This past weekend, my husband and I visited his brother and family in Madison, WI. The weather was beautiful, so we went to the park. After playing a little softball, my 10-year-old niece and I headed for the swingset. Eventually, our swings were in perfect sync. We were precisely side by side as our swings went forward and back to the same exact height. At this point, my niece said,
"We're married."
Confused, I asked,
"What?"
She repeated,
"We're married. That's what me and my friends say at school when our swings line up like this."
The first thing I thought of was this rhyme from my childhood.
Billy and Susie sitting in a tree,
k-i-s-s-i-n-g.
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes Susie and the baby carriage.
It was a naughty rhyme that we didn't sing in front of adults, and if you wanted to be especially naughty, you added,
That's not all, that's not all,
Billy's drinking alcohol.
The reason I thought of this rhyme wasn't necessarily because my niece mentioned marriage, but primarily because I first learned this rhyme on the swings. My friends and I almost always spent recess on the swingset, where we not only learned this rhyme, but sang it regularly. It was at the swings that I learned the rhyme that expressed our childhood's basic cultural understanding of love, marriage, and babies. And alcohol.
The image of marriage I learned on the swings through that little rhyme carried a lot of weight. It implied sex (k-i-s-s-i-n-g), which is entirely missing from my niece's metaphor. But the naughtiest part of all was the mention of alcohol, which we would often leave off when singing it. A girl would only add that part if she wanted to be provocative. The image of Susie with her baby carriage while Billy is stumbling around drunk represented a failing family unit, or at least a suffering one.
Not only did this rhyme teach us that marriage is about sex and having babies, but it put the whole process of becoming a family in order. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes babies. Marriage was certainly not something we could ever possibly do with one of our friends, and the consequences of failure at it would be painful indeed. It was a guide map and a warning regarding the great responsibility of marriage.
My childhood friends and I also enjoyed synchronous swinging, but we never called it being married. When my niece first said it, I was confused because I didn't even realize she was referring to our swinging. Her metaphor for marriage suggests it is something two best friends might do. It is simply two people, doing the same thing, facing the same direction, moving in sync with each other, side by side as equals, a mirror image of each other.
This metaphor is devoid of sex and children, and emphasizes equality between the partners. So why not marry her best friend? But this image doesn't just open up the possibility of gay marriage. What if one person decides to swing more slowly, or more vigorously? Does that mean they are now divorced? How very temporary this image of marriage is. And what if three friends manage to swing synchronously? Are the three of them married to each other? And what is the purpose of this marriage? Just having fun? What a frivolous, empty view of marriage.
During our visit, she also showed us the gift she had made for her parents for their recent wedding anniversary - a trophy. I hope that when she grows up, the value she places on her parents' marriage outweighs the overly simplistic and distorted metaphor for marriage that she learned on the swings.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Mystical Husband
Last night I intended to once again engross myself in The Future of Marriage, but instead, my husband and I got to talking, and there went my night. I am so blessed to have such a rich marriage. Ten years in the same bed, under the same roof, and we still captivate and fascinate each other with these long, deeply engaging conversations. Family is definitely our most frequent topic, as it was last night.
My husband told me a story once long ago of the time when he was a teenager that he had to stand up to his father physically, and it forever changed their relationship. He didn't recount this story last night, but he was definitely referring to it when he explained to me that in order for a boy to become a man, he must, in one clearly defined moment of lasting import, prove his physical superiority to his father. Whether this physical superiority is gained through simply being younger and healthier than one's father, or whether it's a superiority of strength, speed, or athletic prowess, a boy simply cannot be a man if he hasn't done this thing.
I have no way to know for sure whether my husband is right about this, but I do know that he adores and admires his father. They have a strong, solid relationship built on real love and deep mutual respect. There is no question between them or among the rest of us about where each of them stands. They bring out the best in the people around them, especially when they are together. They are at once anchors and beacons of light for their family.
I also know that my father-in-law has remained single, without so much as a girlfriend, for the whole of the 20+ years since his wife divorced him. Despite all the pain and anger he has nursed over the years, he still cannot bear to take a second wife. If his children cannot call her Mom, how can he call her wife? The cost has been high, but this is the greatest gift he has given his children, and he continues to reap the rewards, year after year.
I am so blessed to be loved by these men, and I cannot wait to conceive and bear the next generation in this honorable tradition.
My husband told me a story once long ago of the time when he was a teenager that he had to stand up to his father physically, and it forever changed their relationship. He didn't recount this story last night, but he was definitely referring to it when he explained to me that in order for a boy to become a man, he must, in one clearly defined moment of lasting import, prove his physical superiority to his father. Whether this physical superiority is gained through simply being younger and healthier than one's father, or whether it's a superiority of strength, speed, or athletic prowess, a boy simply cannot be a man if he hasn't done this thing.
I have no way to know for sure whether my husband is right about this, but I do know that he adores and admires his father. They have a strong, solid relationship built on real love and deep mutual respect. There is no question between them or among the rest of us about where each of them stands. They bring out the best in the people around them, especially when they are together. They are at once anchors and beacons of light for their family.
I also know that my father-in-law has remained single, without so much as a girlfriend, for the whole of the 20+ years since his wife divorced him. Despite all the pain and anger he has nursed over the years, he still cannot bear to take a second wife. If his children cannot call her Mom, how can he call her wife? The cost has been high, but this is the greatest gift he has given his children, and he continues to reap the rewards, year after year.
I am so blessed to be loved by these men, and I cannot wait to conceive and bear the next generation in this honorable tradition.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thoughts on "The Future of Marriage" - Pt. 1
My copy of David Blankenhorn's The Future of Marriage finally arrived on Friday afternoon. I had a very busy weekend, but at my every rare free moment, Blankenhorn's book held my undivided attention. I just finished chapter 4 last night. By the end of this chapter, Blankenhorn has described the matrilineal Trobriand marriage culture and contrasted it with the patrilineal marriage culture of the Near East and Old Europe. By identifying the core similarity between these two completely opposite marriage cultures, and then seeing that it applies to virtually all the other known marriage cultures in history, he comes to define marriage at its essence to be “for every child, a mother and a father” (emphasis his).
In the process of distilling the core of marriage out of two opposing marriage cultures, he also identifies the source of the differences between these cultures, namely, what the people believe about where babies come from. Blankenhorn explains that from what evidence of prehistory that we have, it seems that prehistoric peoples generally worshipped female deities, viewed children as created primarily by the mother, with the father having little to do with raising, or even identifying his children. Around the same time that history dawned, marriage did as well, and it seems that at least part of the reason for this coinciding social evolution is that marriage connected children not only to their mothers, but to their fathers as well. However, lacking the knowledge we have today about how conception actually works, different societies developed different ideas about how babies are conceived.
In the Near East, children were believed to grow entirely out of the man’s semen. The semen was thought to be the physical source of a baby, while the woman merely provided a womb with which to incubate the child. The woman was compared to the soil in which one plants a seed. It is the seed that determines what kind of plant grows; the soil has no effect whatsoever in this regard. The soil simply feeds whatever seed might be planted there.
In the Trobriand Islands, the view is entirely opposite. It is thought that babies form completely out of the matter of the woman’s body, out of her menstrual blood, to be specific. Intercourse is believed to be loosely related to conceiving children, but not necessarily required. The father is not considered a biological relative of the child. Nevertheless, fatherhood is a revered social role. The fathers on these islands are extremely devoted and involved with their children. They play an enormous role in the development of their children, and the islanders believe that it is the father’s devotion and involvement that causes the children to physically resemble him. Blankenhorn suggests that these different understandings of the physical source of babies determine in large part the resultant marriage cultures. But in both cases, the aim is the same – to connect children with both their mother and father.
