People can do whatever they define “marriage” as, without sexual exclusivity. Usually it means some combination of commitment of shared responsibility for finances, legal support, join ownership of property, and child care, as well as sexual intimacy. But like how a married person can also maintain money, joint property, legal relationships, and so forth, with someone other than their spouse, it’s possible to have sexual and emotional links to other people as well.
As long as it’s not part of being deceptive or dishonest to the spouse, I see no problem. And bluntly, it’s pretty much none of our (for all values of “our”) business how other people negotiate and navigate their sexual intimacy.
In American jurisprudence, and in ‘mainstream Christian thought’, it is true that “Non-monogamous marriage’ is an oxymoron.
That said, there are probably at least a few people out there who have an ‘open marriage’ which seems to mean, “I have a common bank account with you, but I reserve the right to sleep around if I feel like it.”
The question of whether a ‘three or more person marriage’ (if any stable ones exist outside the realm of fiction) would be monogamous is left as an exercise for freshman philosophers and other hair-splitters.
Hardly. Sexual fidelity is one of the least important aspects of a good marriage. I don’t say it isn’t important per se, only that there are other things much more important, and that for example a marriage seen as only an agreement of mutual sexual fidelity is not likely to work out well.
I agree this woman is a nitwit, but because she puts “honesty” above sexual fidelity. That’s like saying it’s more important to beat your wife in full view of your children than not to beat her at all. Honesty has its place, to be sure, but frequently in a sound and lasting marriage there is actually a requirement for a certain amount of dishonesty, or perhaps wilful self-delusion is a better term. It’s necessary for a woman to believe her husband of 20 years might actually stop dropping his socks on the floor or leaving pubic hairs on the toilet seat tomorrow, or next month, or some day before he dies. It’s necessary for a man to say, and try hard to believe, the dress does not make her ass look fat.
There’s a fellow in Oregon (I forget the reference) who claims a 90% prospective predictive success on marriages. He claims it’s as simple as listening to 15 minutes of conversation, and observing the small assumptions each spouse makes about ambiguity in the other’s statements. Successful marriage is predicted by a consistent pattern of irrationally optimistic assumptions. That is, each spouse tends to believe, in the face of common sense and even prior evidence, that his spouse means better than he says, has kinder thoughts than seems evident from his speech, et cetera. In short, a certain amount of mutual delusion seems necessary. Although it might not be fair to call it delusional, since it seems the spouses often rise to the expectations — expected to behave better than they initially meant, they rise to it.
Wikipedia describes several forms on non-monogamous marriage, in other words, polygamy, which doesn’t just mean multiple wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
It fundamentally boils down to what you think is the purpose of marriage. If you don’t start with a declaration of what marriage means to you then its impossible to come to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, most people who get married never do.
In Orson Scott Card’s diatribe against gay marriage, he declares that marriage is about having children and, specifically, the commitment of both partners to dedicate their combined resources to raising those children. I’m sure a lot of people would agree with that argument, but certainly not all people.
To turn this into a reason why gay marriage should remain unrecognized, he has to make two totally offensive statements: 1) declare that adopted children – or children that are the offspring of only one parent – are not worthy substitutes to combined genetic offspring. He goes so far as to compare adopted children to pets; and 2) declare that people who marry for any other reason are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
But, setting aside his offensive bigotry, to him a mistress would be immoral because it takes resources to maintain that relationship which the offending partner should be contributing to raising the children. Did I mention he’s Mormon?
Other people marry for companionship, and when intimacy gives way to independence they revert to sexual promiscuity. Some even willfully maintain the illusion of monogamy by agreement. But more often, the power balance in the relationship is so uneven that one partner is unable to make any demands on the other, even monogamy, but is too afraid to leave.
Sexual fidelity is one of the least important aspects of a good marriage..
I’ll go tell that to my wife and see what happens next.
I understand what Carl says, but simply, she’s going in intending to lose, and thinks keeping her expectations real makes her smarter, current, hip, or something. That high divorce rate she mentions is mostly because one or both of the spouses thought it was normal to be non-monogamous, and then the other discovered how uncool it was to have an important vow broken.
Pfft, Trent, c’mon. Is it a public institution or not? If it isn’t, then legislative or judicial construction of gay marriage is an oxymoron, since the public can’t define what is a priori up to private parties to construct as they see fit.
But if it is a public institution then you can no more privately define the duties and privileges of marriage than you can of parenthood.
Which is it going to be?
I’ll go tell that to my wife and see what happens next.
If you really want to test my thesis, David, go in and tell your wife that you are going to spend the kids’ college fund on a new Ferrari, and that your drinking problem is none of her business, and you have no problem calling her a stupid bitch in public when you disagree — but by God you’ll never bone another woman, so that’s okay then, right?
