i do not do well with format.
In Response to Sam Shulman’s “Gay Marriage-And Marriage”
(http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.shtml)
In his article “Gay Marriage-and Marriage”, Sam Shulman explains why homosexual marriage is, in his view, detrimental to society. He begins his article by citing other writers’ arguments both for and against gay marriage, and explains why these arguments (both for and against) are either strong or weak. This argumentative technique opens the reader’s (or, at least, it opened my) mind to the possibility that Shulaman’s argument would be comprehensive with regard to human sexuality, reproduction, and the institution of marriage, but this is ultimately not the case. His article instead turns into a horribly devised shopping list that is boldly offensive to both women and men who pride themselves on their senses of reason and leave anyone looking for relevance to his original claims against homosexual marriage bewildered.
Shulman first makes a point to “admire the case for gay marriage”, claiming that it “appeals to our better moral natures and reason”. He discusses Andrew Sullivan’s points of justice and fairness and explains how the homosexual culture is seemingly following the trend of minority group liberation. He speaks of how the ideas of justice and fairness, when tied into the homosexual struggle, place the struggle into the civil rights category, for marriage is a legal state with tangible financial benefits, and denying a couple the right to marry is a grave civil rights mistake… Shulman also speaks of Bruce Bawer’s utilitarian argument, which asks why the formation of “stable, long-term, monogamous relationships” should be institutionally denied to homosexual couples. Shulman believes that males are naturally more promiscuous than females and that females benefit from the institution of marriage, and that, as such, homosexual marriages (especially between homosexual males) are doomed from the get-go. Shulman then references a man named Stanley Kurtz, who argues that, once homosexual couples are granted the right to marry, there will be less grounds to deny polygamist/polyamorist groups the right to marriage. (Shulman seems to ignore the economic purpose of marriage at this point in his argument.) He then states, “Ultimately, the same (acceptance) must go for incestuous relationships between consenting adults”, which is a statement that I disagree with on the grounds that the manifestation of incestuous lust goes against the natural intuition of human beings, and thus cannot be accepted by individuals OR social law at large. Another of Shulman’s faulty arguments is that the institution of marriage exists to create stable families. Shulman gives no history of the institution of marriage that would lend itself to validate his conjecture as to its original reason of conception and his evidence to support the notion that marriage creates stable families does not exist. He references Maggie Gallagher, who states that “Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and the children.” I agree that marriage DOES function to (at least ATTEMPT to) reconcile/harmonize financial needs, but I completely disagree with the ideas that marriage is necessary to reconcile/harmonize erotic, social, and sexual needs of any human being (unless, of course, they are so socialized to the point that only marriage can do that for them). In the next paragraph, Shulman argues that gay marriage is “profoundly selfish as well as utterly destructive (to the notion of) family”. This is, of course, a slap in the face to every non-traditional family that thrives on this planet. Shulman states that “the essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnize that connection of opposites which alone creates new life”. With this I must disagree twice: the essence of marriage lies in economics, and marriage certainly does not alone create new life. Shulman argues that the alternative idea to marriage is concubinage, and this is absurd, for there are many kinds of sexual/living relationships/arrangements that exist other than marriage and concubinage. Shulman states that “marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity”. That is, Shulman believes that marriage exists so women can give birth, which is, again, absurd, for many single mothers raise successful children, and a woman need not be married to become impregnated (and to become impregnated is not a woman’s only purpose!(perhaps biologically, but to assume that all people act bereft of reason at least partially independent from biological desires is offensive)). As if predicting my response, Shulman agrees that it is possible for a woman to become impregnated without being married, but his only example of this is rape. In response to this, Shulman states that marriage is the “bulwark” that protects a woman from rape. This statement is flawed in that it ignores the reality of marital rape and also that it assumes that the mere existence of the institution of marriage can prevent the crime of rape from occurring. Next, Shulman states that feminists from the 1960s were correct in asserting that a woman should control her own body, but asserts that marriage is humanity’s way of enabling a woman to control which man impregnates her. Again, this is offensive to any human who believes they are reasonable, for it assumes that a woman is only worth anything if a man can impregnate her. Shulman also attempts to assert that a woman’s right to an abortion and a woman’s right to join the work force are harmful to the interests of children. If a woman has two children and a job that she supports them with, and becomes pregnant but cannot afford to care for three children, I see no disservice she is committing by having an abortion and continuing to work. He then says “…with the success of the gay-liberation movement, it is women themselves, all women, who will be hurt. The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning.” Again, the author wrongfully assumes that a woman’s sole purpose in existing is to marry and procreate. He also states that “there is something inherently violative about sexual intercourse-and there is something dangerous about being a woman in a sexual relationship with a man to whom she is not yet married”. Here, the author assumes that only women are capable of being hurt from a sexual relationship, whether physically or emotionally, and this is an ignorant assumption to publish. In an attempt to tie his argument back into his distaste for the idea of homosexual marriage, Shulman says that “the social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried condition.” This is also untrue, for a homosexual couple that is able to benefit economically from being married could also benefit socially because of a more comfortable economic standing. Shulman’s rant against women does not end until the third to last paragraph, in which he states, “…marriage, though it may help meet the needs of the lonely, does not exist because it is an answer to those needs; it is an arrangement that has to do with empowering women to avoid even greater unhappiness, and with sustaining the future history of the species.” At this point, I can no longer project an intellectual façade, and must say that Sam Shulman is absolutely full of shit. Marriage is a man-made institution, and if the only true happiness a woman can find is through marriage, then happiness is man-made, and none of Shulman’s arguments hold any water, because everything is imagined.
Gay marriage should absolutely be permitted because marriage is, in terms of law, a secular, financial institution between consenting adults, despite their race, age, sexual orientation, etc. In terms of the religious argument that allowing gay marriage tarnishes the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, I ask this: what of heterosexual marriage is sanctified? If the answer is something along the lines of “God said that marriage should be between a man and woman” then I ask the religious to disprove the non-existence of God. If a marriage is holy to you, then YOUR marriage should be holy to you, and if people of different sexual orientations getting married threatens the holiness of YOUR marriage, then I question how holy your marriage really was to you in the first place.
While starting off with a seemingly strong set of observations and an admirable distrust of arguments that supported his view, Sam Shulman’s article ultimately distracts the reader from his obviously flawed point. His anti-female point of view does nothing to support his anti-gay marriage point of view, and his opinions on human relationships ignore the many nuances that lend themselves to the success of such relationships.
(http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.shtml)
In his article “Gay Marriage-and Marriage”, Sam Shulman explains why homosexual marriage is, in his view, detrimental to society. He begins his article by citing other writers’ arguments both for and against gay marriage, and explains why these arguments (both for and against) are either strong or weak. This argumentative technique opens the reader’s (or, at least, it opened my) mind to the possibility that Shulaman’s argument would be comprehensive with regard to human sexuality, reproduction, and the institution of marriage, but this is ultimately not the case. His article instead turns into a horribly devised shopping list that is boldly offensive to both women and men who pride themselves on their senses of reason and leave anyone looking for relevance to his original claims against homosexual marriage bewildered.
Shulman first makes a point to “admire the case for gay marriage”, claiming that it “appeals to our better moral natures and reason”. He discusses Andrew Sullivan’s points of justice and fairness and explains how the homosexual culture is seemingly following the trend of minority group liberation. He speaks of how the ideas of justice and fairness, when tied into the homosexual struggle, place the struggle into the civil rights category, for marriage is a legal state with tangible financial benefits, and denying a couple the right to marry is a grave civil rights mistake… Shulman also speaks of Bruce Bawer’s utilitarian argument, which asks why the formation of “stable, long-term, monogamous relationships” should be institutionally denied to homosexual couples. Shulman believes that males are naturally more promiscuous than females and that females benefit from the institution of marriage, and that, as such, homosexual marriages (especially between homosexual males) are doomed from the get-go. Shulman then references a man named Stanley Kurtz, who argues that, once homosexual couples are granted the right to marry, there will be less grounds to deny polygamist/polyamorist groups the right to marriage. (Shulman seems to ignore the economic purpose of marriage at this point in his argument.) He then states, “Ultimately, the same (acceptance) must go for incestuous relationships between consenting adults”, which is a statement that I disagree with on the grounds that the manifestation of incestuous lust goes against the natural intuition of human beings, and thus cannot be accepted by individuals OR social law at large. Another of Shulman’s faulty arguments is that the institution of marriage exists to create stable families. Shulman gives no history of the institution of marriage that would lend itself to validate his conjecture as to its original reason of conception and his evidence to support the notion that marriage creates stable families does not exist. He references Maggie