Of course, we now know that both of these views regarding the material source of babies is false. But one thing struck me as an important similarity and truth within both of these views. In both cases, the mother’s contribution to the developing child is much more bulky, structural, and essential, while the father’s contribution is to the form, shape, and character of the child. In the Near East version, the semen is likened to a seed, which is essentially a tiny set of instructions for how to use water, sunlight, and decaying matter to grow a plant. It is that set of instructions, an imprint, which determines the character of what grows. The mother’s or soil’s contribution is in providing access to the water and sunlight, and directly providing the nourishment itself, the physical bulk, of what is to grow. Similarly, in the Trobriand view, the mother’s menstrual blood is the matter with which the child is formed. It is her body itself that provides the physical matter for the child, while the father’s contribution is to form the appearance and character of the child through his direct and intimate involvement in the child’s development. The analogy offered to this in Blankenhorn’s book is that a father molds a child the way that grasping clay in your hand leaves your hand’s shape and imprint on it.
I first learned about where babies come from, in terms of eggs and sperm, at a young age from my mother. A few years later I learned about it in school, and it was then that I first saw a picture of an egg surrounded by sperm. I was very surprised to find that the egg is so many times bigger than the sperm. I suppose my surprise stemmed from having been so emphatically taught that men’s and women’s respective contributions to the source of a child are equal.
On the other hand, while a sperm is physically very small, it is encoded with some very important information. Of course, a child does get DNA from both parents, but it is specifically the father’s genetic contribution that determines whether a child is a boy or a girl. This is a profound contribution from the father to one’s identity. So, in this regard, the scientific truth does fit with both the Near Eastern and the Trobriand’s distorted beliefs on the subject.
This truth extends beyond conception into pregnancy, during which the mother literally builds a flesh and blood baby out of the actual biological matter of her own body, and then after giving birth through great physical pain and risk, feeds the child at her bosom, next to her heart, with milk that her own body creates. The father, meanwhile, shapes the type of person the child will become, whether it’s through the intimate interactions of the Trobriand culture or the disciplinarian role of the Near East and Old European cultures. In all of these cases, Mother provides the matter; Father provides the form.
Are these two contributions equal? They are certainly of equal importance, and I am very grateful to live in a time in history when we have scientific proof of this. Despite their equal importance, however, the contributions are very different, and in their individual attributes, they are not equal at all. A father does not give his child nearly the amount of physical sacrifice that a mother does, but the mother does not mold the character of the child nearly as much as the father does.
These examples from history demonstrate how inadequate scientific knowledge can lead to distorted beliefs about where babies come from, and then ultimately determine the marriage culture of different societies. It occurs to me that this same thing is happening right now, as we face another turning point in the history of marriage. I've regularly seen same-sex marriage advocates simply refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth that only the combination of a man and a woman can produce babies. And when they do acknowledge it, they dismiss it as being irrelevant to the debate. Our own lack of scientific truthfulness is distorting our marriage culture, the same way it distorted that of the societal examples in Blankenhorn's book. I'm guessing this is a point that Blankenhorn is about to make in the next few chapters, which I will be tackling tonight.
The fact that mothers provide the matter to build a child, while the father molds that child to its particular form also resonates in an intuitive way with the technological advances that might someday make same-sex reproduction possible. When and if this becomes a reality, it will only be possible for two women, never two men. This is because women do have within them the physical matter to build a child, so by taking a genetic imprint from another woman to use as sperm, modern technology can build a female child without a man's involvement. However, since only men carry the genes to create other men, two women can never build a boy, let alone form a man. On the other hand, two men, while having plenty of genetic imprints available to form both boys and girls, nevertheless lack the essential matter with which to build a flesh and blood baby. Same-sex reproduction will never be available to men.
A little reverence for the demonstrable facts of how babies are made goes a long way toward intuitively understanding what marriage is and why we need it. It is this very basic understanding of nature, along with religious tradition, that is the source of so many overwhelmingly voter-approved state constitutional marriage amendments, especially in places like Wisconsin, where the amendment was approved by an overwhelming margin despite the fact that the pollsters and pundits were predicting it to be a close call that could go either way. People know in a very visceral and intuitive way that marriage serves a profound purpose that would have to be discarded in order to institute same-sex marriage. It is only the encouragement of ignorance or dismissal of basic truths that allows the same-sex marriage proponents to make advances for their cause.
In the process of distilling the core of marriage out of two opposing marriage cultures, he also identifies the source of the differences between these cultures, namely, what the people believe about where babies come from. Blankenhorn explains that from what evidence of prehistory that we have, it seems that prehistoric peoples generally worshipped female deities, viewed children as created primarily by the mother, with the father having little to do with raising, or even identifying his children. Around the same time that history dawned, marriage did as well, and it seems that at least part of the reason for this coinciding social evolution is that marriage connected children not only to their mothers, but to their fathers as well. However, lacking the knowledge we have today about how conception actually works, different societies developed different ideas about how babies are conceived.
In the Near East, children were believed to grow entirely out of the man’s semen. The semen was thought to be the physical source of a baby, while the woman merely provided a womb with which to incubate the child. The woman was compared to the soil in which one plants a seed. It is the seed that determines what kind of plant grows; the soil has no effect whatsoever in this regard. The soil simply feeds whatever seed might be planted there.
In the Trobriand Islands, the view is entirely opposite. It is thought that babies form completely out of the matter of the woman’s body, out of her menstrual blood, to be specific. Intercourse is believed to be loosely related to conceiving children, but not necessarily required. The father is not considered a biological relative of the child. Nevertheless, fatherhood is a revered social role. The fathers on these islands are extremely devoted and involved with their children. They play an enormous role in the development of their children, and the islanders believe that it is the father’s devotion and involvement that causes the children to physically resemble him. Blankenhorn suggests that these different understandings of the physical source of babies determine in large part the resultant marriage cultures. But in both cases, the aim is the same – to connect children with both their mother and father.
Of course, we now know that both of these views regarding the material source of babies is false. But one thing struck me as an important similarity and truth within both of these views. In both cases, the mother’s contribution to the developing child is much more bulky, structural, and essential, while the father’s contribution is to the form, shape, and character of the child. In the Near East version, the semen is likened to a seed, which is essentially a tiny set of instructions for how to use water, sunlight, and decaying matter to grow a plant. It is that set of instructions, an imprint, which determines the character of what grows. The mother’s or soil’s contribution is in providing access to the water and sunlight, and directly providing the nourishment itself, the physical bulk, of what is to grow. Similarly, in the Trobriand view, the mother’s menstrual blood is the matter with which the child is formed. It is her body itself that provides the physical matter for the child, while the father’s contribution is to form the appearance and character of the child through his direct and intimate involvement in the child’s development. The analogy offered to this in Blankenhorn’s book is that a father molds a child the way that grasping clay in your hand leaves your hand’s shape and imprint on it.
I first learned about where babies come from, in terms of eggs and sperm, at a young age from my mother. A few years later I learned about it in school, and it was then that I first saw a picture of an egg surrounded by sperm. I was very surprised to find that the egg is so many times bigger than the sperm. I suppose my surprise stemmed from having been so emphatically taught that men’s and women’s respective contributions to the source of a child are equal.
