THAT was an amazing experience. IGeorge standing at the front of the makeshift chapel, marrying Brad, with Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols on either side as best man and matron of honor respectively.
Kath and I were seated nearby Harlan and Susan Ellison (with whom we were also slated to sit at the reception.) Atmospheric music was supplied by a stunningly attired Asian woman playing a stringed instrument called the Koto. I admit I was biting the inside of my cheek not to laugh when a singer urged the audience to join him in a chorus of “Climb Every Mountain,” which some actually did. But then George and Brad made their own tongue-in-cheek entrance, descending the stairs to “One” from “Chorus Line” (now THAT I would have been willing to sing.) The ceremony was alternately loving, funny, and moving.
The ceremony was followed by a mingling cocktail reception. We chatted with Nichelle for some time (she remembered me from Dragon*con) and for a while she actually had her arm around me! Granted, her ankle had gone weak and mostly she was leaning on me so she wouldn’t fall, but still!
The dinner afterward was amazing, a fusion cuisine combined with memorable performances from, among others, the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus. Among the notables in attendance was legendary Senator Daniel Inouye, and a variety of people–including Harlan–gave toasts celebrating the happy couple.
I still cannot fathom how any reasonable person can object to gays marrying. Even Obama doesn’t support the idea of gay marriage. Last I checked, love was a family value.
PAD
• 
It sounds like a wonderful ceremony, though I’m sorry to hear they didn’t make their entrance to the theme music from Star Trek.
Big congrats to George and Brad.
Sounds like a beautiful ceremony. Well done to the happy couple!
You are an enlightened and generous human being, Mr. David, and it shows up continuously in your work. It’s just one of the reasons why I admire you. Sounds like a wonderful ceremony. My husband and I celebrated our 4th Anniversary this past August here in Boston.
Sen. Obama has to stand for office in a US election. That constraint seems to dictate a lot more of his publicly stated opinion than he’d otherwise prefer, in my POV. I may be wrong, of course…but I will say this: were Obama Canadian, he’d be Prime Minister already, and a lot freer with his honest opinions on this subject.
That said, glad to see an eyewitness report from that particular service, Peter.
Sounds like a fantastic ceremony. I’m very happy for them both.
We chatted with Nichelle for some time (she remembered me from Dragon*con) and for a while she actually had her arm around me! Granted, her ankle had gone weak and mostly she was leaning on me so she wouldn’t fall, but still!
You playa, you. Kath didn’t see that, right? (j/k)
When I was at Shore Leave this year, I couldn’t track down either yourself or George. I had REALLY wanted to wish him Mazel Tov on the upcoming nuptials.
Congrats to George and Brad!
In trying to keep this positive, I won’t rant against the Religious Right yet again (what is the use, anyway?). I will only say that even prejudice, as dire as it is, has a silver lining.
LGBT people have to weather so much trouble to get married, that at least they don’t take marriage lightly. I’ve never seen a gay couple marrying and separating after 6 months.
Gay couples that marry are the ones that already have a pretty good, long-standing relationship going. And that is how it should be with all marriages.
I’ve never seen a gay couple marrying and separating after 6 months.
Well, I hate to spoil the good times for you, Rene, and it may not be as short as 6 months, but there are stories out there of gay and/or lesbian couples getting divorced. The divorce rate may not be the 50% or so that it is for hetero couples, but there is a rate.
I’d have to go hunt around for articles, but iirc one story was about the lesbian couple struggling to get a divorce since their state didn’t recognize their marriage to begin with.
Either way, we’re making progress toward equal rights in this area. And more importantly, California and Massachusetts have yet to fall into the ocean. 😉
Really?
That is sobering. I’m curious to know the rates.
Anyway, I’m not claiming to be superior to anyone else. I’m sure that once LGBT marriage becomes as common and accepted and easy as any other marriage, we’ll have higher divorce rates too.
Craig– I think the story you were thinking of can be found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-15-gay-divorces_N.htm or http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4347231
It appears that getting states to recognize a divorce for a marriage that is not legal in that state is tricky at best. gays probably need to take even greater precautions with such things as pensions than straight couples do.
