“Let this then be our exhortation concerning marriage, and let us remember what was said before--that a man should cling to immortality, and leave behind him children's children to be the servants of God in his place for ever. All this and much more may be truly said by way of prelude about the duty of marriage. But if a man will not listen, and remains unsocial and alien among his fellow-citizens, and is still unmarried at thirty-five years of age, let him pay a yearly fine; ...he who does not pay the fine annually shall owe ten times the sum, ...He who refuses to marry shall be thus punished in money, and also be deprived of all honour which the younger show to the elder; let no young man voluntarily obey him, and, if he attempt to punish any one, let every one come to the rescue and defend the injured person, and he who is present and does not come to the rescue, shall be pronounced by the law to be a coward and a bad citizen.” [6]
In Plato’s world, it was common for a man to engage in homosexual activity and to develop deep and profound relationships with other men. But, marriage was for the production, protection, and education of legitimate offspring. It was not necessary for people to love their marital partners, but it was all but compulsory that they marry and try to have children and try to raise a family. At moments in history like those, people could be married, and, if they were not married to persons that they loved, then they had extra-marital relationships. Remarkably, whether it seems ironic or not, those are exactly the same choices, the same legal rights, that everyone in the USA has today.
In the Oxford American Dictionary, for marriage, definition number one still reads as follows, “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” Even so, the revision of even the Oxford dictionaries has already begun, the first note below definition one reads, “a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex,” yet, even in this note, the lexicographers still make a distinction between the two, they are not exactly the same thing. A real marriage still requires a “husband” and a “wife.” A husband still has to be “a married man considered in relation to his wife,” and a wife still has to be “a married woman considered in relation to her husband.” Marriage is an institution established not for the benefit of individual persons. It is an institution established for the benefit of society as a whole and for the protection of the most vulnerable members of each individual family, the mother and the children she brings into the world. It protects them from the irresponsible behavior built into the nature of every human male. While women may no longer feel the need for such protection, their children still require and deserve it.
It is the height of narcissistic self-indulgence to demand the fundamental change of our laws, our culture, and our social structure so that the primary purpose of marriage-encouraging the production of children and the protection and nurturing of those children-is completely lost. In fact, it is so selfish and willful that it is evil. If marriage is merely about love, sex, companionship, and the financial welfare of two adults, and if it is not also a very special financial contract endorsed by the state and the church for the protection of mothers and children, then marriage is meaningless. If society wants to make marriage meaningless, then, perhaps, society should eliminate marriage altogether. That might actually be more fair than any other solution. Making homosexual union and heterosexual marriage the same under the law would mean that marriage is not about life and the continuation of humanity and would mean that marriage is really about tolerance, support, inclusion, self-esteem, diversity, and political correctness. The truth is that marriage is a special financial contract protecting mothers and their children, and binding them together with a father. The fact that some heterosexual couples produce no children does not mean that the production of and protection of children is not in fact the primary function of the marital contract. The fact that some people have actually lost sight of this reality and become selfishly obsessed with their own, individual wants and desires should not require everyone else in the world to fundamentally reorder and reconstruct the material of their society, their culture, and-for many-their religious beliefs.
The bond between a husband and a wife is special, and it is different. It is not the same as homosexual union, and it is an insult to all husbands and wives to suggest otherwise. If homosexual persons want to have that special bond, then they have exactly the same right as anyone else in the world. They can marry members of the opposite sex and try to raise a family. If they want to have a long term committed relationship with a member of the same sex and adopt children together, then do that. Do both. Do neither. Those are the rights and privileges of a person in the USA, and it should stay that way.
This debate is profoundly important. In the end, it is about much more than the issue of homosexuality and homosexual unions. It is about the very nature of what it means to be a human and to be a citizen of the USA. If marriage is really just about personal rights, individual happiness, and companionship, then it really does not matter who marries whom. Does it? Why should marriage be limited to two people? Perhaps, their should be an unlimited number of partners. Perhaps, it is insensitive and oppressive to require that all partners need be alive, or to require that all partners be human. Who am I to judge? It is all relative after all. There are no absolute truths, and there is no God. Right?