On the other hand, while a sperm is physically very small, it is encoded with some very important information. Of course, a child does get DNA from both parents, but it is specifically the father’s genetic contribution that determines whether a child is a boy or a girl. This is a profound contribution from the father to one’s identity. So, in this regard, the scientific truth does fit with both the Near Eastern and the Trobriand’s distorted beliefs on the subject.
This truth extends beyond conception into pregnancy, during which the mother literally builds a flesh and blood baby out of the actual biological matter of her own body, and then after giving birth through great physical pain and risk, feeds the child at her bosom, next to her heart, with milk that her own body creates. The father, meanwhile, shapes the type of person the child will become, whether it’s through the intimate interactions of the Trobriand culture or the disciplinarian role of the Near East and Old European cultures. In all of these cases, Mother provides the matter; Father provides the form.
Are these two contributions equal? They are certainly of equal importance, and I am very grateful to live in a time in history when we have scientific proof of this. Despite their equal importance, however, the contributions are very different, and in their individual attributes, they are not equal at all. A father does not give his child nearly the amount of physical sacrifice that a mother does, but the mother does not mold the character of the child nearly as much as the father does.
These examples from history demonstrate how inadequate scientific knowledge can lead to distorted beliefs about where babies come from, and then ultimately determine the marriage culture of different societies. It occurs to me that this same thing is happening right now, as we face another turning point in the history of marriage. I've regularly seen same-sex marriage advocates simply refuse to acknowledge the scientific truth that only the combination of a man and a woman can produce babies. And when they do acknowledge it, they dismiss it as being irrelevant to the debate. Our own lack of scientific truthfulness is distorting our marriage culture, the same way it distorted that of the societal examples in Blankenhorn's book. I'm guessing this is a point that Blankenhorn is about to make in the next few chapters, which I will be tackling tonight.
The fact that mothers provide the matter to build a child, while the father molds that child to its particular form also resonates in an intuitive way with the technological advances that might someday make same-sex reproduction possible. When and if this becomes a reality, it will only be possible for two women, never two men. This is because women do have within them the physical matter to build a child, so by taking a genetic imprint from another woman to use as sperm, modern technology can build a female child without a man's involvement. However, since only men carry the genes to create other men, two women can never build a boy, let alone form a man. On the other hand, two men, while having plenty of genetic imprints available to form both boys and girls, nevertheless lack the essential matter with which to build a flesh and blood baby. Same-sex reproduction will never be available to men.
A little reverence for the demonstrable facts of how babies are made goes a long way toward intuitively understanding what marriage is and why we need it. It is this very basic understanding of nature, along with religious tradition, that is the source of so many overwhelmingly voter-approved state constitutional marriage amendments, especially in places like Wisconsin, where the amendment was approved by an overwhelming margin despite the fact that the pollsters and pundits were predicting it to be a close call that could go either way. People know in a very visceral and intuitive way that marriage serves a profound purpose that would have to be discarded in order to institute same-sex marriage. It is only the encouragement of ignorance or dismissal of basic truths that allows the same-sex marriage proponents to make advances for their cause.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Catholic Marriage
I've noticed that many of the marriage advocates that I most respect are Catholic. Maggie Gallagher, Jennifer Roback Morse, apparently many of the folks at The Opine Editorials, etc. Having read some of John Paul II's Theology of the Body, I don't think this is a coincidence. From what little I know about it, I find that Catholic Church teaching on marriage, family, and life itself is entirely coherent and well-reasoned, and at the same time immensely inspiring.
I just have one big little problem - annulments.
Just for a little background, I was raised in the United Church of Christ, which I have heard many times referred to by members and clergy as a haven for "recovering Catholics." Catholicism is often mocked in my family, or at least it was before I married one, so now they at least refrain from doing so around us. But my husband might consider himself a recovering Catholic. He certainly has less interest in Catholicism than I do. So I hope the reader can forgive my ignorance as I wrestle the issue of annulments. I found a useful Q&A on americancatholic.org by Joseph M. Champlin, which is really the extent of my knowledge of the subject.
Since I'm not Catholic, annulment was never an issue with my parents, but it was for my husband's parents, who did get an annulment. My parents' divorce gave me a feeling of being invalid. Many children of divorce feel that their parents' divorce is somehow their fault. I never felt to blame exactly, but I felt irrelevant, unnecessary, extraneous. The love that created me didn't last. The love that was responsible for my existence failed. My parents never explicitly spoke or acted as if having children had been a mistake, and I know they always loved us, but I got the vague sense that they sometimes felt that their lives would be easier if they could just get a completely fresh start with no attachments of any kind to each other. It sometimes felt like they wished they could divorce us too. An annulment, however, takes this feeling a step further. If your parents' marriage is annuled, then it means that the love that created you didn't just fail; it was fundamentally inadequate from its very conception. Here's a quote from the American Catholic article I linked above:
When the Church affirms your parents' divorce with an annulment, they are saying to you that your parents may have loved each other, and their marriage may have been legally valid, but on the most meaningful spiritual level, it never even existed. Your parents never had the "marital link that binds them together for life." The Church is also telling your parents that. In fact, Champlin urges couples to consider the circumstances surrounding their marriage this way:
The qualifier, "never having been married before" implies that a previous marriage might impart greater wisdom and help one to recognize the difference between normal marriage trials and and "radical malfunctioning." Yet the failure rate of second marriages is higher than the failure rate of first marriages, so this can't be true. Practicing marriage doesn't appear to make one better at it. Marriage doesn't work that way. Of course the experience would impart its lessons that may or may not help in some way when one is married a second time, but ultimately, marriage is not a skill, it's a commitment. Maintaining a commitment requires maturity, regardless of any particular knowledge or wisdom.
Reading the passage above gave me chills, imagining my in-laws being urged to think about their marriage as being fatally flawed from the beginning. It's no wonder the question of the children's legitimacy is so often raised by parents being encouraged to view their failed marriage this way. Here is the answer from the article to the question, "Does an annulment make the children illegitimate?"
Perhaps the persistence of this rumor is related to the fact that children of an annuled marriage may feel spiritually illegitimate. Our parents may have followed civil law, and therefore, we are legitimate in the eyes of the law, but what does the Church have to say about the spiritual legitimacy of our family and even our existence? If the marriage never really existed in a spiritual sense, then wasn't our conception some kind of sin? Our parents must have made some kind of mistake for us to be dealing with this outcome. If marrying each other in the first place was their main mistake, then where exactly does that leave the conception of children within this fundamentally flawed marriage?
Jesus declared remarriage to be adultery, and said that no man should separate what God has joined. This is apparently why the Catholic Church feels the need to annul prior marriages before they can sanction remarriages. I respect this approach to divorce far more than the one taken by the church I was raised in. However, the Catholic approach seems to be even harder on the children. Not only is the Church telling you that your parents never had a true marriage, but it's practically telling your parents that the failure of their marriage wasn't their fault. The Church is saying that the marriage was so fatally flawed from the beginning that it wasn't a real marriage, and there is nothing the couple could have done to make it one.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that my mother-in-law is having the exact same marital troubles in her second marriage that she had in her first.
The Catholic theology of marriage is solid. I imagine the problem with annulments is reflective of the wider problem of divorce in our society. It makes sense that the Church would not want to alienate large numbers of the faithful in the wake of the divorce revolution by refusing to allow most of their divorced members to remarry. It seems that no-fault divorce laws put the Church between a rock and a hard place. Still, I have a very hard time believing that so many marriages, including that of my in-laws, were spiritually invalid. I have a hard time believing that so many of our parents simply entered fatally flawed marriages that they couldn't possibly have maintained.
