ARE ALL COUPLES ALIKE? Dan v. Dale

Dale dismisses my arguments as a form of decaying natural law theory- as conclusions rather than arguments. He offers no response to the question of the distinctive significance of the heterosexual ecology of human life and the unique role of marriage in sustaining and working with that ecology.

Proponents of the redefinition of marriage have been hard at work designing convoluted theoretical mazes to distract us from these realities of human existence. Dale's response seems to me little more than a bit of fancy footwork. Let me restate the arguments, conclusions, whatever you wish to call them:

Amid all of its incredible historical diversity, marriage has been always been the main cultural frame for the deep-rooted heterosexual ecology of the species. Three fundamental features stand out. First, marriage is sex-inclusive. It bridges the basic heterosexual divide in the human species. Marriage provides a social context for the powerful forces of heterosexual attraction and male/female bonding. The proposal for 'same-sex marriages/ dumps sex-inclusive bonding as a defining characteristic of marriage. Institutions like marriage are about socially embodied meaning.

Secondly, marriage offers a social context for the explosive procreative power of male/female bonding. The male/female bond is the only sexual union which is naturally, powerfully, uniquely procreative. The reproductive ecology of the human species is heterosexual. Opposite sex unions are the only social union that can become a procreative biological union. Take the entire male population of the planet, toss them into one continent, tell them to go at it hard and furious—nothing will happen. Ten years later you will find the same aging men-no new life. Heterosexual bonding is the procreative mainframe of human life. It deserves some reflective wonder – not a dismissive academic shrug.

Third, marriage understands and supports the deep attachments of biological parents and their offspring. Many gay and lesbian theorists have dismissively referred to heterosexuals as "breeders." However, the bonding and relating of these "breeders" and their offspring has been and will continue to be a deep, pervasive, and creative force in the social/sexual world of the human species.

Humans are cultural beings. Opposite sex relationships don't just happen. They need a distinctive form of cultural support and affirmation if they are to develop into truly humane forms of human flourishing. Marriage has been the unique institution guiding his cultural project. The question is not whether radically redefining the public meaning of marriage will make a major difference for future generations, but how it will make this difference.

Dale's concluding "won’t-make-a-difference" comments are revealing. They echo a running joke, "Do you think that the gays will use up all the marriage licenses and won’t leave any for the straights?? The more I hear from the proponents of gay marriage the more I suspect they operate from a genuine but profoundly mistaken view of the role of social institutions. They treat marriage as an institution comparable to any legal registry system for adult-only activities (driving a car or owning a gun). This view, as I have argued earlier, is a skewed and reductionistic approach.

posted by maggie at 4:15 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home