Of course, the answers to all these questions depend upon the priorities defined and established by one’s ethos. For those devoted to the Ethos of Life, marriage is about the continuation of the species and the protection of mothers and children. When it comes to those for whom life is not their number one priority, it seems perfectly reasonable to choose inclusion, diversity, and political correctness over life. It seems perfectly reasonable to redefine marriage however one pleases. Without even trying or even necessarily being conscious of it, such people attempt to make marriage meaningless by making themselves adherents of the Ethos of Death. It should not surprise anyone to discover that the same people who advocate most passionately for the cause of homosexual marriage are often the same people who advocate passionately for abortion rights, who suggest that being married for the fourth time is the same as being married the first time, who suggest that marriage is a meaningless social construct and that people who love each other should just live together, and who are uncomfortable with questions of heaven and life after death. In fact the Ethos of Death often seems incompatible with anything that requires genuine belief in anything that is not concrete, tangible, and obvious.
[1] Karasu, Sylvia R., M.D. “The Institution of Marriage: Terminable or Interminable?” American Journal of Psychotherapy: Vol. 61, No. 1, 2007.
[2] Gimbutas, Marija. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague/London: Mouton, 1965; Gimbutas, Marija. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1974; Marija Gimbutas. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1989; Marija Gimbutas. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1991; Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper, 1987; Condren, Mary. The Serpent and the Goddess: Women, Religion, and Power in Celtic Ireland. San Francisco: Harper, 1989. These are just a few examples for those who are interested in examining this phenomenon for themselves. Additional evidence can be found throughout the works of Joseph Campbell and many other influential scholars of the late twentieth century.
[3] Amato, Paul R. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation.” The Future of Children: Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall 2005. A Publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.
[4] Fagan, Patrick F., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children.” The Heritage Foundation. 10 April 2002. 26 June 2009. < http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Family/ BG1535.cfm>.
[5] Carlin, Norah. “The Roots of Gay Oppression.” International Socialism Journal 42, London, Spring 1989. 4 April 2007. 12 August 2009. . The most common form of homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was pederasty. Such was still the case in Plato’s time and continued to be for some time thereafter. In Greek, pederasty literally means “boy lover” and indicates an intimate, sexual, love relationship between a beardless young boy and an older, mature man.
[6] Plato. Dialogue on Laws, Book VI. Project Gutenberg. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 29 October 2008. 10 August 2009. .
Homosexual Marriage:
Redefining Marriage by Making It Meaningless:
Disguising the Ethos of Death as Tolerance and Diversity
“Marriage as an institution is right in theory, though it may not necessarily be right in practice, as evidenced by the high rates of divorce in the U.S. Marriage does, however, have many practical implications-psychologically, socially, physically, financially, and legally. It is not just another life-style choice. Marriage as an institution is interminable because of its benefits to society as a whole, to men, and to women, and particularly to children and adolescents. In creating a template for behavior, marriage is unique in granting certain rights and privileges and in creating certain expectations and responsibilities sanctioned by society. Individuals may not always follow these norms, but they know when they have transgressed. No other institution offers the same promise of permanence...”
- Sylvia R. Karasu, M.D. [1]
Concerned citizens on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage worry about the continued existence of society and culture as they know it. And, as in the case of the Ethos of Anti-Culture and the Ethos of Death, the reverence for and the celebration of human life constitutes the essence of the debate over same-sex marriage. No one wants to talk about it, but there is actually a reason that, for thousands of years, the definition of marriage has been reserved for the celebration of sexual relationships between men and women. But, no longer is it universally thought of as a spiritual, religious celebration of the potential for life and the continuation of the species. Today, many people do not even think of marriage as a spiritual and religious celebration. They think of it only in its legal terms, and, in the USA, that is acceptable. There is an anti-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights, and, while it is not actually in the Constitution, Americans often describe the effect of that clause with terms like “Separation of Church and State.” That is fine, and I am not suggesting that people be forced to accept my spiritual values.