I found this part of the article about possible grounds for annulment to be the saddest:
Two people create a child and then decide to marry to raise that child, and that displays a lack of wisdom? I recognize that lots of people marry someone that isn't an ideal match due to pregnancy, but doesn't the lack of wisdom in those cases rest more in their decision to engage in unprotected premarital sex? Or, more appropriate to Catholic teaching, premarital sex of any kind? Champlin, although surely well-intentioned, has essentially disconnected childrearing from marriage. Surely, such cases where poor marriages are formed to raise a child conceived under less than ideal circumstances are unfortunate, but I still believe that anyone who marries to raise a child that they have conceived is doing something admirable, even if their marriage does fail in the end. I would rather see a church acknowledge divorce and the fact that people can separate what God has joined, even though they shouldn't, rather than see a church declare failed marriages to be fatally flawed from the start.
Most of all, I'd like to see a church that believes divorce is a sin and remarriage is adultery, yet treats the divorced and remarried with respect and compassion, making sure to articulate that the love in a good second marriage, if it is indeed a good one, outweighs the sin of adultery that it also embodies, and that although their situation is less than ideal, the two people in it are loved and forgiven by God and the church. Such a church would also reach out to the children so they don't have to feel that their parents' failures reflect on them. If I ever find a church like that, I just might join it.
I just have one big little problem - annulments.
Just for a little background, I was raised in the United Church of Christ, which I have heard many times referred to by members and clergy as a haven for "recovering Catholics." Catholicism is often mocked in my family, or at least it was before I married one, so now they at least refrain from doing so around us. But my husband might consider himself a recovering Catholic. He certainly has less interest in Catholicism than I do. So I hope the reader can forgive my ignorance as I wrestle the issue of annulments. I found a useful Q&A on americancatholic.org by Joseph M. Champlin, which is really the extent of my knowledge of the subject.
Since I'm not Catholic, annulment was never an issue with my parents, but it was for my husband's parents, who did get an annulment. My parents' divorce gave me a feeling of being invalid. Many children of divorce feel that their parents' divorce is somehow their fault. I never felt to blame exactly, but I felt irrelevant, unnecessary, extraneous. The love that created me didn't last. The love that was responsible for my existence failed. My parents never explicitly spoke or acted as if having children had been a mistake, and I know they always loved us, but I got the vague sense that they sometimes felt that their lives would be easier if they could just get a completely fresh start with no attachments of any kind to each other. It sometimes felt like they wished they could divorce us too. An annulment, however, takes this feeling a step further. If your parents' marriage is annuled, then it means that the love that created you didn't just fail; it was fundamentally inadequate from its very conception. Here's a quote from the American Catholic article I linked above:
"The Catholic Church presumes that marriages are valid, binding spouses for life. When couples do separate and divorce, therefore, the Church examines in detail their marriage to determine if, right from the start, some essential element was missing in their relationship. If that fact has been established, it means the spouses did not have the kind of marital link that binds them together for life."
When the Church affirms your parents' divorce with an annulment, they are saying to you that your parents may have loved each other, and their marriage may have been legally valid, but on the most meaningful spiritual level, it never even existed. Your parents never had the "marital link that binds them together for life." The Church is also telling your parents that. In fact, Champlin urges couples to consider the circumstances surrounding their marriage this way:
"Was there something missing right from the start, something radically wrong from day one? Before the wedding, were there warning signals, red flags which you may have dismissed simply as the cold-feet anxieties rather common for couples prior to a nuptial service? Did you suffer deep difficulties early in your marital life and worry about them, but, never having been married before, judged they were merely the expected burdensome part of marriage? Now, perhaps years later, you view them as symptomatic of a much more serious problem, a radical malfunctioning in your relationship."
The qualifier, "never having been married before" implies that a previous marriage might impart greater wisdom and help one to recognize the difference between normal marriage trials and and "radical malfunctioning." Yet the failure rate of second marriages is higher than the failure rate of first marriages, so this can't be true. Practicing marriage doesn't appear to make one better at it. Marriage doesn't work that way. Of course the experience would impart its lessons that may or may not help in some way when one is married a second time, but ultimately, marriage is not a skill, it's a commitment. Maintaining a commitment requires maturity, regardless of any particular knowledge or wisdom.
Reading the passage above gave me chills, imagining my in-laws being urged to think about their marriage as being fatally flawed from the beginning. It's no wonder the question of the children's legitimacy is so often raised by parents being encouraged to view their failed marriage this way. Here is the answer from the article to the question, "Does an annulment make the children illegitimate?"
"No. The parents, now divorced, presumably once obtained a civil license and entered upon a legal marriage. Children from that union are, therefore, their legitimate offspring. Legitimate means “legal.” The civil divorce and the Church annulment do not alter this situation. Nor do they change the parents’ responsibility toward the children. In fact, during annulment procedures the Church reminds petitioners of their moral obligation to provide for the proper upbringing of their children.
Nevertheless, persons pondering the Catholic annulment process do often express this concern about the legitimacy of the children after that procedure. It’s a
persistent rumor."
Perhaps the persistence of this rumor is related to the fact that children of an annuled marriage may feel spiritually illegitimate. Our parents may have followed civil law, and therefore, we are legitimate in the eyes of the law, but what does the Church have to say about the spiritual legitimacy of our family and even our existence? If the marriage never really existed in a spiritual sense, then wasn't our conception some kind of sin? Our parents must have made some kind of mistake for us to be dealing with this outcome. If marrying each other in the first place was their main mistake, then where exactly does that leave the conception of children within this fundamentally flawed marriage?
Jesus declared remarriage to be adultery, and said that no man should separate what God has joined. This is apparently why the Catholic Church feels the need to annul prior marriages before they can sanction remarriages. I respect this approach to divorce far more than the one taken by the church I was raised in. However, the Catholic approach seems to be even harder on the children. Not only is the Church telling you that your parents never had a true marriage, but it's practically telling your parents that the failure of their marriage wasn't their fault. The Church is saying that the marriage was so fatally flawed from the beginning that it wasn't a real marriage, and there is nothing the couple could have done to make it one.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that my mother-in-law is having the exact same marital troubles in her second marriage that she had in her first.
The Catholic theology of marriage is solid. I imagine the problem with annulments is reflective of the wider problem of divorce in our society. It makes sense that the Church would not want to alienate large numbers of the faithful in the wake of the divorce revolution by refusing to allow most of their divorced members to remarry. It seems that no-fault divorce laws put the Church between a rock and a hard place. Still, I have a very hard time believing that so many marriages, including that of my in-laws, were spiritually invalid. I have a hard time believing that so many of our parents simply entered fatally flawed marriages that they couldn't possibly have maintained.
I found this part of the article about possible grounds for annulment to be the saddest:
"For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision."
Two people create a child and then decide to marry to raise that child, and that displays a lack of wisdom? I recognize that lots of people marry someone that isn't an ideal match due to pregnancy, but doesn't the lack of wisdom in those cases rest more in their decision to engage in unprotected premarital sex? Or, more appropriate to Catholic teaching, premarital sex of any kind? Champlin, although surely well-intentioned, has essentially disconnected childrearing from marriage. Surely, such cases where poor marriages are formed to raise a child conceived under less than ideal circumstances are unfortunate, but I still believe that anyone who marries to raise a child that they have conceived is doing something admirable, even if their marriage does fail in the end. I would rather see a church acknowledge divorce and the fact that people can separate what God has joined, even though they shouldn't, rather than see a church declare failed marriages to be fatally flawed from the start.