But let’s not rain on George and Brad’s happy day, these two should have already had a long and happy life together and will hopefully enjoy many years to come.
Kudos to the new couple! (And geek cred for being surrounded by a STRA TREK novelist and two members of the original series.)
I have a feeling the gay divorce rate will skyrocket in a couple of years simply because a number of them got married because they could and not because they were ready.
I still cannot fathom how any reasonable person can object to gays marrying.
Oh, come on. There are good reasons. More importantly, you are implying that a large proportion (by most accounts, over 50%) of the population are not reasonable people.
Calling two men or two women joining together a marriage is just applying a name to something. Marriage was not defined by a government. It is a natural union throughout history in every culture where a man and a woman join together to create a family. The sex act, while also pleasurable and good, has the natural result of producing a child (except where there is a physical issue or preventive means are used). This is impossible to happen naturally in a gay union.
Does “expanding” the natural definition of “marriage” to include gay couples matter? That is the real question. I obviously believe it does. It inherently undermines our culture and society. Yes, the high divorce rate is also bad. And look at the result. There is a strong correlation between the current high gang and crime rate and kids raised by one parent. There are some good single parents, but the best environment to raise healthy kids who can flourish is to be in a two parent home (one with both genders).
The issue is far greater than you portray it. If it is simply a matter of George and Brad getting a piece of paper saying they are married, and getting a tax benefit, etc., it may not hurt society much. The problem is I don’t believe that is where this is headed. It really is an insistence that heterosexual marriage is no longer seen as healthy and good. Not by you, but that is where this is being pushed.
Don’t even get me started on the lawsuits gay activists are making to tear down marriage. Why is it necessary to sue EHarmony simply because they only match a man and a woman? Why sue a private, Methodist church camp facility and threaten their tax exempt status because they refused (in Massachusets) to allow a gay wedding on their property?
Does George getting married to Brad bother me? No. I will still watch Heroes and Star Trek reruns and enjoy them the same as before. I am glad you could be there for this event in his life. I am sure you are a good friend. But why insult those of us who are reasonable people who happen to disagree with you on what is clearly an important issue to both sides? Who is being unreasonable now?
Iowa Jim
More importantly, you are implying that a large proportion (by most accounts, over 50%) of the population are not reasonable people.
On this issue? I don’t know if PAD is implying that, but I’ll flat-out say it: on the issue of gay marriage, more than half of this country is seriously f*cked in the head.
Aaaaaaaaaand here’s an example of same:
It really is an insistence that heterosexual marriage is no longer seen as healthy and good. Not by you, but that is where this is being pushed.
Jim, name ONE person who supports the premises that (a) heterosexual marriage is not healthy and good, but (b) homosexual marriage is.
One person. That’s all I ask, and I’ll accept the claim that it’s “being pushed” as such.
If you can’t, then you’re arguing against a straw man, and I’d ask you to rethink things, or at the very least revise your actual claims.
That said, I don’t plan to make any more political comments in the thread. This should be about celebration.
TWL
Iowa Jim, the litigious actions of a few kooks should not be used to deny an entire group what seems to me to be a fundamental right. Marriage is what we define it to be. At this point it seems hard to see how any benefit to denying gays the right to marry would not be outweighed, vastly, by the good that allowing them to marry will do.
People like Brad and George are not radicals trying to tear down institutions, just 2 guys trying to have a piece of the American dream. The really radical gays want nothing to do with institutions like marriage. Hëll, look at it as a victory for conservatism; there was a time when people talked about marriage fading away as a part of modern life. Instead we now have people who once couldn’t get married wanting to. Think of how this will encourage heterosexuals to get married; I can see some mom haranguing her daughter about how her hairdresser and his boyfriend had a lovely wedding but meanwhile her kid is still shacking up with the same guy she’s been dating for 3 years.
It inherently undermines our culture and society. Yes, the high divorce rate is also bad. And look at the result. There is a strong correlation between the current high gang and crime rate and kids raised by one parent. There are some good single parents, but the best environment to raise healthy kids who can flourish is to be in a two parent home (one with both genders).