What I am suggesting is that everyone remember why marriage became an object of spiritual veneration and became a special, legally protected institution, the importance of which goes far beyond anyone’s concerns for religion and spirituality. Around the world, in most living cultures, marriage has reached this status because it is fundamentally important for the future of the human race. Why is it fundamentally important? Because it is the ideal arrangement for the production of and the enculturation of new humans, new citizens. For this reason is it celebrated in religion and protected by law. Thus, I am asking my readers to consider and understand that the concern for heterosexual marriage is so fundamental to human nature and the best interests of humanity that it not only transcends any matters of law that it actually transcends matters of religion and spirituality. The reason that law and religion are both obsessed with sexuality and marriage is because human nature itself has as its first priority sexual reproduction and the welfare of its offspring. That is priority number one, above and beyond everything else. Everything else is a luxury. To forget this fact is to forget why marriage has always been so important in human societies. To forget this fact is to forget what it means to be human. All the same, most people in the USA have forgotten this fact.
The ideals separating the two positions in this battle represent moral and spiritual differences so basic and fundamental that they have truly separated the two sides into irreconcilable camps. At the same time, this difference runs so deep and is so basic that most people on both sides are completely blind to its true source. As in every other chapter of this book, it is a question of priorities. A person’s number one priority defines his Ethos. Is the veneration of the divinely established and eternal cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth the first and most important principle in one’s cosmology and morality? Does that priority transcend the concern for everything else, including concerns for quality of life? Does that concern inform and focus the other ideals of one’s world view, including love, individual freedom, ambition, justice, good, evil, etc.? Or, are there priorities within that person’s world view more important than the reverence for life, other priorities like charity, compassion, tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness, equality, and kindness? Who could possibly chose life over compassion, tolerance, and inclusiveness? How a person answers these questions reveals to the whole world which side he has taken in this debate over same-sex marriage, the side of Life, or the side of Death.
When the government, or any institution, blesses the marriage of a man and a woman, it celebrates the potential for the generation of life, the continuation of the species, and the production of new citizens. The persons involved may not be consciously aware of what they are doing, but that is what they are doing, participating in an eternal, never-ending cycle of humanity. Marriage celebrates the glorious generative power of the mother and the father, the very essence of life, the greatest gift offered to the human race by its Creator through the power of the Holy Spirit. When the government blesses the union of a homosexual couple and declares it to be marriage-using the same term that has previously been reserved for heterosexual couples-that government says to those homosexuals and to the rest of the world that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual marriages. It says to the whole world that the government and the people it represents see no difference whatsoever in those two relationships and that homosexuals are appropriate role models and leaders for their citizens, including those citizens who, in good faith, cannot accept them as such. In doing so, the government also says to the whole world that the inclusion of homosexual people in every role of our society is more important than the collective will of all the people ruled by that government. It also says to everyone that their inclusion is more important than society’s reverence for and celebration of the eternal cycle of life and is more important than the traditional role of marriage in the preservation of our species and our culture. Whether the representatives of the government like it or not, what they are saying to all their citizens is that homosexual marriage is so very important that it justifies reconstructing the whole fabric of humanity and of the most ancient, revered elements of human cultures around the world, so very important that people must be forced to redefine what it means to be human.
Those who put their reverence for life before all else continue in a timeless tradition that represents the origin and root of all spiritual experience and the root of virtually every law ever written by any governmental official anywhere. Those people are adherents of the Ethos of Life. Those who place other priorities above this reverence for life and who, at the same time, make those things the focus of their own mission to the world-they often demonstrate to the rest of the world that kindness, compassion, and inclusion are more important than Life itself. Whether they know it or not, they decisively break with the most ancient human experiences and traditions; they break with the essence of human existence. At the expense of humanity itself, they make themselves adherents of the Ethos of Death, an act of supreme selfishness and indiscriminate destruction.