Most of all, I'd like to see a church that believes divorce is a sin and remarriage is adultery, yet treats the divorced and remarried with respect and compassion, making sure to articulate that the love in a good second marriage, if it is indeed a good one, outweighs the sin of adultery that it also embodies, and that although their situation is less than ideal, the two people in it are loved and forgiven by God and the church. Such a church would also reach out to the children so they don't have to feel that their parents' failures reflect on them. If I ever find a church like that, I just might join it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Gay Marriage Debate Recap
I think I've pretty much finished up the debate I entered on gay marriage over at Marriage Debate. I've come away with a better understanding of two of the main arguments for gay marriage.
My first opponent was Mark B. In the end, we came to essentially agree that the crux of our disagreement was that I believe that the core purpose of marriage is procreation and he doesn't. That is a position I can respect, even though I completely disagree with it. However, this passage of his was especially revealing to me:
I replied with the following:
His response:
So, apparently Mark B. feels that I am a fringe nutter, a radical even, just not a very assertive one. This is exactly the same accusation I've encountered in the past from conservative fundamentalists on other issues. Such is the life of a moderate. Fundamentalists of all stripes can't perceive nuance. To them, it's simply an abstraction, not even real, just wishy-washy. They can only deal with black and white. You get gray with them and you'll lose them. It makes no sense to Mark B. that I can hold an ideal in my head and feel disappointment when someone fails to live up that ideal, yet at the same time respect the people who have thusly failed. To him, having ideals equals not valuing real people.
But the miracle of birth is not really an abstraction. Anyone who has been present when a new life comes into this world can attest to how real it is. And the fact that procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race is most certainly not an abstraction. Furthermore, I don't expect married couples to procreate whether they want to or not. I expect them to want to. Some don't, and I respect their feelings. But those feelings can and do change. Most people do want to have children, and again, this is why we have a procreative institution called marriage.
It's pretty funny that Mark B. believes my thinking is on the fringe. It's quite the opposite; I'm very mainstream. Anyone who has ever gotten married can testify to the fact that the question you get asked over and over again from there on after is, "So, when are you going to have kids?" People have been assuming that married people will procreate for the whole of human history, and it never led to the speedy introduction of same-sex marriage. Mark B.'s argument for same-sex marriage will not catch on among the plain old Midwesterners I know.
My second opponent was much more intelligent and respectful, and his/her argument much more compelling. Here are his/her comments regarding my concern about procreation being separated from marriage:
This is a valid argument that could catch on among the people I know. The poster clearly explains that gay marriage is a natural and logical step in the same direction we've already taken regarding marriage, in the wake of divorce and contraception. I'd also add cohabitation to that list. He/she says that procreation has already been significantly detached from marriage. We are in total agreement on this point. However, the poster feels that since we've already had these changes, and most heterosexuals are not willing to relinquish their unfettered access to these options, then we have to take the next logical step of same-sex marriage. The argument is cogent and compelling, especially in light of most people's desire to treat all people fairly.
However, I don't accept that heterosexuals will never give up no-fault divorce laws or ubiquitous contraception and cohabitation, even though I acknowledge that it is certainly an uphill battle. I plan to present a different culture of marriage to my own children, as much as is possible in the current environment. And I hope to challenge people's assumptions about the changes to marriage and sex that we've seen in the last quarter century and to consider these things in relation to the same-sex marriage debate.
Gay marriage is but one part of the marriage culture I hope to challenge on this blog and in my personal life.
My first opponent was Mark B. In the end, we came to essentially agree that the crux of our disagreement was that I believe that the core purpose of marriage is procreation and he doesn't. That is a position I can respect, even though I completely disagree with it. However, this passage of his was especially revealing to me:
"Of course, I'm torn here - part of me naturally wants to persuade you to my point of view, but another part of me says the more anti-SSM campaigners there are being cheerfully frank about the fact that they expect married couples to procreate whether they want to or not, the more like fringe nutters they'll look, and the quicker SSM will be instituted."
I replied with the following:
"I do believe that a childless marriage is regrettable, even if it was a conscious choice. I would respect that choice, and I'm certainly not interested in forcing anyone to procreate. But it is sad when a couple chooses not to have children or is unable to. Partially because procreation is necessary for the survival of the human race. But also, a child growing in a woman's womb as a result of an act of love is an absolute miracle, and it's sad when a couple doesn't care to partake of it. Does that make me a 'fringe nutter?'"
His response:
"In a milquetoast, damning-with-faint-praise sort of way, yes. You apparently value the abstract beauty of the idea of people having kids more than actual people and what they want for themselves."
So, apparently Mark B. feels that I am a fringe nutter, a radical even, just not a very assertive one. This is exactly the same accusation I've encountered in the past from conservative fundamentalists on other issues. Such is the life of a moderate. Fundamentalists of all stripes can't perceive nuance. To them, it's simply an abstraction, not even real, just wishy-washy. They can only deal with black and white. You get gray with them and you'll lose them. It makes no sense to Mark B. that I can hold an ideal in my head and feel disappointment when someone fails to live up that ideal, yet at the same time respect the people who have thusly failed. To him, having ideals equals not valuing real people.
But the miracle of birth is not really an abstraction. Anyone who has been present when a new life comes into this world can attest to how real it is. And the fact that procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race is most certainly not an abstraction. Furthermore, I don't expect married couples to procreate whether they want to or not. I expect them to want to. Some don't, and I respect their feelings. But those feelings can and do change. Most people do want to have children, and again, this is why we have a procreative institution called marriage.
It's pretty funny that Mark B. believes my thinking is on the fringe. It's quite the opposite; I'm very mainstream. Anyone who has ever gotten married can testify to the fact that the question you get asked over and over again from there on after is, "So, when are you going to have kids?" People have been assuming that married people will procreate for the whole of human history, and it never led to the speedy introduction of same-sex marriage. Mark B.'s argument for same-sex marriage will not catch on among the plain old Midwesterners I know.
My second opponent was much more intelligent and respectful, and his/her argument much more compelling. Here are his/her comments regarding my concern about procreation being separated from marriage:
"I do not believe your concern is irrelevant. What I differ from you on is timing and causation. I believe that procreation has already been seperated from marriage by divorce and especially by contraception. The horse has left the building so to speak because it'll be a frosty day in the lake of fire when heterosexuals contenance their access to those two things being impeded. I sympathize with your concern and if this was the 1930's marriage we were talking about I'd agree that gay marriage might detatch procreation from marriage. But it is 2007 my dear lady. Procreation has been detatched for at least a quarter century now."
This is a valid argument that could catch on among the people I know. The poster clearly explains that gay marriage is a natural and logical step in the same direction we've already taken regarding marriage, in the wake of divorce and contraception. I'd also add cohabitation to that list. He/she says that procreation has already been significantly detached from marriage. We are in total agreement on this point. However, the poster feels that since we've already had these changes, and most heterosexuals are not willing to relinquish their unfettered access to these options, then we have to take the next logical step of same-sex marriage. The argument is cogent and compelling, especially in light of most people's desire to treat all people fairly.
However, I don't accept that heterosexuals will never give up no-fault divorce laws or ubiquitous contraception and cohabitation, even though I acknowledge that it is certainly an uphill battle. I plan to present a different culture of marriage to my own children, as much as is possible in the current environment. And I hope to challenge people's assumptions about the changes to marriage and sex that we've seen in the last quarter century and to consider these things in relation to the same-sex marriage debate.
