Do My Husband And I Threaten Traditional Marriage?

Many here argue against gay marriage, reasoning that marriage is a covenant centered on procreation.  But what about marriages where no procreation is possible: are they a threat to “traditional”,  procreative marriage as well?

 I ask because my husband and I fell in love and married long after I reached menopause.  Barring some miracle, there will be no children of this union.  Does that make our marriage any less of a covenant in your eyes?  Should we not have married, or consummated t…

  1. EJHill

    It’s only about the children when it comes to explaining to them why a buddy at school has two dads or two moms or when the teacher makes them read a story where homosexual unions are portrayed. Then the child might question the legitimacy of his own family relationship.

    On the adult level, I have always assumed it was less about equality under the law than access to the public purse or the purse of the private employer.

    For every argument homosexual couples make, most can be resolved through the legal system already. Power of attorney, buying property together, wills – all non-problems. But then it really comes down to brass tacks – tax status and health insurance/retirement benefits. And when they say it’s not the money… it’s usually the money.

  2. Fred J. Harris

    Why can’t I marry my brother? You folks chucked out a central moral conviction in the name of a political sledge hammer. Can I marry my beloved old beagle?

  3. mesquito

    Give me a break.  The point of gay marriage is not marriage of gays.  It is to lower that sanction of federal civil rights laws onto the religious.

     

    http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/21/abqnewsseeker/updated-n-m-high-court-to-hear-gay-ceremony-photo-case.html

  4. Red Feline

    We Canadians have debated the pros and cons of Same Sex Marriage. it has been legal since 2005. 

    The sky hasn’t fallen in, but there had to be further legislation regarding divorce. 

  5. Scott Abel (formerly EstoniaKat)

    Liberal Jim states that’s not the argument. EJ Hill says it’s weird in the traditional context.

    That’s why I’ve always found the gay-marriage argument self-defeating, and ultimately, a loser, for the right.

    Either marriage is a union that suggests procreation as its long-term goal, or it’s not. If it’s not, why is it such a big deal?

    I have a lot of sympathy to the argument that heterosexuals have done enough damage to the institution of marriage. Gay marriage isn’t going to change that much, and with gays being closer to 2 percent of the total population (rather than the 10 that has been often cited), it doesn’t even show up on my radar.

    I got married, (for the first time) a couple years ago at the ripe old age of 40. I have gay friends, and if they want to enter into the commitment that is marriage, bully for them. I want them to be happy. Certainly I am a better person for the relationship I have for my wife.

    And if you’re gay, that’s probably like the 22th worst thing I could say about you.

  6. At The Rubicon

    I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but for an entirely different reason than almost anyone else provides: 

    If we change the age-old definition of marriage, where do you draw the line? If we allow two men to marry or two women to marry, why not allow a woman and her dog to marry?  Or a man and his tree?

    Any argument that you apply to advocating gay marriage can be equally applied to inter-species marriage.

    It’s a slippery slope.

  7. derek

    No. There are no children affected. What adults do is of no interest, they bear the responsibility for their actions. 

    But when children are involved, who are their parents? A child has the right to a father and a mother. Circumstances, many many instances due to the decisions of adults, may take them away. But here we have a decision by the state in the interests of the adults that redefine who are a child’s parents. I’m not talking about adoption, which is a response to a situation where the child would not receive necessary care. I’m talking about the right to have children that married people have. Gay couples can have children by rather round about means. So who are the father and mother on their birth certificate? Would it be discrimination to insist that their biological mother and father be included along with the ‘married’ couple?

    We have no right to subject children to the consequences of our inability to control our sexual peccadilloes.

    If you don’t think this is an issue, look to jurisdiction who have gay marriage. These things are being defined in law. It will be a tragedy where children pay.

  8. EJHill
    EstoniaKat:  Gay marriage isn’t going to change that much, and with gays being closer to 2 percent of the total population (rather than the 10 that has been often cited), it doesn’t even show up on my radar.

    Although I didn’t use the word “weird, anything that deviates from the norm less than 2% of the time is about as good of an explanation of the word “anomaly,” isn’t it? So, why try to reorder society because of it?

  9. Thomas Jackson

    Plainly, it’s not difficult to draw the line at inter-species nuptials. Let’s not be absurd and self-defeating here. But if the sole criteria is love and a willingness to commit between adult humans, which is the fundamental argument as I read it, then where is the logic that prohibits marriages between loving and committed siblings or cousins? Yeah, it’s icky. So? Where, furthermore, is the logic that denies access for commitment and love as expressed by marriage among several? Once you’ve left the sensible, solid ground of one-man/one-woman marriage, you’ve plunged into a bottomless abyss where, rationally, anything goes.

  10. Keith Preston

    I’ve always thought it was interesting that the left, which worships at the church of environmentalism and evolution, is so opposed to what is important to the most optimal mode of child-rearing:  a parent of each sex.  Having “one of each” is critical in having parents who understand the problems maturing children face as they become socialized to becoming a functioning adult.  

    I’m in the same boat you are in, Mole-eye:  my wife and I married in our early 50s and know that there will be no “issue” from our union.  But our counsel remains critical for the children of our previous marriages (and help with the grandchildren).  