Wow. Just. Wow.
Not to spoil an otherwise great rant, but, uh, where’s the data to show that gay marriage undermines our culture and society? This is the same argument made a generation ago against inter-racial marriage. It had absolutely no basis in fact then, and has no basis in fact now.
Jim, name ONE person who supports the premises that (a) heterosexual marriage is not healthy and good, but (b) homosexual marriage is.
The moment you say homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, you deny that heterosexual marriage is preferable and best. The result is not to say (b) homosexual marriage is better (something I didn’t say), but to say it is all the same. Which has consequences.
Marriage is what we define it to be.
But that is my point. I am arguing that marriage is NOT what we define it to be anymore than I can say a man is actually a woman. I am arguing that marriage is not just an arbitrary definition but a description of a fundamental concept and practice in society. Yes, you can always find exceptions and variations (such as polygamy). But I am summarizing and argument based on nature and natural law.
Not to spoil an otherwise great rant, but, uh, where’s the data to show that gay marriage undermines our culture and society? This is the same argument made a generation ago against inter-racial marriage. It had absolutely no basis in fact then, and has no basis in fact now.
It is impossible to have data like we do with divorce since it has not been a cultural reality until now. But there is a fundamental difference from the inter-racial marriage. There is an actual gender difference that is more than just skin deep. If nothing else, than gender difference is clearly seen in that a married gay couple cannot (naturally) reproduce.
Look, I don’t expect us to agree on this. My point is not that you are “unreasonable” in your views and convictions. My point to PAD (and others who share his stated point that I highlighted) is for him to say there are no reasonable objections to gay marriage is ridiculous unless you arbitrarily decide anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable.
I really don’t think the “evidence” matters to most of you anyways. Some of you clearly feel this is a “right” for gay couples. Even if I could prove it harmed marriage, would it matter? If this is truly a “right,” than yes, it is wrong to deny them the opportunity to marry.
(I don’t mean that in any disparaging way. Use the example of divorce. I think most would agree that a divorce, even in the best of cases and for the best of reasons, takes an enormous emotional toll on those involved, especially the innocent children. Yet we allow for divorce, especially when the alternative is for a child or spouse is to have to stay in a dangerous and abusive situation.)
I don’t believe it is a “right” in the first place. So then it does matter how it impacts society. But people far more eloquent than me have clearly argued this point. My beef with PAD is not his endorsement of a gay marriage, it is with him saying those who disagree are unreasonable. So with all due respect, while I will read other comments, I see no point in arguing my position opposing gay marriage. It serves no purpose and it secondary to my main point of my first post.
Iowa Jim
Again, congratulations to the lovely couple. May they enjoy the best years of their lives yet to come as husband and husband. 🙂
The moment you say homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, you deny that heterosexual marriage is preferable and best.
That is absolutely and manifestly not the claim you made previously, Jim. You said that the push was to claim heterosexual marriage was “not healthy and good.” Being healthy and good does not require that it be preferable and best.
I request that you answer the actual question I asked, not the one you wanted me to ask.
TWL
So… were there protesters?
Marriage was not defined by a government.
Except, in the US of A, it is defined by the government. In fact, it’s defined by the states.
But I am summarizing and argument based on nature and natural law.
The argument of natural law? What the? You know what the natural law is? Our bodies tell us to go out and make babies with as many of the opposite sex as possible. No marriage, just spreading our seed.
But in our society, we’ve instead trained ourselves that we should only have one partner. That’s not natural, that’s self-imposed order.
Just like marriage is imposed order. And when you get down to it, marriage has evolved. It is no longer about simply providing a male heir (something that can be done without marriage anyways) or property or several other medieval concepts.
Don’t even get me started on the lawsuits gay activists are making to tear down marriage.
Last I checked, nobody is suing so that marriage no longer exists, or so that my marriage is invalidated. So what ‘tearing down’ are you seeing?
As I’ve said before, countries and states that have allowed gay marriage have not fallen to Armageddon, etc.