Gay marriage is but one part of the marriage culture I hope to challenge on this blog and in my personal life.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Gay Marriage
I knew once I started this blog that I would end up debating gay marriage, but I had hoped it wouldn't have happened quite this soon. I recently got into a debate on the topic over at Marriage Debate. You'll find me in the comment section of the post titled "Garriage?" among others.
I started learning more about the institution of marriage after I got into one myself and decided I would need more education and direction on the subject if I hoped to avoid ending up divorced like my parents, in-laws, and so many others around me. In the process, I stumbled into the gay marriage question, and was surprised to find myself changing my mind.
I attended my cousin's gay wedding before I got married, and even though it did feel funny, the thought of not supporting the marriage hadn't even crossed my mind. I was raised to believe that people should do whatever makes them happy. I've come to question that simplistic mindset as I've gotten older, especially when coming up against the challenges of making a happy marriage. The fact is that taking care of myself makes me happy, but being taken care of makes me happier, and taking care of others makes me happiest. So, it's complicated. An individualistic approach hasn't been very functional for me. But even though gay marriage is not my primary interest in the marriage debate, it is on the forefront of the debate nowadays. Therefore, over the last few years, I have been developing a set of opinions about it that I might as well lay out here, at least to get it out of the way. Of course, I'm always open to revising my own views if persuasive evidence or arguments are presented to me.
Perhaps my favorite resource in developing my thoughts on gay marriage has been The Opine Editorials, because as they put it, they are "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity." Even though the folks over there are religious, they don't argue against gay marriage on religious grounds. This is key for me. I'm one of those spiritual-but-not-religious types.
I've especially enjoyed their Defend Marriage Resources, which can be found in the upper right corner. My favorite read was this one here by Lee Harris, which Opine describes as follows: "A gay man discusses the fragility of social customs like marriage from a historical/philosophical perspective."
It's lengthy and academic, but I've read it several times over. It's absolutely the best explanation of the value of traditional marriage that I've ever read. But it's so much more than that. Lee Harris breaks down the concept of tradition, and the various defenses of it, to give the reader an understanding of what tradition really is. Traditions are complex and fascinating things. Ultimately, he compares a tradition to a recipe:
Later, he extends this idea of traditions as recipes onto the issue of marriage:
I don't think I could explain it any better. It feels odd to even be discussing marriage as being "defined" as between a man and a woman. Marriage is something that married people engage in. Loving committed relationships between two people of the same sex may be beautiful things, but what they're engaging in is simply not marriage.
The core purpose of marriage is to channel procreative potential into responsible childbearing. Although I don't yet have children, as a wife, I know this all too well. So many times have I worriedly hovered over a pregnancy test thinking, please, not yet. No birth control method is 100% effective. I personally know of two couples who were told they were infertile only to be surprised to find themselves pregnant later on down the road. If I were to get pregnant at an inconvenient time, our marriage would be the bedrock for creating a happy family in less than ideal circumstances. Procreation, even just the possibility of it, is a huge responsibility. This is why marriage developed, even before civilization itself. To redefine marriage so that procreative potential no longer has a role seems reckless to me.
The core of marriage is simply the fact that the love between a man and woman, their act of passion, their physical intimacy, can produce a new life. This simple beautiful fact is the reason marriage exists in the first place. It's the reason that some species of birds mate for life. It's a natural thing. Now, of course I understand that homosexuality is a natural thing as well. But it's a different thing. It's a natural deviation from the norm. Deviations happen, and they are by and large good things. Healthy deviation is absolutely required for a vibrant culture and civilization. Too much conformity stifles and suffocates. I love the homosexuals in my life, and I believe they should not only be tolerated, but embraced and celebrated. But that still doesn't make their relationships marriages.
Many who advocate for gay marriage say that the main purpose of marriage is love. Of course, love is extremely important. Responsible procreation includes providing a stable and loving home to the offspring of the union. The problem with making love central to the definition of marriage is that love is none of the government's business. I can think of so many future scenarios where this new definition of marriage could be used to abuse the institution, and ultimately get government involved in the most intimate details of our lives.
For example, suppose the next generation, being very clever, decides to start marrying their college roommates to get certain legal or financial benefits, planning to divorce once they've found a true love and are ready for a "real" marriage. This would of course undermine the concept of marriage being about love. Then what happens if these loveless marriages are costing taxpayers more than they had intended to pay for these programs aimed at people in "real" marriages? Do the taxpayers demand that the government do romance or sexuality tests? Do we have to start enforcing love in marriages? Do you want to be required go to a government psychologist every year to prove that you're still in love with your spouse?
And what is our response when these kids say that they do love each other, just not sexually, and what does sex, or even love for that matter, really have to do with marriage anyway? After all, it's just an economic partnership of rights and responsibilities.
The whole line of reasoning reminds me of the view of sexuality I was taught growing up. I was taught that sex is a natural beautiful thing. I was not taught that it should be saved for marriage, or for a certain age or time in my life. I wasn't even explicitly taught that it should be with someone I loved. The love part was just assumed. Sex is something people who love each other just do naturally.
Of course, this view of sex was already discarding a number of previously assumed premises for sexual activity from past generations. Of course, lots of people had premarital sex in the past, but the belief that it was wrong set up an ideal that was generally respected, if not always achieved, and it guided sexual behavior into being relatively responsible. The view that I was taught had tossed out that ideal in order to make sure I would never feel ashamed or afraid of sex.
It was a well intentioned effort, and it worked, at first. I naturally started having sex, several years after puberty, with a person I loved. Then another person I loved. Then a person I didn't really love, but really liked. Then a person I just kinda liked. Then a person that I wanted to like me. Then a person I didn't really know. It went on like this for a couple years. I had no "shining example" that Lee Harris describes in the piece I linked above. Pretty soon, I was feeling ashamed and afraid of sex, and I didn't even know why. I was doing what made me happy in each given moment, but it was making me more and more unhappy in the long run.
I worry that the generation that grows up with the idea that marriage is just a thing that two people who love each other do naturally will end up with the same driftless and painful experience I had with sex. If it was so easy to detach love from sex, it will be just as easy to detach it from marriage. Sex without love can still be pleasurable. Marriage without love can still bring about plenty of economic benefits.
It all comes down to making babies. It's the reason the sex act exists in the first place. It's the reason marriage exists in the first place. What a wonderful blessing to be human and take joy in these things, joy that goes above and beyond their primary function. But it would be a dangerous social experiment to redefine marriage so that its primary purpose is no longer recognized. How could detaching an institution from its core function improve it in the slightest? I have yet to hear a persuasive response to this question.
I started learning more about the institution of marriage after I got into one myself and decided I would need more education and direction on the subject if I hoped to avoid ending up divorced like my parents, in-laws, and so many others around me. In the process, I stumbled into the gay marriage question, and was surprised to find myself changing my mind.
I attended my cousin's gay wedding before I got married, and even though it did feel funny, the thought of not supporting the marriage hadn't even crossed my mind. I was raised to believe that people should do whatever makes them happy. I've come to question that simplistic mindset as I've gotten older, especially when coming up against the challenges of making a happy marriage. The fact is that taking care of myself makes me happy, but being taken care of makes me happier, and taking care of others makes me happiest. So, it's complicated. An individualistic approach hasn't been very functional for me. But even though gay marriage is not my primary interest in the marriage debate, it is on the forefront of the debate nowadays. Therefore, over the last few years, I have been developing a set of opinions about it that I might as well lay out here, at least to get it out of the way. Of course, I'm always open to revising my own views if persuasive evidence or arguments are presented to me.