Let us know how she reacts to that, eh?
Carl, I’m not aware of that argument.. you’ll have to explain it better if you want me to understand.
As a libertarian, I think individuals decide to get married (and the reasons why) and law should recognize their decision.
As for “institution”, I can only guess you mean “an established law, practice, or custom” and all I can say is, well, yes, I suppose it is.. and?
“legislative or judicial construction of gay marriage” presupposes that governments grant individuals rights. I disagree.
All righty, Trent. Do you think “fatherhood” is a private construction? Am I allowed to call myself the father of whomever I please? Can I decline to be labeled a father of a child that these persnickety DNA tests insists is related to me? Am I allowed to define my obligations and privileges as a father myself, just as I see fit?
I’m going to guess your answer is no. Being a father is to some extent an objective fact (genetic relation), but more importantly a public construction — I can be declared the father of an adopted child, and I can have my duties and obligations towards my biological offspring entirely terminated for good cause. In the end all the options in defining what it means to be a “father” and who fits the definition are entirely in the hands of the general public, i.e. defined by the legislature and courts. I have no private input, any more than I can define whether I owe money or not to the bank, or whether I am a citizen of California if I live in LA.
On the other hand, consider what I mean by calling myself a “lover” or “boyfriend” (ugh). What that means is entirely in my private hands. I can call myself the lover of Juliet if I please, and define my duties and privileges more or less as she and I see fit. The state has essentially nothing to say about it, so long as I don’t trespass on any unrelated rights of other people, e.g. the right of the neighbors not to be disturbed by my singing love songs under her balcony at 2 am.
So is marriage in category A (fatherhood) or B (loverhood)? Is the definition of the word and the state a matter for the public or each individual? It can’t be both.
Yeah, I think you contradicted yourself. People do declare themselves to be the father of children they are not genetically related to.. and both law and society recognize their claim. When required, law should follow not lead.
It wasn’t an oxymoron to Abraham, among others.
I don’t think that, today, even Orthodox Jews think that Abraham is a good model for marriage.
She would be upset with me for all of those other things. She would probably pull a John Bobbit on me if I were with another women.
Trent, the point is if I declare myself a “father,” then what that word means is not my choice, but that of the rest of you, acting collectively. That’s why you don’t need to ask me what I mean by saying I’m someone’s father, right? The definition is clear to all and sundry, because of law and tradition. I can’t go around saying well, according to my private definition, being a “father” means I own the labor of this person forever, or he is my meat animal, or it means he owes me financial support. I can’t assert that I am the father of Abraham Lincoln or the first boy born in Valparaiso in March 2050. You would all quite rightly regard such assertions as bizarre and meaningless.
We’re not talking about how you get into the state of marriage, we’re talking about what the state means, and in particular, who defines what it means. You started off by saying it was up to each person, or each couple at most, to define what marriage is — and then, strangely, went on to take issue with Orson Scott Card’s particular personal definition of marriage. Can’t he define it as freely as you, or anyone else? If he says it’s all about rearing children, and you think it’s all about love and sex, and someone else says it’s all about saving money on benefits, and yet another avers it’s compliance to the Word of God or Quetzlcoatl, who are you to argue, by your own definition?
Contrariwise, if you want to argue with the private definitions of others, then you are implicitly saying that the definition of what marriage is is not a private decision — but a public decision, something we must all agree on, and the consensus about which can be enforced on a dissenting individual (e.g. Card, or the polygamous Mormons, or Mary Kay Letourneau).
But which is it? These are logically incompatible viewpoints.
So now you’re having a linguistic argument?
I don’t think there’s any agreed upon definition of a marriage other than “they performed the marriage ceremony”. Romeo and Juliet were married and never lived in the same house together, or even told anyone about it.. and it worked out better than most marriages 😉
Yes, the word has a meaning.. as does father. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with genetics, just like marriage. There’s no-one doing paternity tests at the time of birth to prove that the man claiming to be the father of the child is in fact the father, and nor should there be. The legal recognition of the father’s claim is based on nothing more than his say so, and that’s the way it should be. Nor should there be anyone taking gender attendance at wedding ceremonies. If two people want to perform the ceremony and can find two witnesses and someone to do it, they should be *free* to do so and the law should recognize their claim.
Am I the only person who thinks the oddest part of all this is that Rand reads “The Frisky”?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills…
More likely, he reads Instapundit.
It’s not just linguistic, or so the proponents of gay marriage would have you believe.
I don’t think there’s any agreed upon definition of a marriage.