    In a society with an abundance of near- barbarian youth who evidently lacked sufficient “civilizing” growing up, why would we want sub-par parenting units?  ”One of each” obviously doesn’t guarantee good child-rearing;  but it increases the chances that it will.  THAT is the reason I have no problem with gay “civil unions”, but DON’T call it marriage.  Is gay adoption in a child’s best interest?

    Gays may think I’m prejudiced.  I’m simply seeking optimal child-rearing for society’s benefit.

  11. Red Feline

    Civil Marriage is surely a legal contract between two people to share their financial matters. It helps protect those concerned, including any children in the contract. So your marriage is in no way a threat, Mole-eye.

    I have remarried late in life, because my Canadian husband wanted to declare to our families and friends that we were not just “shacked up” but in a committed relationship. It took quite a while for him to convince me to take this step, but, much to my surprise, I was glad I did.

    I used to think that marriage was purely for young couples who wanted to create a family together, and the legal aspect was for their protection. Now I agree that there is more to it than that. To me, it is declaring the intention to commit to the other to make each other happy. 

    The churches call this a sacrament, and recognise the spiritual side of this new relationship. 

    It is a complex issue, and perhaps the question to be asked is, should the legal, civil contract be kept separate from the spiritual one? Not quite the same though, is it?

  12. Joseph Paquette

    I ask a more fundemental question.  Why is government in the marriage business?  Man and woman (and any combination you like) have married for thousands of years without a ‘license’ from the government.   

  13. Crow

    The short answer to your title question is no, your marriage is not considered a threat to the institution from the point of view of tradition.

    There are numerous reasons why: it is monogamous (or chaste); it is between one man (husband) and one woman (wife) and therefore in the image of the ideal of the institution (‘matrimony’) and of nature’s eros (some would say of Christ’s relationship with the church, as well), though not procreative; it is only an accident of time that prohibits your conjugal relations from bearing children, though if either of you were young and sick or barren these natural accidents wouldn’t alter the institution; your union embodies numerous secondary purposes of marriage including wives and husbands honoring and being devoted to one another and to pursuing that special physical and spiritual friendship which seeks to ennoble and perfect (some might say ‘compliment’) one another, not to mention emotional and financial stability; the list goes on, but these ideas are explained perhaps nowhere more fully than the papl encyclical Casti Connubii.

    As usual, however, I’ll leave it to those who think that SSM threatens the institution with collapse to explain their reasons.

  14. Instugator
    The King Prawn: Read this paper. · 38 minutes ago

    It is a very good paper, KP – I hope Mole-eye reads and comments about it.

  15. Jim  Ixtian
    Red Feline: We Canadians have debated the pros and cons of Same Sex Marriage. it has been legal since 2005. 

    The sky hasn’t fallen in… 

    Except for that group of Fundamentalist Mormons in BC that sued to overturn Canada’s anti-polygamy law starting in 2009. Justice Bauman of the SCOBC ruled against the polygamists citing the need for safety and well being of the women and children over the needs for freedom of religion. Who knows how a similar case would play out here in the US. There’s still a chance those agitating for changing marriage to suit their needs will try and take it to the SCOC.

    What the BC polygamist case also revealed was that there were other groups organizing and agitating in Canada(I won’t link them); polygamists in a Muslim context, polygamists in a get your freak-on context, polyamorists, and even those agitating for the legalization of consanguineous “marriages”. Even the Canadian Left questioned if these alternative marriages were good for Canadian society.

    This is already playing out in the UK where the consequences of cousin marriages on nationalized healthcare aka British ObamaCare are quite costly. Hurray for state-supported inbreeding!!!

  16. At The Rubicon
    Thomas Jackson: Plainly, it’s not difficult to draw the line at inter-species nuptials. Let’s not be absurd and self-defeating here. 

    So make an argument FOR gay marriage and AGAINST inter-species marriage that is both consistent and non-arbitrary.

  17. iWc

    Marriage is meant to be the model for the relationship between Man and G-d.

    Relationships between very different people are hard. They force each partner to adjust and to grow. Only through that growth can we connect to G-d. Things that are hard to achieve are the most valuable – and a long-term relationship between a man and a woman is very tough to pull off.

    Homosexual relationships are much more about the selfishness (and convenience) of loving oneself. That is why the Torah forbids them to anyone who wants to have a relationship with Him.

  18. iWc

    I agree with the others who want to make a distinction between a civil union and a marriage. A civil union is a legal recognition that any two autonomous beings want standard rights of survivorship, etc.

    A marriage is under the auspices of a religious authority. And I am free to choose for myself whether I acknowledge the power of the Church of Steve and Bob as equivalent to that of the Catholic Church.

  19. Aodhan

    If difficulty in relating is the criterion for judging marital value, perhaps we should bar those who fall in love from tying the knot.

    iWc: Marriage is meant to be the model for the relationship between Man and G-d.

    Relationships between very different people arehard. They force each partner to adjust and to grow. Only through that growth can we connect to G-d. Things that are hard to achieve are the most valuable – and a long-term relationship between a man and a woman is very tough to pull off.

    Homosexual relationships are much more about the selfishness (and convenience) of loving oneself. That is why the Torah forbids them to anyone who wants to have a relationship with Him. · 1 minute ago

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In