Gallagher, who states that “Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and the children.” I agree that marriage DOES function to (at least ATTEMPT to) reconcile/harmonize financial needs, but I completely disagree with the ideas that marriage is necessary to reconcile/harmonize erotic, social, and sexual needs of any human being (unless, of course, they are so socialized to the point that only marriage can do that for them). In the next paragraph, Shulman argues that gay marriage is “profoundly selfish as well as utterly destructive (to the notion of) family”. This is, of course, a slap in the face to every non-traditional family that thrives on this planet. Shulman states that “the essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnize that connection of opposites which alone creates new life”. With this I must disagree twice: the essence of marriage lies in economics, and marriage certainly does not alone create new life. Shulman argues that the alternative idea to marriage is concubinage, and this is absurd, for there are many kinds of sexual/living relationships/arrangements that exist other than marriage and concubinage. Shulman states that “marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity”. That is, Shulman believes that marriage exists so women can give birth, which is, again, absurd, for many single mothers raise successful children, and a woman need not be married to become impregnated (and to become impregnated is not a woman’s only purpose!(perhaps biologically, but to assume that all people act bereft of reason at least partially independent from biological desires is offensive)). As if predicting my response, Shulman agrees that it is possible for a woman to become impregnated without being married, but his only example of this is rape. In response to this, Shulman states that marriage is the “bulwark” that protects a woman from rape. This statement is flawed in that it ignores the reality of marital rape and also that it assumes that the mere existence of the institution of marriage can prevent the crime of rape from occurring. Next, Shulman states that feminists from the 1960s were correct in asserting that a woman should control her own body, but asserts that marriage is humanity’s way of enabling a woman to control which man impregnates her. Again, this is offensive to any human who believes they are reasonable, for it assumes that a woman is only worth anything if a man can impregnate her. Shulman also attempts to assert that a woman’s right to an abortion and a woman’s right to join the work force are harmful to the interests of children. If a woman has two children and a job that she supports them with, and becomes pregnant but cannot afford to care for three children, I see no disservice she is committing by having an abortion and continuing to work. He then says “…with the success of the gay-liberation movement, it is women themselves, all women, who will be hurt. The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning.” Again, the author wrongfully assumes that a woman’s sole purpose in existing is to marry and procreate. He also states that “there is something inherently violative about sexual intercourse-and there is something dangerous about being a woman in a sexual relationship with a man to whom she is not yet married”. Here, the author assumes that only women are capable of being hurt from a sexual relationship, whether physically or emotionally, and this is an ignorant assumption to publish. In an attempt to tie his argument back into his distaste for the idea of homosexual marriage, Shulman says that “the social status of homosexuals is no better and no worse than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried condition.” This is also untrue, for a homosexual couple that is able to benefit economically from being married could also benefit socially because of a more comfortable economic standing. Shulman’s rant against women does not end until the third to last paragraph, in which he states, “…marriage, though it may help meet the needs of the lonely, does not exist because it is an answer to those needs; it is an arrangement that has to do with empowering women to avoid even greater unhappiness, and with sustaining the future history of the species.” At this point, I can no longer project an intellectual façade, and must say that Sam Shulman is absolutely full of shit. Marriage is a man-made institution, and if the only true happiness a woman can find is through marriage, then happiness is man-made, and none of Shulman’s arguments hold any water, because everything is imagined.
Gay marriage should absolutely be permitted because marriage is, in terms of law, a secular, financial institution between consenting adults, despite their race, age, sexual orientation, etc. In terms of the religious argument that allowing gay marriage tarnishes the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, I ask this: what of heterosexual marriage is sanctified? If the answer is something along the lines of “God said that marriage should be between a man and woman” then I ask the religious to disprove the non-existence of God. If a marriage is holy to you, then YOUR marriage should be holy to you, and if people of different sexual orientations getting married threatens the holiness of YOUR marriage, then I question how holy your marriage really was to you in the first place.
While starting off with a seemingly strong set of observations and an admirable distrust of arguments that supported his view, Sam Shulman’s article ultimately distracts the reader from his obviously flawed point. His anti-female point of view does nothing to support his anti-gay marriage point of view, and his opinions on human relationships ignore the many nuances that lend themselves to the success of such relationships.