That, at least, is almost self-evident nonsense. There are an infinite number of arrangements of people and barnyard animals that fit nobody’s definition of marriage. The fact that there is some latitude in the traditional and public definition is no proof that there is no agreement at all.
What you appear to be arguing is that there is some unspoken, unacknowledged general agreement on what marriage is (such that if I bring up ridiculous examples you’ll say well of course nobody means THAT), and then you want to supplement that at the margins by some private modifications, exempli gratia over whether sexual fidelity is part of the deal or not.
But, you know, if I were a strong proponent of gay marriage, it’s exactly that kind of unacknowledged I know it when I see it implicit definition that would anger me, because it smacks of many other unacknowledged prejudicial social compacts, e.g. that miscegenation or mixed-race proms and neighborhoods are just Not Done By Decent Folks, not that we have an actual law against that, nosireebob.
If you want to say marriage is a purely private affair, then have the courage of your convictions, and be silent when the Mormons want to marry a 56-year-old patriarch to four 16-year-old junior wives, or brother wants to wed sister, or Professor Epstein of Columbia wants to bed his adult daughter, or Muslims want husbands to have the power to strip their wives of everything but their wedding rings by saying I divorce you three times while presenting their arse towards Mecca.
And, on the other hand, if you want to argue Orson Scott Card must accept a consensus view of what marriage is, and is not, then do not shirk your obligation to argue the case with him on the merits, about what the consensus definition should be. Don’t weasel out with How dare you, sirrah, make private definitions that conflict with other private definitions that I find more acceptable to my unacknowledged prejudices? That’s not intellectually honest.
If two people want to perform the ceremony and can find two witnesses and someone to do it, they should be *free* to do so
That is already the case, and always has been.
and the law should recognize their claim.
There’s the rub. As soon as you cross that boundary, things change. If you want “recognition” (whatever practical consequences that means) then you’ve got to forge a public consensus. There’s no way around that. You cannot force a free mind. If you can’t convince the majority to recognize your definition of marriage, you have no right to insist everybody (i.e. the law) accept it. That’s freedom of conscience, working the other way.
Carl, partially quoting me really doesn’t work when the quote is on the same page as the original statement. I did not put a full stop after “marriage”, my sentence continues and I’d kindly ask that you stop misconstruing my argument.
What? I’m certainly not intentionally misconstruing your argument, Trent. I’m asking what it is. I don’t care whether you feel marriage is a private or a public definition. I just want to know which is the case, and I am strongly suggesting you can’t have it both ways.
Either you and your gay friends and Orson Scott Card all have the right to define “marriage” as each of you see fit, and none of you can argue anybody else’s definition is unreasonable. Or you and your gay friends can gang up on Card and demand he shut up about his deviation from the accepted consensus view. But not both.
None of my “gay friends” have any interest in getting married. What I *said* is that people get married for different reasons. I don’t think that is “defining marriage”. Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony but before divorce proceedings are finalized, should they unfortunately occur. That’s a definition. At no point did I say Card should shut up or that he can’t hold his own opinion of why people should get married. I’m able to disagree with someone without trying to silence them.
I certainly agree the reasons for getting married have zip to do with what the meaning of being married is, just as the reasons for buying a house tell you nothing about what it means to own a house.
That’s a definition.
No, it’s not, actually. It’s what you might call a truism, a circular statement. You’ve defined “marriage” as the state you’re in just after you enter the state of marriage. Not super duper helpful. You’re under no obligation to be helpful to the public debate, of course, or to state your views clearly. But isn’t it then a bit much to be hammering on Card for attempting to state his views consistently, for trying to contribute to the public debate?
I mean, you said he was an “offensive bigot,” and used his statements to cast mud on the clan of Mormons as a whole. That’s pretty powerful stuff. Shouldn’t you have a solid, logically-consistent philosophy grounded on morals with broad agreement among others to back up such strong charges? It’s one thing to say that’s not my cup of tea or his position is not to my taste but you made much stronger statements.
I’m sorry but I find referring to adopted children as the equivalent of pets, as offensive. I think expressing a desire to stop people from marrying on the sole basis that they have no interest or ability to reproduce, is bigoted. I don’t think that is an absurd or extreme position. And I didn’t identify his position as shared policy of the Mormons.. he did.
Carl,
May I take issue? I certainly think you can have many definitions with perhaps all of them being incorrect. I have a personal definition of what marriage is, but the public can enforce a different definition. Mine might be wrong, but I’m not going to change it with evidence it’s wrong. The public definition, especially state by state, is mostly out of my hands and the states themselves do not completely agree.
I meant withOUT evidence.