While few on either side have had the courage to bring it up, the most remarkable irony found within this struggle is the surrender of one-time sacred rhetorical soil by the radical liberal wing of American politics. Not so long ago, feminists and revisionist historians in Europe and America were fascinated, obsessed really, with the ancient, historical phenomena of the matriarchal society and the fertility cults that venerated and worshipped the generation and continuation of life in the form of the mother goddess discovered under various names and faces throughout the many ancient mythological traditions of Mankind [2]. While the study of these phenomena continue to yield important truths for scholars around the world, their use by the trendy critics of modern culture has largely passed out of fashion. Even so, this once popular trend has left a permanent mark upon the scholarly language of many academic disciplines, and there was a time in which literary critics, philosophers, and even theologians used those phenomena to great rhetorical effect, pointing to examples of ancient cultures which were governed by women, which were spiritually nurtured by women, and which worshipped as a god the fertile, life-giving power of the mother. For many, those cultures served as shining examples of just how wonderful human societies could be when they venerated the female element of humanity rather than repressing and abusing it. This rhetorical strategy actually played an important role in the struggle for women’s rights, and it also had its part to play in the struggle to establish a place for women in the hierarchies of many institutions of Western civilization, including colleges and universities, government bureaucracies, elected offices, and even certain denominations of the Christian Church.
Therefore, it seems particularly strange to find many of those same people equating the fight for legally endorsed homosexual marriages with the struggle for women’s rights, and to find others who are just as willing to equate that fight with the struggle for the civil rights of African Americans. Choosing the Ethos of Death over the Ethos of Life truly has nothing to do with the struggle for women’s rights nor with the struggle for the rights of African Americans. Equating the changing attitudes toward homosexual marriage with those previous struggles is at best a false analogy.
The sacred role of woman as mother, nurturer, and spiritual guide has been venerated throughout the existence of humanity. The Bible and ancient Christian tradition offer examples of women who served the church and who provided role models for others to follow. Woman is the sacred source of the cycle of life. Mary is the Mother of both the Son of Man and the Son of God. She helped God to give the Way and the Life to all humanity. Through the birth of one man from one woman came the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Christian people, the Son of God has become the first representation of the cycle of life, death, and rebirth. But, without Woman, that offering could never have been made. Even in modern Christianity, there is a necessary place reserved for the sacred role of the mother and the sacred role of the father. Both are still required, and both must still be venerated as special and different. The path of the Mother and of the Father is not the only way, but it is the way that is best for humanity, for culture, for society, and for most of the living religions of the world. Many people of various religions in the USA believe that marriage has been blessed and sanctified by God, and the vast majority of the people of the USA believe that marriage should only be a relationship between one man and one woman. That definition of marriage should be endorsed and celebrated by the government of the USA and its various states. There is a real difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual union, and it is not in the best interest of our culture and civilization for the government to act as if there were no difference.
Regardless of what some passionate people say to the contrary, it is in fact in the best interest of our culture and our civilization to reserve the endorsement of marriage for relationships between one man and one woman and reason to encourage the parents of children to stay married to one another for the sake of the children. There is even scholarly, scientific evidence to demonstrate this fact. Appearing in the Fall 2005 issue of Future of Children, Paul R. Amato explains his understanding of the evidence clearly:
“First, interventions that increase the share of children growing up with two continuously married biological parents will have modest effects on the percentage of U.S. children experiencing various problems, but could have substantial effects on the number of children experiencing them. From a public health perspective, even a modest decline in percentages, when multiplied by the large number of children in the population, represents a substantial social benefit. That children living in stepfamilies do not tend to have better outcomes, on average, than children growing up in single-parent families suggests that interventions to strengthen marital quality and stability would be most profitable if focused on parents in first marriages. Similarly, interventions to strengthen relationships and encourage marriage among cohabiting couples with children would be most profitable if focused on couples with a first child, rather than couples with children from prior relationships.” [3]
Amato is not alone in this position. Many other scholars have examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that what is best for children is to live in a two-parent home with their biological parents. Every other possibility is less advantageous, and many scholars feel that this is the arrangement that the government should be encouraging [4]. If the US government and its various states are going to endorse and celebrate one kind of marital arrangement, it should be the arrangement that works best for children. While the traditional definition of marriage certainly does not require children’s biological parents to get married and stay married, that is in fact what the traditional arrangement was intended to encourage. That is what societies around the world have encouraged for thousands of years, and that is what the marriage laws and customs of the USA still encourage people to do. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is not going to help the government encourage the biological parents of children to be married and live together.