Perhaps my favorite resource in developing my thoughts on gay marriage has been The Opine Editorials, because as they put it, they are "defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity." Even though the folks over there are religious, they don't argue against gay marriage on religious grounds. This is key for me. I'm one of those spiritual-but-not-religious types.
I've especially enjoyed their Defend Marriage Resources, which can be found in the upper right corner. My favorite read was this one here by Lee Harris, which Opine describes as follows: "A gay man discusses the fragility of social customs like marriage from a historical/philosophical perspective."
It's lengthy and academic, but I've read it several times over. It's absolutely the best explanation of the value of traditional marriage that I've ever read. But it's so much more than that. Lee Harris breaks down the concept of tradition, and the various defenses of it, to give the reader an understanding of what tradition really is. Traditions are complex and fascinating things. Ultimately, he compares a tradition to a recipe:
"Tradition, then, is the only possible mode for transmitting a community’s habits of the heart, and it does this by providing the recipe for making the kind of human beings who will viscerally feel and respond to the same habits of the heart as the community to which they belong.
"Yet these recipes, like those used for cooking, do not by any means demand to be rigidly or mechanically followed. To make pasta, for instance, you need the essential ingredients — Italian noodles and sauce — but otherwise you are free to experiment. You may vary the sauce as you wish, from tomato to cream, adding mushrooms or black olives or spinach, or you may mix the sauce with different types of noodles, like spaghetti or angel hair or vermicelli. But all in the end have the same essential nature and accomplish the same pragmatic purpose — a satisfying bowl of pasta.
"This allows us an interesting new way to appraise a tradition. We can look at it as if it were a recipe and say, 'This is what you must do, if you are to create a certain type of community — and these are the options you have, once you have done this.'
"To see institutions and traditions as recipes is to grasp at once how pointless it is to debate their truth or falsity. Is Julia Child’s recipe for Bouillabaisse true or false? The question sounds absurd because it is."
Later, he extends this idea of traditions as recipes onto the issue of marriage:
"Marriage was something that, until only quite recently, seemed to be securely in the hands of married people. It was what married people had engaged in, and certainly not a special privilege that had been extended to them to the exclusion of other human beings. Who, after all, could not get married? You didn’t have to be straight; you could be gay. So what? Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some cheese — without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are fine things in themselves — you just can’t make an omelet out of them."
I don't think I could explain it any better. It feels odd to even be discussing marriage as being "defined" as between a man and a woman. Marriage is something that married people engage in. Loving committed relationships between two people of the same sex may be beautiful things, but what they're engaging in is simply not marriage.
The core purpose of marriage is to channel procreative potential into responsible childbearing. Although I don't yet have children, as a wife, I know this all too well. So many times have I worriedly hovered over a pregnancy test thinking, please, not yet. No birth control method is 100% effective. I personally know of two couples who were told they were infertile only to be surprised to find themselves pregnant later on down the road. If I were to get pregnant at an inconvenient time, our marriage would be the bedrock for creating a happy family in less than ideal circumstances. Procreation, even just the possibility of it, is a huge responsibility. This is why marriage developed, even before civilization itself. To redefine marriage so that procreative potential no longer has a role seems reckless to me.
The core of marriage is simply the fact that the love between a man and woman, their act of passion, their physical intimacy, can produce a new life. This simple beautiful fact is the reason marriage exists in the first place. It's the reason that some species of birds mate for life. It's a natural thing. Now, of course I understand that homosexuality is a natural thing as well. But it's a different thing. It's a natural deviation from the norm. Deviations happen, and they are by and large good things. Healthy deviation is absolutely required for a vibrant culture and civilization. Too much conformity stifles and suffocates. I love the homosexuals in my life, and I believe they should not only be tolerated, but embraced and celebrated. But that still doesn't make their relationships marriages.
Many who advocate for gay marriage say that the main purpose of marriage is love. Of course, love is extremely important. Responsible procreation includes providing a stable and loving home to the offspring of the union. The problem with making love central to the definition of marriage is that love is none of the government's business. I can think of so many future scenarios where this new definition of marriage could be used to abuse the institution, and ultimately get government involved in the most intimate details of our lives.
For example, suppose the next generation, being very clever, decides to start marrying their college roommates to get certain legal or financial benefits, planning to divorce once they've found a true love and are ready for a "real" marriage. This would of course undermine the concept of marriage being about love. Then what happens if these loveless marriages are costing taxpayers more than they had intended to pay for these programs aimed at people in "real" marriages? Do the taxpayers demand that the government do romance or sexuality tests? Do we have to start enforcing love in marriages? Do you want to be required go to a government psychologist every year to prove that you're still in love with your spouse?
And what is our response when these kids say that they do love each other, just not sexually, and what does sex, or even love for that matter, really have to do with marriage anyway? After all, it's just an economic partnership of rights and responsibilities.
The whole line of reasoning reminds me of the view of sexuality I was taught growing up. I was taught that sex is a natural beautiful thing. I was not taught that it should be saved for marriage, or for a certain age or time in my life. I wasn't even explicitly taught that it should be with someone I loved. The love part was just assumed. Sex is something people who love each other just do naturally.
Of course, this view of sex was already discarding a number of previously assumed premises for sexual activity from past generations. Of course, lots of people had premarital sex in the past, but the belief that it was wrong set up an ideal that was generally respected, if not always achieved, and it guided sexual behavior into being relatively responsible. The view that I was taught had tossed out that ideal in order to make sure I would never feel ashamed or afraid of sex.
It was a well intentioned effort, and it worked, at first. I naturally started having sex, several years after puberty, with a person I loved. Then another person I loved. Then a person I didn't really love, but really liked. Then a person I just kinda liked. Then a person that I wanted to like me. Then a person I didn't really know. It went on like this for a couple years. I had no "shining example" that Lee Harris describes in the piece I linked above. Pretty soon, I was feeling ashamed and afraid of sex, and I didn't even know why. I was doing what made me happy in each given moment, but it was making me more and more unhappy in the long run.
I worry that the generation that grows up with the idea that marriage is just a thing that two people who love each other do naturally will end up with the same driftless and painful experience I had with sex. If it was so easy to detach love from sex, it will be just as easy to detach it from marriage. Sex without love can still be pleasurable. Marriage without love can still bring about plenty of economic benefits.
It all comes down to making babies. It's the reason the sex act exists in the first place. It's the reason marriage exists in the first place. What a wonderful blessing to be human and take joy in these things, joy that goes above and beyond their primary function. But it would be a dangerous social experiment to redefine marriage so that its primary purpose is no longer recognized. How could detaching an institution from its core function improve it in the slightest? I have yet to hear a persuasive response to this question.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Generation Divorce
How many times have you gotten something like this forwarded to you by email?
Another Goody for the Old Timers
It's another one of these tracts that glorifies the Baby Boomers' childhoods because they didn't have seatbelts or video games or remote controls, and they got spanked, and their parents didn't have to worry about child abductions or food poisoning. The worst part is this end quote:
I've seen other pieces like this that don't just glorify the 50's and 60's, but are also derisive of Gen Xers on down. They practically take credit for the wonderful childhoods their parents worked so hard to give them, while blaming us for our chaotic childhoods that left us apathetic and detached. The same derision is reflected in all the nicknames they've given our generation(s) highlighting our selfishness and apathy. Where do they think we learned it?