Issue with what, ken? I haven’t argued for or against any particular definition of marriage, nor even who should do the defining. I’ve just argued against fuzzy mindedness, of not being clear about whether you believe the status is defined by public consensus — or Constitutional right or natural law, whatever, but some public mechanism — like “fatherhood” or “legal” or “in debt” or “citizen” or “adult” or “voter,” or whether it’s entirely up to private definition, like “in love” or “moral” or “Tea Partier” or “trustworthy.”
This is important because a great deal of the flame and smoke surrounding these debates is, IMHO, a failure (in some cases no doubt deliberate) of contending parties to be quite clear about what they assert lies within the public sphere, in which The People get to decide what the law o’ the land is, and what they assert lies within the private sphere, where people individually get to do as they please and tell The People (e.g. the majority, any size majority) to go pound sand.
I don’t suggest everyone needs to have his philosophical house in logical order, just those (like Trent here) who would open up and criticize (rather harshly) someone else’s public statements on the topic.
Also please note that I would distinguish between judgements of marriage quality and questions of its mere existence. For example, it may be what you have in mind when you say you have a private definition of “marriage” is that you acknowledge certain marriages as high-quality — consistent with the commands of conscience, good morals, or God Himself — while others are low-quality Britney Spears “sham” marriages that are hollow in some important moral dimension.
I suggest this to you because it seems a bit unlkely that even if you were confronted with the most transparently cynical marriage o’ convenience, some pure tax dodge or immigration finagle, you might hesitate to go beyond putting pejorative adjectives (“sham,” “bogus,” “nominal”) in front of the word “marriage” and actually state no marriage exists at all. If so, that suggests you have a great deal of respect for the public consensus definition of the state of marriage, but reserve to yourself judgments of its quality that range from “a mockery of the term” to its Platonic ideal.
Trent,
“Romeo and Juliet were married and never lived in the same house together, or even told anyone about it.. and it worked out better than most marriages.”
LOL! Disillusioned much?
Carl, I had to reread your point about logically incompatible viewpoints. I thought you were saying you couldn’t have both a public legal definition and a different personal definition, quality being perhaps a refinement.
For me, a definition accepted as legal could easily qualify as not a marriage (not even considering quality) by my personal definition even if agreed by every other living person on the planet (INTJ.) I would accept that the legal definition is what it is and the ramifications but would not personally consider some to be married by my own definition which doesn’t really affect anybody.
What other people believe is fine with me as long as it’s not coercive or punitive toward me or others (whom I might even disagree with.)
All right, ken. Who am I to harsh your mellow? I would only suggest that you use two separate words or phrases for the concepts: “marriage the public definition” and “marriage ken’s way,” so as to keep ’em separate.
Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony…
Why two?
“I’m sorry but I find referring to adopted children as the equivalent of pets, as offensive.”
Uh yeah, me too. I’m adopted, and at no time did my parents ever act like they thought I was their “pet.” But then again, back then people took things like marriage and raising kids seriously…
By the way, the idea that sexual fidelity is not one of the most important aspects of marriage would sure be a surprise to the thousands of generations previous to this, and to every divorce lawyer in the nation. I mean, I’m sure some of you guys wish it wasn’t important…
Andrea – And some you girls too!
Apparently, approximately 10-15% of children born in wedlock are no relation to the “father”.
Apparently, approximately 10-15% of children born in wedlock are no relation to the “father”.
“Wait here [Maria]. I’ll be back.”
Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony…
Such as, John and his sister Mary?
Fletcher: well, I’m pretty sure none of those “baby mamas” are writing in this comment thread. And actually? Most women still think sexual fidelity is important. Maybe the percentage who don’t is slightly higher than it used to be. But that doesn’t change the base reality.
Andrea, does it really?
Assuming the lower figure, 10%, and remembering that the figure is women who either decided to be impregnated by someone other than the man they were married to or were careless enough not to ensure it didn’t happen (which in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is hardly difficult); then the figure for women who were unfaithful without issue has to be higher than that 10%. How much higher, there is no way to know.
Please note that this is a generality. You are not being accused. I don’t even know you; but what you are saying sounds a lot like the standard “all wimyn are perfect and all men are evil” mantra.
Coming at this late and this will probably be ignored, but if you think that just because I think that women are more monogamous than men means women are perfect and men are evil then you are…confused. I didn’t say a thing about the moral advantages of women over men. I don’t in fact believe that women are morally superior to men because of their sexual tendencies. Since you are the one who brought it up, I suggest, like a lot of men, you are the one with the “madonna/whore” complex and its companion idea that “men are beasts.”
Why?