Homosexual people should have exactly the same rights as everyone else, yet homosexual people do not have any right to demand or expect special privileges or special treatment of any kind. For this reason, no one can or should attempt to secure equal rights and protection for homosexuals by changing human nature, by rewriting the dictionary, by changing the marriage laws of this country, or by legally enforcing a social policy that scientific research has demonstrated to be contrary to the best interest of individual children and the best interest of society of a whole. It is safe to say the any of these drastic measures would constitute special privileges and special treatment.
Far more rational and far closer to fair, would be to handle this matter the way many others have in the past, including many in ancient Greece and Rome. In those societies, certain types of homosexual relationships were common, but, those same men who engaged in long term homosexual relationships still felt the social and human obligation to marry, to reproduce, and to raise a family [5]. Plato went so far as to suggest that, regardless of his preferences, a man had a moral obligation to marry and to reproduce and that that moral obligation was so important that it should be required by law:
“Let this then be our exhortation concerning marriage, and let us remember what was said before--that a man should cling to immortality, and leave behind him children's children to be the servants of God in his place for ever. All this and much more may be truly said by way of prelude about the duty of marriage. But if a man will not listen, and remains unsocial and alien among his fellow-citizens, and is still unmarried at thirty-five years of age, let him pay a yearly fine; ...he who does not pay the fine annually shall owe ten times the sum, ...He who refuses to marry shall be thus punished in money, and also be deprived of all honour which the younger show to the elder; let no young man voluntarily obey him, and, if he attempt to punish any one, let every one come to the rescue and defend the injured person, and he who is present and does not come to the rescue, shall be pronounced by the law to be a coward and a bad citizen.” [6]
In Plato’s world, it was common for a man to engage in homosexual activity and to develop deep and profound relationships with other men. But, marriage was for the production, protection, and education of legitimate offspring. It was not necessary for people to love their marital partners, but it was all but compulsory that they marry and try to have children and try to raise a family. At moments in history like those, people could be married, and, if they were not married to persons that they loved, then they had extra-marital relationships. Remarkably, whether it seems ironic or not, those are exactly the same choices, the same legal rights, that everyone in the USA has today.
In the Oxford American Dictionary, for marriage, definition number one still reads as follows, “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” Even so, the revision of even the Oxford dictionaries has already begun, the first note below definition one reads, “a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex,” yet, even in this note, the lexicographers still make a distinction between the two, they are not exactly the same thing. A real marriage still requires a “husband” and a “wife.” A husband still has to be “a married man considered in relation to his wife,” and a wife still has to be “a married woman considered in relation to her husband.” Marriage is an institution established not for the benefit of individual persons. It is an institution established for the benefit of society as a whole and for the protection of the most vulnerable members of each individual family, the mother and the children she brings into the world. It protects them from the irresponsible behavior built into the nature of every human male. While women may no longer feel the need for such protection, their children still require and deserve it.