Why is it necessary to sue EHarmony simply because they only match a man and a woman? Why sue a private, Methodist church camp facility and threaten their tax exempt status because they refused (in Massachusets) to allow a gay wedding on their property?
Actually, I agree on both of these counts. In some cases, people are going overboard.
Although, I do wonder why it is with EHarmony that I don’t think I’ve ever seen even a interracial couple in their commercials…
I really don’t think the “evidence” matters to most of you anyways.
The problem is there really is no such evidence. All the excuses and all the strawmen can be debunked. In the end, you’ve got nothing left but a history of the institution of marriage which too many believes begins and ends with the religion of their choice.
Iowa Jim: Marriage was not defined by a government. It is a natural union throughout history in every culture where a man and a woman join together to create a family
It is not a natural union. It is a religious union with religious rules imposed by religions to keep the club heterosexual. Marriage as an institution is man made, and for much of it’s history was used to control women.
Congratulations to the happy couple. Thank goodness this country is finally realizing, slowly but surely, that there is not enough love in this world and if two people find it they should be able to express and celebrate it without regards to race, religion, OR gender.
First of all, congratulations to George and Brad.
Now, Iowa Jim, I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that your argument boils down to the idea that the purpose of marriage is the production of children, and that, therefore, gay couples (who can’t produce a child together) shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Well, taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that only couples who are physically capable of producing a child should be allowed to marry. Should we also tell heterosexual men who’ve had vasectomies, or are sterile for other reasons, that marriage isn’t an option for them? How about post-menopausal women, or those who have had hysterectomies or are infertile for other reasons? Or elderly couples? Or couples who want to be together, but have decided not to have children? None of those people are going to be making any babies, Jim. Do we tell them they can’t marry the person they love?
I’ll leave the debate about gay marriage to the rest of you. I’d rather simply express my best wishes to the happy couple.
Although, I do wonder why it is with EHarmony that I don’t think I’ve ever seen even a interracial couple in their commercials…
Most people, (regrettably, to my way of thinking), probably still have a strong preference for a mate of their own race. I’m pretty sure you can state that you are open to an interracial romance and it no doubt increases your chances of a hit but they might not want to show an interracial couple so as not to scare off those customers who might think they can’t request only a particular group.
It is not a natural union. It is a religious union with religious rules imposed by religions to keep the club heterosexual.
Marriage was still practiced in secular non-religious states, so I don’t think it can be considered a religious union. Unless one wants it to be. Tim’s marriage is no less valid than mine, even if I had a minister and he didn’t.
As long as there are lawyers and extremists, there will be people pushing the limits of rational thought, not just on marriage, but on anything. What’s next, bëšŧìál marriages? The laws are pretty clear in most states that’s a no, as animals can’t give consent. Child marriages? Already legal in some states as young as 13 with parental permission. Texas is still struggling with that one. Just what I want, a wedding banquet of chicken nuggets, mac and cheese, Gogurt and open bar on Monster and Jolt.
I hardly think we need gays to destroy marriage; I bet if you count, there are far more people living together without a marriage license than with one – heterosexuals included. Marriage is a choice, not a legal requirement, but it helps keep the world orderly. When is a marriage considered a success? After 5 years? Ten, even if they’re miserable? When my grandparents divorced after 38 years? Or when one of the partners dies (presumably of natural causes)? Or is it only a success if children are produced? Of ten couples I consider close friends, only 5 have children, or ever plan to. Are the other five failures, even if they’re the happiest people on Earth?
I still have not heard a single rational reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. I’m thrilled George and Brad had an opportunity to seal their partnership, and I wish them every happiness.
First, I’ve never heard any of my LGBT friends say that straight marriage isn’t healthy or good. Except for a tiny minority of radical feminist lesbians stuck in the 1960s, there are no gay activists out there that want everybody to be like them. Actually, it’s the other side that frequentely seems to want everybody to be just like them.
Second, like Craig and Karen said, natural law seems counter to any kind of monogamy. So what is the point of using natural law arguments when discussing monogamic unions?