People can do whatever they define “marriage” as, without sexual exclusivity. Usually it means some combination of commitment of shared responsibility for finances, legal support, join ownership of property, and child care, as well as sexual intimacy. But like how a married person can also maintain money, joint property, legal relationships, and so forth, with someone other than their spouse, it’s possible to have sexual and emotional links to other people as well.
As long as it’s not part of being deceptive or dishonest to the spouse, I see no problem. And bluntly, it’s pretty much none of our (for all values of “our”) business how other people negotiate and navigate their sexual intimacy.
In American jurisprudence, and in ‘mainstream Christian thought’, it is true that “Non-monogamous marriage’ is an oxymoron.
That said, there are probably at least a few people out there who have an ‘open marriage’ which seems to mean, “I have a common bank account with you, but I reserve the right to sleep around if I feel like it.”
The question of whether a ‘three or more person marriage’ (if any stable ones exist outside the realm of fiction) would be monogamous is left as an exercise for freshman philosophers and other hair-splitters.
Hardly. Sexual fidelity is one of the least important aspects of a good marriage. I don’t say it isn’t important per se, only that there are other things much more important, and that for example a marriage seen as only an agreement of mutual sexual fidelity is not likely to work out well.
I agree this woman is a nitwit, but because she puts “honesty” above sexual fidelity. That’s like saying it’s more important to beat your wife in full view of your children than not to beat her at all. Honesty has its place, to be sure, but frequently in a sound and lasting marriage there is actually a requirement for a certain amount of dishonesty, or perhaps wilful self-delusion is a better term. It’s necessary for a woman to believe her husband of 20 years might actually stop dropping his socks on the floor or leaving pubic hairs on the toilet seat tomorrow, or next month, or some day before he dies. It’s necessary for a man to say, and try hard to believe, the dress does not make her ass look fat.
There’s a fellow in Oregon (I forget the reference) who claims a 90% prospective predictive success on marriages. He claims it’s as simple as listening to 15 minutes of conversation, and observing the small assumptions each spouse makes about ambiguity in the other’s statements. Successful marriage is predicted by a consistent pattern of irrationally optimistic assumptions. That is, each spouse tends to believe, in the face of common sense and even prior evidence, that his spouse means better than he says, has kinder thoughts than seems evident from his speech, et cetera. In short, a certain amount of mutual delusion seems necessary. Although it might not be fair to call it delusional, since it seems the spouses often rise to the expectations — expected to behave better than they initially meant, they rise to it.
Wikipedia describes several forms on non-monogamous marriage, in other words, polygamy, which doesn’t just mean multiple wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
It fundamentally boils down to what you think is the purpose of marriage. If you don’t start with a declaration of what marriage means to you then its impossible to come to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, most people who get married never do.
In Orson Scott Card’s diatribe against gay marriage, he declares that marriage is about having children and, specifically, the commitment of both partners to dedicate their combined resources to raising those children. I’m sure a lot of people would agree with that argument, but certainly not all people.
To turn this into a reason why gay marriage should remain unrecognized, he has to make two totally offensive statements: 1) declare that adopted children – or children that are the offspring of only one parent – are not worthy substitutes to combined genetic offspring. He goes so far as to compare adopted children to pets; and 2) declare that people who marry for any other reason are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
But, setting aside his offensive bigotry, to him a mistress would be immoral because it takes resources to maintain that relationship which the offending partner should be contributing to raising the children. Did I mention he’s Mormon?
Other people marry for companionship, and when intimacy gives way to independence they revert to sexual promiscuity. Some even willfully maintain the illusion of monogamy by agreement. But more often, the power balance in the relationship is so uneven that one partner is unable to make any demands on the other, even monogamy, but is too afraid to leave.
Sexual fidelity is one of the least important aspects of a good marriage..
I’ll go tell that to my wife and see what happens next.
I understand what Carl says, but simply, she’s going in intending to lose, and thinks keeping her expectations real makes her smarter, current, hip, or something. That high divorce rate she mentions is mostly because one or both of the spouses thought it was normal to be non-monogamous, and then the other discovered how uncool it was to have an important vow broken.
Pfft, Trent, c’mon. Is it a public institution or not? If it isn’t, then legislative or judicial construction of gay marriage is an oxymoron, since the public can’t define what is a priori up to private parties to construct as they see fit.
But if it is a public institution then you can no more privately define the duties and privileges of marriage than you can of parenthood.
Which is it going to be?
I’ll go tell that to my wife and see what happens next.
If you really want to test my thesis, David, go in and tell your wife that you are going to spend the kids’ college fund on a new Ferrari, and that your drinking problem is none of her business, and you have no problem calling her a stupid bitch in public when you disagree — but by God you’ll never bone another woman, so that’s okay then, right?
