A QUESTION OF IMMORAL MARRIAGES: Paul Nathanson Responds

Chris, I appreciate your restraint and willingness to think about new ideas. I, too, am gay. Consequently, I know what it means to argue for a position that’s not obviously in my own self-interest.

Of particular interest to me is your approval of some marriages between gay and straight people along with your disapproval of those based on the urge to "gain social acceptance." I see your point, but I'm not quite as put off by the latter as you are. For one thing, social status has always and everywhere been a factor in marriage. Apart from anything else, marriage is a rite of passage between the social status of childhood or adolescence and that of adulthood. Marriage often involves social mobility, too, from one class to another or from one clan to another. In fact, marriage can involve the transfer of property, the continuity of lineage, the perpetuation of religious traditions, and many other factors. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these things, because they often serve communal needs. Finally, there have always been "marriages of convenience." These break the rules in one sense (being between people not expected to marry) but not in another sense (because they reaffirm the larger and necessary communal project of bringing men and women together). A problem arises only when deception is involved (as Barry Maguire points out). As long as both parties know what they're getting into and agree to follow the rules with mutual respect, I see no problem. Gay people have always been allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, and many have done so throughout history. And I see no reason to assume that their children are disadvantaged because of that. The children of two gay parents, on the other hand, would have an important disadvantage: lacking a parent of one sex or the other.

In addition to any other motivation, of course, most people have always hoped for more from marriage—that is, for personal compatibility or even love. But I hesitate to use the word "love" in its current sense, which often amounts to nothing more substantial than either transient emotion or sexual gratification. For people in many societies, that word refers to a much deeper bond, one that can involve joint effort in a communal and cosmic project (such as the promotion of Torah among Jews) or even self-sacrifice (such as the Christian notion of agape).

I agree with you also about divorce, especially when children are involved. It should be more difficult than it is now, though not so difficult that truly hazardous conditions could defeat even the most responsible parents. In fact, I think that marriage is now in very bad shape—and this lamentable state of affairs must be blamed on straight people, not gay people. One problem with legalizing gay marriage is that it would give state approval to this state of affairs.




posted by maggie at 11:05 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home