Third, the idea that it’s divorce that harms children is fallacious. What harms children is bad marriages. Some bad marriages end in divorce, some do not, some continue for years, but all are traumatic.
My best friend was raised by his mother alone, and the absence of a father is a painful wound for him. I was raised by a mother and a father that fought all the time and inflicted emotional anguish on each other and on me, and it’s an equally painful wound.
My parents never divorced, because they were traditional people, not because their marriage was loving and good.
Forbidding divorce wouldn’t solve anything. What you have to forbid is people entering into marriages that are not loving and good. But how do you do that? Get a group of precognitives to scan the couple to check if they’re ready to marry? Some telepaths to see if they’re really good for each other?
In the past there was less divorce, but I bet the number of bad marriages was about the same as now, except it was all behind closed doors. The circle of friends around my parents never knew they had such a crappy marriage, because they’d put a happy face for society.
Just like the number of gays must have been the same too, only they were in the closet and trapped in unhappy marriages, having gáÿ šëx behind the backs of their spouses.
Honesty is always the best policy. Bring everything into the light.
Tim,
Ok. I see your point. I was thinking preferable and best when I said healthy and good. So my response clarified what was in my mind. My response also clarified what I was thinking — namely, that the moment you equate gay marriage with actual marriage, you deny it being better.
I was not thinking of a particular advocate saying this, but rather saying that is where things are headed. Because while you may deny the slippery slope, I believe it is true. I don’t think George Takei or PAD or you are out to destroy marriage deliberately. But I do believe that is where it very naturally can go.
For a defense of the slippery slope I describe, this article summarizes it well: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
Iowa Jim
Thank you, Jim. As a suggestion, however: you probably shouldn’t say that X is “the way it’s being pushed” if there’s nobody actually doing any pushing in that direction. If you want to make a slippery slope argument, that’s your right, but that is almost by definition NOT a “being pushed” situation.
And with that, I really will bow out of the thread politics — I’d just like to reiterate wishing Brad and George my best wishes. May the happy couple live long and prosper. (Hey, SOMEONE had to say it…)
TWL
Bill Mulligan:Marriage was still practiced in secular non-religious states, so I don’t think it can be considered a religious union. Unless one wants it to be. Tim’s marriage is no less valid than mine, even if I had a minister and he didn’t.
Me: My point was and is that marriage itself is not natural. It is human beings imposing rules (whether secular or religious) I responded with the religious argument because that is where marriage originated. I would not ever say ones marriage is not valid for not being religious. My sister married her wife in Pennsylvania in a ceremony that is recognized by neither the government or religion because it is not legal there. Does this make their relationship less valid? Absolutely not. They have been married for years and have a better marriage than many heterosexual couples. My family may be of the more usual kind (husband, wife, daughter) but there is plenty of room in this world for any couple that finds love. Iowa Jim, to impose your worldview on others for any reason, be it religion or politics is neither wise nor rational and will not work in the long run. Live your life and let others be free to live theirs.
Hearing about the happy couple entering to the strains of “One” just makes me regret even more that I’ve not yet had the chance to meet George – sounds like he and Brad are my kind of people!
(That’s the kind with a weird sense of humor, for those of you playing along at home.)
Jim, historically, the Christian faith refused to have anything at all to do with marriage until the 14th century. Prior to that time, it was regarded as a worldly affair; since the Church’s aim was to train people to be non-worldly, they wanted nothing to do with it. However, one of the French kings (can’t recall which one at the moment) insisted that his wedding be solemnized by the local archbishop. Of course, as always, once the Church was given a new power by a state, they took the bit in their teeth…
All of which is by way of demonstrating that historically, religion and marriage only interacted coincidentally. It’s only for the past six hundred years that Christianity has been involved at all, and for the first century or two of that, they only worried about the aristocracy – most people, if they had a ceremony at all, used some ritual passed down as folklore, like the famous “jumping of the broom”. Therefore, recognizing more forms of marriage than various religious factions would like is hardly justifiable with appeal to tradition. Sorry, try again.
Because while you may deny the slippery slope, I believe it is true.