Let us know how she reacts to that, eh?
Carl, I’m not aware of that argument.. you’ll have to explain it better if you want me to understand.
As a libertarian, I think individuals decide to get married (and the reasons why) and law should recognize their decision.
As for “institution”, I can only guess you mean “an established law, practice, or custom” and all I can say is, well, yes, I suppose it is.. and?
“legislative or judicial construction of gay marriage” presupposes that governments grant individuals rights. I disagree.
All righty, Trent. Do you think “fatherhood” is a private construction? Am I allowed to call myself the father of whomever I please? Can I decline to be labeled a father of a child that these persnickety DNA tests insists is related to me? Am I allowed to define my obligations and privileges as a father myself, just as I see fit?
I’m going to guess your answer is no. Being a father is to some extent an objective fact (genetic relation), but more importantly a public construction — I can be declared the father of an adopted child, and I can have my duties and obligations towards my biological offspring entirely terminated for good cause. In the end all the options in defining what it means to be a “father” and who fits the definition are entirely in the hands of the general public, i.e. defined by the legislature and courts. I have no private input, any more than I can define whether I owe money or not to the bank, or whether I am a citizen of California if I live in LA.
On the other hand, consider what I mean by calling myself a “lover” or “boyfriend” (ugh). What that means is entirely in my private hands. I can call myself the lover of Juliet if I please, and define my duties and privileges more or less as she and I see fit. The state has essentially nothing to say about it, so long as I don’t trespass on any unrelated rights of other people, e.g. the right of the neighbors not to be disturbed by my singing love songs under her balcony at 2 am.
So is marriage in category A (fatherhood) or B (loverhood)? Is the definition of the word and the state a matter for the public or each individual? It can’t be both.
Yeah, I think you contradicted yourself. People do declare themselves to be the father of children they are not genetically related to.. and both law and society recognize their claim. When required, law should follow not lead.
It wasn’t an oxymoron to Abraham, among others.
I don’t think that, today, even Orthodox Jews think that Abraham is a good model for marriage.
She would be upset with me for all of those other things. She would probably pull a John Bobbit on me if I were with another women.
Trent, the point is if I declare myself a “father,” then what that word means is not my choice, but that of the rest of you, acting collectively. That’s why you don’t need to ask me what I mean by saying I’m someone’s father, right? The definition is clear to all and sundry, because of law and tradition. I can’t go around saying well, according to my private definition, being a “father” means I own the labor of this person forever, or he is my meat animal, or it means he owes me financial support. I can’t assert that I am the father of Abraham Lincoln or the first boy born in Valparaiso in March 2050. You would all quite rightly regard such assertions as bizarre and meaningless.
We’re not talking about how you get into the state of marriage, we’re talking about what the state means, and in particular, who defines what it means. You started off by saying it was up to each person, or each couple at most, to define what marriage is — and then, strangely, went on to take issue with Orson Scott Card’s particular personal definition of marriage. Can’t he define it as freely as you, or anyone else? If he says it’s all about rearing children, and you think it’s all about love and sex, and someone else says it’s all about saving money on benefits, and yet another avers it’s compliance to the Word of God or Quetzlcoatl, who are you to argue, by your own definition?
Contrariwise, if you want to argue with the private definitions of others, then you are implicitly saying that the definition of what marriage is is not a private decision — but a public decision, something we must all agree on, and the consensus about which can be enforced on a dissenting individual (e.g. Card, or the polygamous Mormons, or Mary Kay Letourneau).
But which is it? These are logically incompatible viewpoints.
So now you’re having a linguistic argument?
I don’t think there’s any agreed upon definition of a marriage other than “they performed the marriage ceremony”. Romeo and Juliet were married and never lived in the same house together, or even told anyone about it.. and it worked out better than most marriages 😉
Yes, the word has a meaning.. as does father. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with genetics, just like marriage. There’s no-one doing paternity tests at the time of birth to prove that the man claiming to be the father of the child is in fact the father, and nor should there be. The legal recognition of the father’s claim is based on nothing more than his say so, and that’s the way it should be. Nor should there be anyone taking gender attendance at wedding ceremonies. If two people want to perform the ceremony and can find two witnesses and someone to do it, they should be *free* to do so and the law should recognize their claim.
Am I the only person who thinks the oddest part of all this is that Rand reads “The Frisky”?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills…
More likely, he reads Instapundit.
It’s not just linguistic, or so the proponents of gay marriage would have you believe.
I don’t think there’s any agreed upon definition of a marriage.
