Monday, June 2, 2014

"Which (type of) Marriage?"

So I was having a TMI conversation with my daughter on fertility, and I try to connect out back to understanding relationships.

"Most people think marriage is obsolete, but I still believe in it"

"Which (type of ) marriage?"

When explaining the differences between anthropological marriage and the legal confusion in our laws, I stay away from identifing orientation. I will say adult view point or child view point. 

I thought it was interesting not to assume anything.


  1. ",... I stay away from identifing orientation."

    Why? If you're going to lay out the particulars, doesn't leaving those particulars out paint an incomplete picture?

  2. Because marriage has nothing to do with gay or straight orientation, it isn't relevant.

    Marriage is based on behavior.

  3. So when gay people say they are married and that theirs is a same-sex marriage, your view is that the 'same-sex' aspect is isn't relevant? If so, that's kind of cool.

    1. Are you referencing an individual's orientation or the couple's behavior?

      Their behavior is relevant, but not their orientation.

      There have been gay men who have sex with women, and straight men who have sex with men. There have been women who have taken 'a vacation' from men and have been with a woman.

      Being gay is truly an orientation within itself. It's like when someone references a 'gay lifestyle'. Being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's a part of that person. I don't consider being straight a lifestyle. People who are not having sex, do not lose their sexuality. For instance simply being gay, doesn't make you less of a man. While being promiscuous with women and objectifying them, does.

      Individuals are not different, but behavior is.

      I don't condsider the idea of a man/women marriage as being unconstitutional because I'm focusing on behavior, not orientation. I don't consider same-sex marriage as unconstitutional either, I may disagree with it. Polygamy could be allowed as well, even if I may disagree with it. We're free in our laws to can say what is important and what isn't important. The law could say marriage is unimportant and rescind all laws in regard to it.

      If there was enough support, our constitution could support an amendment to prevent men from voting. Why not, if it goes the the constitutional process.

      It's up to us to say what we value and what we want to protect and promote. I'm stating heterosexual behavior is different, and that it's OK to say that and believe as a society our public policy should address those concerns. That does not imply I dislike people who happen to be gay.

  4. If you buy that orientation is a thing, dismissing it as separate from behavior seems ill-advised, since orientation informs behavior. I, for example, am unlikely to marry a man. You can ignore my orientation I suppose, but it's definitely a factor (if not *the* factor).

    So when surveying the landscape of marriage it seems strange to leave out orientation. More to the point, when someone asks "why are those two married people the same sex?", orientation is *very* salient on the question.

  5. I agree to some extent. If your oriented to someone of the same sex, you never have to worry about getting pregnant when engaging in sexual activities. Orientation can determine a preference of behavior, but that behavior is objectively different no matter one's preference even if those preferences are not a choice. We always have a choice in behavior.

    In general we live in a hypersexual society, we value the act of sex like and idol rather then treating it like a part of the human body that has function and purpose. We take care of lungs, our heart, and other organs with care. Our reproductive organs we misuse greatly from the physical acts to the hormones they produce in the brain.

    For example we give horror birth stories, and taught women to fear child birth. But if you study birth and understand what the uterus is doing, well you don't fear it and you stay calm. My body was design to give birth. Because I know that, I respect my body and give naturally quietly with ease.

    We are a constant battle to deny what sex is and go to great lengths to distort our bodies with synthetic pharmecuticals or sterilize our bodies without a medical need.

    While I can accept homosexuality (the orientation) as something real and not a choice, I can not accept a culture in which natural fertility something we all have no matter or orientation is treated like a curse.

    So when matrimony/marriage is severed from connecting sexual behavior to our natural fertility, we have problems.

    We from the same generation, we were raised with this idea of safe sex that is completely void in consideration of the design and function of our bodies really is about procreation.

    When I say even gay people have a mom and dad, I'm pretty serious about that.

  6. Ok, but don't marriages that are *wrong* exist and doesn't orientation play a role in their existence? If so, leaving orientation out (censoring?) is problematic in any survey of what's out there now, which is why I found it noteworthy that you leave it out in discussing 'confusion'.

    1. Just because they are not marriages, does not the relationship wrong. It different, without concerns that heterosexual couples have with that behavior.

      Words and laws make distinction. What is wrong with making a distinction in behavior, considering this behavior leads to conception, pregnancy, and birth of a child?

      How does it make it just and right to use the coercion of the law to say that conjugal act is no different to other sexual acts distorted away from procreation, no matter the orientation or gender. It not just people disagree with me, I'm being labeled a bigot falsely.

      The relationship between your mother and father matters to your well being, even during pregnancy. It is their gametes that fuse together, to make you... You. Think of all the marital terms that end with -gamy, that comes gamete. The gametes meet and fuse together, this is a result from sex.

      The confusion comes from denial of differences. The confusion comes from fooling ourselves that sexual behavior takes no consideration to the needs of offspring.

      Even Oscar Wilde who was unjustly jailed for homosexual behavior, was married to a woman and had kids!

      He died a Catholic Convert too!

  7. Making a distinction is different than omission. Consider marriage, consider why people might want to marry, consider same sex marriage, and if you then leave out orientation you don't understand same sex marriage. You want to make a distinction between the reasons for marriage, not why people profess to want to marry. I'm just thinking that omission makes the set of information incomplete, which is a disservice if you're trying to achieve understanding.

    1. As much as I can respect a relationship between two people of the same sex, my relationship is different from theirs. What ever they profess it isn't the same thing. Whether we call it marriage or whatever... We don't call different behaviors the same thing in the name of equality.

      What is the Reproductive System?
      Unlike other physiological systems in the body that function for an individual’s survival, the reproductive system has evolved to ensure survival of the human species. Reproduction is a process that involves both a man's reproductive organs and a woman's reproductive organs. Together these systems orchestrate the complex processes that can potentially result in conception, pregnancy, and birth"
      That's why we marry, despite what we've tried to ignore for the past few decades. To make sure and promote dad sticks around to helpout.

      What is currently being promoted is agamy, the absence of marriage. Sure we have the word, but it has no meaning. Marriage rates are declining and people who think marriage is obsolete is rising.

  8. All very eloquently put, but orthogonal to my point I think.

    "Sure we have the word, but it has no meaning."

    Words don't have meanings so much as usages. That is, the meaning isn't inherent to the word but rather the word is *used* the word to communicate a meaning. As such, linguists figure out what a word means not from a dictionary but from the word's usage. The dictionary is just a way to catalog common usage. I'll certainly grant that when the word is used commonly it is used to convey a meaning that differs from what you wish people would mean when the say use the word. Nevertheless marriage has a common usage and it applies to same-sex couples. We can confirm this because when a same sex couple says they're married, we all know what is meant. As such, there is no 'absence of meaning' when the term is used, it merely differs from what you wish was meant. As such, if you're going to describe the particulars of marriage, departing from common usage just creates confusion. If your usage involves a meaning entirely different from the meaning everyone else intends when they use the word, effectively you're mis-communicating. And when you teach others to employ that meaning, you're prescribing confusion, at least with regard to communication.

  9. Should be: "That is, the meaning isn't inherent to the word but rather the word is *used* to communicate a meaning."