When isn’t there a slippery slope of doom and gloom for us all to slide down?
We’ve already seen “Iowa Jim” back away from his “healthy and good” claim, but people are too quick to assume he knows what he’s talking about on his others. For example, when he asks Why sue a private, Methodist church camp facility and threaten their tax exempt status because they refused (in Massachusets) to allow a gay wedding on their property? folks seem to be accepting that as an accurate descriptor.
The supposed “Methodist church” in this case is the “Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association”. Sound like a church to you? The “tax exempt” status that they lost was not one of being tax exempt as a church; it was a tax exemption under New Jersey’s Green Acres Program, which is a tax benefit given based on requirements of providing public access to the space. By using discriminatory means to define who could use the space, they were simply not following the law, and thus not qualified for that tax break. But the morality-impaired anti-gay forces seem to feel free to ignore the truth when looking for excuses to enshrine their prejudice in the law.
If there’s a slippery slope, then legal marriage for straight folks is just as much as step onto it as legal marriage for gays.
Oh, and just to be clear: I double-checked via searches to find if I could actually find a lawsuit that really matched the one “Iowa Jim” described, but he seemed to be describing the New Jersey lawsuit. I could find no record of the supposed MA one (and the Internet does not tend to hide things like that.)
Oh, wait, and the lesbian couple didn’t actually file a lawsuit in New Jersey. They filed a complaint. Meant to include that. Doing too many things at once, here.
“Because while you may deny the slippery slope, I believe it is true”
it is a circular argument.
Why is sexual relationship x bad? Well, because it undermines monogamous heterosexual marriage which is good. How does it undermine? well, by offering a possibiliity other than monogamous heterosexual marriage which is good. But why does presenting another option other than monogamous heterosexual marriage which is good threaten the goodness of monogamous heterosexual marriage which is good? Well, it’s a slippery slope. If we allow sexual relationship x it might open the door to the option of sexual relationship y, and that would really be bad. Why? Well, because it undermines monogamous heterosexual marriage which is good…
——————–
There are several false conservative assumptions here.
1) That affirming monogamous heterosexual marriage as the only legitimate relationship somehow stops forces other than monogamous heterosexual marriage.
That’s not true. Even in the world in which monogamous heterosexual marriage was the only legal and approved option other forms of relationship exist, only under a blanket of secrecy and shame.
2) That the goodness of monogamous heterosexual marriage depends on ensuring its exclusivity.
That’s kind of sad really. The idea that marriage is not good for its own sake but only because laws and norms are enacted to make any other relationship illegitimate.
3) That the liberal system of tolerating other forms of relationships other than monogamous heterosexual marriage means the absense of any boundaries at all.
That’s also not true. Liberalism simple has another set of boundaries — consent, adulthood, and (to a lesser degree) absense of actual harm.
———————–
Re: natural law.
There is no such thing.
The term was coined and used in Europe at the 17th and 18th century. It reflects a certain view of the world at that time. But combining the word nature and law is as meaningless as talking about colorful sounds or funny fruits. Its mixing categories. Nature has phenomena which are scientifically described. We call these descriptions laws of nature, but they are not laws, only descriptions. Conversly, human society has laws which, unlike nature, can be obeyed to, broken, changed.
It is a natural phenomenon that humans form sexual relationships of various forms. It is a sociological phenomenon that humans create norms and laws to regulate such relationship.
—————
And Mazal Tov to the happy couple.
Congrats to George and Brad.
Anyone interested in the confusion between description and law that Micha mentioned above should take a look at this:
http://erudito.livejournal.com/215097.html
Basically, it’s about a study of homosexual behaviour in animals. The funniest part is how some scientists felt offended by the animals’ actions and one Conservative guy wrote: “A Note on the Apparent Lowering of Moral Standards in the Lepidoptera”.
Lepidoptera are butterflies, by the way. And the guy was shocked and horrified to watch make butterflies have sex with each other in nature.
I meant, MALE butterflies
Iowa Jim—
What a hateful, evil, bigoted thing you’ve done bringing up this argument in a thread of celebration. And you call yourself a pastor. I shudder to think of all the psycopaths you are training there in Iowa with your spiteful, anti-Christian attitudes.