That, at least, is almost self-evident nonsense. There are an infinite number of arrangements of people and barnyard animals that fit nobody’s definition of marriage. The fact that there is some latitude in the traditional and public definition is no proof that there is no agreement at all.
What you appear to be arguing is that there is some unspoken, unacknowledged general agreement on what marriage is (such that if I bring up ridiculous examples you’ll say well of course nobody means THAT), and then you want to supplement that at the margins by some private modifications, exempli gratia over whether sexual fidelity is part of the deal or not.
But, you know, if I were a strong proponent of gay marriage, it’s exactly that kind of unacknowledged I know it when I see it implicit definition that would anger me, because it smacks of many other unacknowledged prejudicial social compacts, e.g. that miscegenation or mixed-race proms and neighborhoods are just Not Done By Decent Folks, not that we have an actual law against that, nosireebob.
If you want to say marriage is a purely private affair, then have the courage of your convictions, and be silent when the Mormons want to marry a 56-year-old patriarch to four 16-year-old junior wives, or brother wants to wed sister, or Professor Epstein of Columbia wants to bed his adult daughter, or Muslims want husbands to have the power to strip their wives of everything but their wedding rings by saying I divorce you three times while presenting their arse towards Mecca.
And, on the other hand, if you want to argue Orson Scott Card must accept a consensus view of what marriage is, and is not, then do not shirk your obligation to argue the case with him on the merits, about what the consensus definition should be. Don’t weasel out with How dare you, sirrah, make private definitions that conflict with other private definitions that I find more acceptable to my unacknowledged prejudices? That’s not intellectually honest.
If two people want to perform the ceremony and can find two witnesses and someone to do it, they should be *free* to do so
That is already the case, and always has been.
and the law should recognize their claim.
There’s the rub. As soon as you cross that boundary, things change. If you want “recognition” (whatever practical consequences that means) then you’ve got to forge a public consensus. There’s no way around that. You cannot force a free mind. If you can’t convince the majority to recognize your definition of marriage, you have no right to insist everybody (i.e. the law) accept it. That’s freedom of conscience, working the other way.
Carl, partially quoting me really doesn’t work when the quote is on the same page as the original statement. I did not put a full stop after “marriage”, my sentence continues and I’d kindly ask that you stop misconstruing my argument.
What? I’m certainly not intentionally misconstruing your argument, Trent. I’m asking what it is. I don’t care whether you feel marriage is a private or a public definition. I just want to know which is the case, and I am strongly suggesting you can’t have it both ways.
Either you and your gay friends and Orson Scott Card all have the right to define “marriage” as each of you see fit, and none of you can argue anybody else’s definition is unreasonable. Or you and your gay friends can gang up on Card and demand he shut up about his deviation from the accepted consensus view. But not both.
None of my “gay friends” have any interest in getting married. What I *said* is that people get married for different reasons. I don’t think that is “defining marriage”. Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony but before divorce proceedings are finalized, should they unfortunately occur. That’s a definition. At no point did I say Card should shut up or that he can’t hold his own opinion of why people should get married. I’m able to disagree with someone without trying to silence them.
I certainly agree the reasons for getting married have zip to do with what the meaning of being married is, just as the reasons for buying a house tell you nothing about what it means to own a house.
That’s a definition.
No, it’s not, actually. It’s what you might call a truism, a circular statement. You’ve defined “marriage” as the state you’re in just after you enter the state of marriage. Not super duper helpful. You’re under no obligation to be helpful to the public debate, of course, or to state your views clearly. But isn’t it then a bit much to be hammering on Card for attempting to state his views consistently, for trying to contribute to the public debate?
I mean, you said he was an “offensive bigot,” and used his statements to cast mud on the clan of Mormons as a whole. That’s pretty powerful stuff. Shouldn’t you have a solid, logically-consistent philosophy grounded on morals with broad agreement among others to back up such strong charges? It’s one thing to say that’s not my cup of tea or his position is not to my taste but you made much stronger statements.
I’m sorry but I find referring to adopted children as the equivalent of pets, as offensive. I think expressing a desire to stop people from marrying on the sole basis that they have no interest or ability to reproduce, is bigoted. I don’t think that is an absurd or extreme position. And I didn’t identify his position as shared policy of the Mormons.. he did.
Carl,
May I take issue? I certainly think you can have many definitions with perhaps all of them being incorrect. I have a personal definition of what marriage is, but the public can enforce a different definition. Mine might be wrong, but I’m not going to change it with evidence it’s wrong. The public definition, especially state by state, is mostly out of my hands and the states themselves do not completely agree.
I meant withOUT evidence.