It is the height of narcissistic self-indulgence to demand the fundamental change of our laws, our culture, and our social structure so that the primary purpose of marriage-encouraging the production of children and the protection and nurturing of those children-is completely lost. In fact, it is so selfish and willful that it is evil. If marriage is merely about love, sex, companionship, and the financial welfare of two adults, and if it is not also a very special financial contract endorsed by the state and the church for the protection of mothers and children, then marriage is meaningless. If society wants to make marriage meaningless, then, perhaps, society should eliminate marriage altogether. That might actually be more fair than any other solution. Making homosexual union and heterosexual marriage the same under the law would mean that marriage is not about life and the continuation of humanity and would mean that marriage is really about tolerance, support, inclusion, self-esteem, diversity, and political correctness. The truth is that marriage is a special financial contract protecting mothers and their children, and binding them together with a father. The fact that some heterosexual couples produce no children does not mean that the production of and protection of children is not in fact the primary function of the marital contract. The fact that some people have actually lost sight of this reality and become selfishly obsessed with their own, individual wants and desires should not require everyone else in the world to fundamentally reorder and reconstruct the material of their society, their culture, and-for many-their religious beliefs.
The bond between a husband and a wife is special, and it is different. It is not the same as homosexual union, and it is an insult to all husbands and wives to suggest otherwise. If homosexual persons want to have that special bond, then they have exactly the same right as anyone else in the world. They can marry members of the opposite sex and try to raise a family. If they want to have a long term committed relationship with a member of the same sex and adopt children together, then do that. Do both. Do neither. Those are the rights and privileges of a person in the USA, and it should stay that way.
This debate is profoundly important. In the end, it is about much more than the issue of homosexuality and homosexual unions. It is about the very nature of what it means to be a human and to be a citizen of the USA. If marriage is really just about personal rights, individual happiness, and companionship, then it really does not matter who marries whom. Does it? Why should marriage be limited to two people? Perhaps, their should be an unlimited number of partners. Perhaps, it is insensitive and oppressive to require that all partners need be alive, or to require that all partners be human. Who am I to judge? It is all relative after all. There are no absolute truths, and there is no God. Right?
Of course, the answers to all these questions depend upon the priorities defined and established by one’s ethos. For those devoted to the Ethos of Life, marriage is about the continuation of the species and the protection of mothers and children. When it comes to those for whom life is not their number one priority, it seems perfectly reasonable to choose inclusion, diversity, and political correctness over life. It seems perfectly reasonable to redefine marriage however one pleases. Without even trying or even necessarily being conscious of it, such people attempt to make marriage meaningless by making themselves adherents of the Ethos of Death. It should not surprise anyone to discover that the same people who advocate most passionately for the cause of homosexual marriage are often the same people who advocate passionately for abortion rights, who suggest that being married for the fourth time is the same as being married the first time, who suggest that marriage is a meaningless social construct and that people who love each other should just live together, and who are uncomfortable with questions of heaven and life after death. In fact the Ethos of Death often seems incompatible with anything that requires genuine belief in anything that is not concrete, tangible, and obvious.
[1] Karasu, Sylvia R., M.D. “The Institution of Marriage: Terminable or Interminable?” American Journal of Psychotherapy: Vol. 61, No. 1, 2007.
[2] Gimbutas, Marija. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague/London: Mouton, 1965; Gimbutas, Marija. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1974; Marija Gimbutas. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1989; Marija Gimbutas. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1991; Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper, 1987; Condren, Mary. The Serpent and the Goddess: Women, Religion, and Power in Celtic Ireland. San Francisco: Harper, 1989. These are just a few examples for those who are interested in examining this phenomenon for themselves. Additional evidence can be found throughout the works of Joseph Campbell and many other influential scholars of the late twentieth century.
[3] Amato, Paul R. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation.” The Future of Children: Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall 2005. A Publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.
[4] Fagan, Patrick F., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children.” The Heritage Foundation. 10 April 2002. 26 June 2009. < http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Family/ BG1535.cfm>.
[5] Carlin, Norah. “The Roots of Gay Oppression.” International Socialism Journal 42, London, Spring 1989. 4 April 2007. 12 August 2009. . The most common form of homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was pederasty. Such was still the case in Plato’s time and continued to be for some time thereafter. In Greek, pederasty literally means “boy lover” and indicates an intimate, sexual, love relationship between a beardless young boy and an older, mature man.
[6] Plato. Dialogue on Laws, Book VI. Project Gutenberg. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 29 October 2008. 10 August 2009. .