Alan?
Not helpin’ the mood of the thread, dude.
Alan, I think Iowa Jim is wrong too and I don’t have any sympathy for his arguments, but calling him a trainer of psychopaths is a bit too much, surely?
This thread should be about celebration, but to be honest, PAD included a little challenge there in the last line.
Yeah, Alan, you have no chance of making people examine their positions if all you do is go on the attack. I disagree with his points but he made them without anything that would justify that kind of personal meanness.
Second, like Craig and Karen said, natural law seems counter to any kind of monogamy. So what is the point of using natural law arguments when discussing monogamic unions?
Actually it depends on the species. Humans have such long gestational periods (and even longer childhoods) that there’s a large incentive for mated pairs to remain together to protect their young. Natural selection is all about passing your genes on to future generations, which is a failure if your children don’t live long enough to reach sexual maturity. Mating for life is actually a fairly common adaptive strategy even among animals with much shorter generations. Wolves and a lot of birds do it, in addition to humans. So when someone says monogamy is natural, sorry, it really is.
Digression: As it happens there’s also a game theory advantage to adultery– impregnate another female, or if you’re female become impregnated by a more desirable sperm donor– and let the schlep the female is “married” to invest his energy protecting the stud’s DNA. Genius. Cuckoos raise this to an art form and lay their eggs in other nests, so that the pair is protecting an embryo that has neither of their genes. Genius. However, note that both of these strategies require a preexisting “marital” framework.
What any of this has to do with morality is another question. While I generally agree with Jim on political threads (I’m baaaack), I do see a logical gap there. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean we necessarily want to make it immutable in our society. I just think that we should have a national discussion and reach a consensus about whether our society wants to recognize gay marriage or not. Having the institution forced down the throats of sometimes-unwilling states actively invites a backlash. (This was Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe v Wade, incidentally.) If the majority want to recognize it, so be it. If not, we shouldn’t have it. Remember that the reason “civil unions” are deemed inferior to “marriage” is that “marriage” connotes social approval. Approval cannot be forced. Many opponents of gay marriage don’t care what Mr. Takei’s marriage certificate is called; they won’t recognize it as a valid marriage even if the State of California does. Court opinions can’t change that. Social movements and political discussions? Maybe.
Alan Coil: What a hateful, evil, bigoted thing you’ve done bringing up this argument in a thread of celebration.
Luigi Novi: He didn’t bring it up. He was responding to a point Peter made at the end of his blog entry about those opposed to gay marriage and whether it was “reasonable”.
I agree with you, Alan, that this thread has not quickly degenerated, so shortly before it was posted, into another thread on gay marriage, which is why this time, I will not participate in those arguments for or against it, but as Tim said, you haven’t exactly elevated yourself above the atmosphere that stems from Jim’s post.
David, I agree that approval, by its very definition, must be voluntary. But even if, in fact, 51% of Americans would disapprove of gay marriage, it must be noted that the President of the United States has sometimes not been the man chosen by popular majority.
I actually don’t get your point Rene. The President is the person chosen by the majority of the relevant selection process (Electoral College, or the House of Representatives in 1824). But setting that aside, what has that to do with this? Elections like 1824 and 2000 are generally regarded as aberrations, not models to follow in other contexts. Are you implying that the side with fewer votes should sometimes win a referendum? And that this is one of those times? If so, why so? Why depart from the default rule in a democracy, that the majority policy preference is honored?
“So when someone says monogamy is natural, sorry, it really is.”
Oh, there is something I forgot to reply to. One flaw in what you said is that mating for life isn’t the same as monogamy.
There is an incentive for mates to remain together, but there is no particular reason why it must be one male to one female. A good case could be made that one strong male and several females living together might be the best strategy.
I suppose my point is that there is precendent for an appointed body making important decisions for the rest of us sometimes without support of a popular majority.
Otherwise, I was agreeing with you that true acceptance isn’t something that will ever be mandated by laws.