Issue with what, ken? I haven’t argued for or against any particular definition of marriage, nor even who should do the defining. I’ve just argued against fuzzy mindedness, of not being clear about whether you believe the status is defined by public consensus — or Constitutional right or natural law, whatever, but some public mechanism — like “fatherhood” or “legal” or “in debt” or “citizen” or “adult” or “voter,” or whether it’s entirely up to private definition, like “in love” or “moral” or “Tea Partier” or “trustworthy.”
This is important because a great deal of the flame and smoke surrounding these debates is, IMHO, a failure (in some cases no doubt deliberate) of contending parties to be quite clear about what they assert lies within the public sphere, in which The People get to decide what the law o’ the land is, and what they assert lies within the private sphere, where people individually get to do as they please and tell The People (e.g. the majority, any size majority) to go pound sand.
I don’t suggest everyone needs to have his philosophical house in logical order, just those (like Trent here) who would open up and criticize (rather harshly) someone else’s public statements on the topic.
Also please note that I would distinguish between judgements of marriage quality and questions of its mere existence. For example, it may be what you have in mind when you say you have a private definition of “marriage” is that you acknowledge certain marriages as high-quality — consistent with the commands of conscience, good morals, or God Himself — while others are low-quality Britney Spears “sham” marriages that are hollow in some important moral dimension.
I suggest this to you because it seems a bit unlkely that even if you were confronted with the most transparently cynical marriage o’ convenience, some pure tax dodge or immigration finagle, you might hesitate to go beyond putting pejorative adjectives (“sham,” “bogus,” “nominal”) in front of the word “marriage” and actually state no marriage exists at all. If so, that suggests you have a great deal of respect for the public consensus definition of the state of marriage, but reserve to yourself judgments of its quality that range from “a mockery of the term” to its Platonic ideal.
Trent,
“Romeo and Juliet were married and never lived in the same house together, or even told anyone about it.. and it worked out better than most marriages.”
LOL! Disillusioned much?
Carl, I had to reread your point about logically incompatible viewpoints. I thought you were saying you couldn’t have both a public legal definition and a different personal definition, quality being perhaps a refinement.
For me, a definition accepted as legal could easily qualify as not a marriage (not even considering quality) by my personal definition even if agreed by every other living person on the planet (INTJ.) I would accept that the legal definition is what it is and the ramifications but would not personally consider some to be married by my own definition which doesn’t really affect anybody.
What other people believe is fine with me as long as it’s not coercive or punitive toward me or others (whom I might even disagree with.)
All right, ken. Who am I to harsh your mellow? I would only suggest that you use two separate words or phrases for the concepts: “marriage the public definition” and “marriage ken’s way,” so as to keep ’em separate.
Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony…
Why two?
“I’m sorry but I find referring to adopted children as the equivalent of pets, as offensive.”
Uh yeah, me too. I’m adopted, and at no time did my parents ever act like they thought I was their “pet.” But then again, back then people took things like marriage and raising kids seriously…
By the way, the idea that sexual fidelity is not one of the most important aspects of marriage would sure be a surprise to the thousands of generations previous to this, and to every divorce lawyer in the nation. I mean, I’m sure some of you guys wish it wasn’t important…
Andrea – And some you girls too!
Apparently, approximately 10-15% of children born in wedlock are no relation to the “father”.
Apparently, approximately 10-15% of children born in wedlock are no relation to the “father”.
“Wait here [Maria]. I’ll be back.”
Marriage is the state two individuals are in after a wedding ceremony…
Such as, John and his sister Mary?
Fletcher: well, I’m pretty sure none of those “baby mamas” are writing in this comment thread. And actually? Most women still think sexual fidelity is important. Maybe the percentage who don’t is slightly higher than it used to be. But that doesn’t change the base reality.
Andrea, does it really?
Assuming the lower figure, 10%, and remembering that the figure is women who either decided to be impregnated by someone other than the man they were married to or were careless enough not to ensure it didn’t happen (which in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is hardly difficult); then the figure for women who were unfaithful without issue has to be higher than that 10%. How much higher, there is no way to know.
Please note that this is a generality. You are not being accused. I don’t even know you; but what you are saying sounds a lot like the standard “all wimyn are perfect and all men are evil” mantra.
Coming at this late and this will probably be ignored, but if you think that just because I think that women are more monogamous than men means women are perfect and men are evil then you are…confused. I didn’t say a thing about the moral advantages of women over men. I don’t in fact believe that women are morally superior to men because of their sexual tendencies. Since you are the one who brought it up, I suggest, like a lot of men, you are the one with the “madonna/whore” complex and its companion idea that “men are beasts.”