The Divorce Generation ended their marriages in record numbers, and not just because of abuse or infidelity. The majority of those marriages were low conflict. They just weren't "fulfilling" enough. The love that created us wasn't important enough to them to keep it alive. So they blamed each other for their problems and gave up on their marriages to try to find that perfect spouse with whom they could live a fairytale life of neverending romantic bliss. Funny thing is, none of the ones I know ever found it. In fact, they found mostly a life of more heartbreak. The Baby Boomers I know who stayed married haven't had storybook marriages, but they've had more security, success, and happiness than the divorced boomers I know. And the differences between the grown children of the married parents and the divorced parents is striking.
I've read in a number of places that people my age generally support a return to more conservative values regarding marriage and divorce, and they are deeply afraid of experiencing divorce themselves and putting their own children through it. Nonetheless, the divorce rate hasn't moved much. Too often, we still have this fairytale version of marriage in our heads, where finding the right person means that keeping the passion and romance alive will be easy. Well, five years into a happy marriage of my own (after 5 years of cohabitation), I can testify that it's not. There are boring parts. There are annoying parts. There are frustrating and infuriating parts. Sometimes you just have to weather the storm. But once you get past it, things are better than they have ever been. Your commitment is stronger, your history is richer, your story more dramatic. Ironically, my divorced mother-in-law's advice to me on my wedding day for a successful marriage was, "Just don't ever give up." She learned her lesson the hard way, and my husband and I intend not to repeat it.
We won't be able to give our future kids a childhood without fear of abduction or food poisoning. In fact, there is much more for parents to fear today than there was when we were children. And the passive entertainment options are seemingly infinite and getting more numerous all the time. It will be quite a challenge trying to figure out how to parent in this world of cell phones, the internet, and incredibly violent and sexual video games. But whatever mistakes we make, at least we'll be able to give our children the benefits of commitment and stability. We'll show them what marriage really is, and that the love that created them is a beautiful thing worth nurturing and honoring.
Another Goody for the Old Timers
It's another one of these tracts that glorifies the Baby Boomers' childhoods because they didn't have seatbelts or video games or remote controls, and they got spanked, and their parents didn't have to worry about child abductions or food poisoning. The worst part is this end quote:
"LOVE TO ALL OF US WHO SHARED THIS ERA, AND TO ALL WHO DIDN'T- SORRY FOR WHAT YOU MISSED."These things almost feel like a slap in the face when I get them (always from a Baby Boomer) because of the hypocrisy of it. My father introduced me to video games, and my mother was ecstatic when she bought our first TV with a remote control. She always made us wear our seatbelts on every car ride. They made us latch-key kids and taught us how to avoid being abducted or abused. They didn't believe in spanking. There was a huge salmonella outbreak when I was a kid. The list goes on and on. All the things they deride in these emails came on the scene under their watch. Yet they don't appear to grasp this. They simply say, "Sorry for what you missed!" And notice they don't offer up even a whiff of a thank you to their parents for providing this wonderful childhood to them.
I've seen other pieces like this that don't just glorify the 50's and 60's, but are also derisive of Gen Xers on down. They practically take credit for the wonderful childhoods their parents worked so hard to give them, while blaming us for our chaotic childhoods that left us apathetic and detached. The same derision is reflected in all the nicknames they've given our generation(s) highlighting our selfishness and apathy. Where do they think we learned it?
The Divorce Generation ended their marriages in record numbers, and not just because of abuse or infidelity. The majority of those marriages were low conflict. They just weren't "fulfilling" enough. The love that created us wasn't important enough to them to keep it alive. So they blamed each other for their problems and gave up on their marriages to try to find that perfect spouse with whom they could live a fairytale life of neverending romantic bliss. Funny thing is, none of the ones I know ever found it. In fact, they found mostly a life of more heartbreak. The Baby Boomers I know who stayed married haven't had storybook marriages, but they've had more security, success, and happiness than the divorced boomers I know. And the differences between the grown children of the married parents and the divorced parents is striking.
I've read in a number of places that people my age generally support a return to more conservative values regarding marriage and divorce, and they are deeply afraid of experiencing divorce themselves and putting their own children through it. Nonetheless, the divorce rate hasn't moved much. Too often, we still have this fairytale version of marriage in our heads, where finding the right person means that keeping the passion and romance alive will be easy. Well, five years into a happy marriage of my own (after 5 years of cohabitation), I can testify that it's not. There are boring parts. There are annoying parts. There are frustrating and infuriating parts. Sometimes you just have to weather the storm. But once you get past it, things are better than they have ever been. Your commitment is stronger, your history is richer, your story more dramatic. Ironically, my divorced mother-in-law's advice to me on my wedding day for a successful marriage was, "Just don't ever give up." She learned her lesson the hard way, and my husband and I intend not to repeat it.
We won't be able to give our future kids a childhood without fear of abduction or food poisoning. In fact, there is much more for parents to fear today than there was when we were children. And the passive entertainment options are seemingly infinite and getting more numerous all the time. It will be quite a challenge trying to figure out how to parent in this world of cell phones, the internet, and incredibly violent and sexual video games. But whatever mistakes we make, at least we'll be able to give our children the benefits of commitment and stability. We'll show them what marriage really is, and that the love that created them is a beautiful thing worth nurturing and honoring.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Sexually Inspired by Women
Gay Expecations Make for Complex Relationships
Seems to me these women want their sexual partners to be all things to them. It naturally follows that they would find themselves rejecting monogamy. I find it especially fascinating that in the quote above, Higginbotham calls herself bisexual because she is "sexually inspired" by women, and that the bisexual part of her is being fed by a friendship with a woman who isn’t her lover. It deeply disappoints me that she feels that loving a woman in a non-sexual way would be breaking some rule of a monogamous relationship, even though she can’t identify exactly what that rule is.
When my girlfriends and I get together to scrapbook on a Saturday afternoon, we talk about a lot of things, but the number one topic is our husbands. After all the complaining and bragging, we go home really feeling like women. And the sex with our husbands on those Saturday nights is mind-blowing. So it seems we've been "sexually inspiring" each other for years without getting naked in the process. I’m pretty sure we’re not breaking any rules, and our husbands certainly aren’t complaining. I suspect that women have been inspiring each other, sexually and otherwise, for generations.
I haven’t read Baumgardner’s book, but it appears that she has touched on a profound truth about the importance of female relationships to a woman's emotional health and even her sexual identity. However, I get the sense that Baumgardner and her ilk have sexualized female friendships in an unconscious effort to compensate for the deficiencies that plague the modern state of Sisterhood. I've long been saying that the worst consequence of the feminist movement isn't that it has exacerbated the Battle of the Sexes (although it has) but rather that it has disordered and sometimes destroyed the female support networks that used to be our source of sanity and, indeed, power. We’ve lost touch with the unwritten wisdom of our grandmothers.
In modern marriages, instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of women through the ages, we’ve decided the best way to get what we want from men is to act like men. Our marriages become competitions. We nag and argue rather than charm and persuade. We sacrifice our greatest womanly strengths and gifts on the alter of equality.
A wife can make up her husband’s mind for him without him ever knowing she did it, but my generation has never been shown the way. Instead, we’ve been taught to bargain as equals, to hammer out a deal for the management our day-to-day life in a 50-50 partnership with our husband. Marriage used to be something unique, something greater than the sum of its parts, but now it’s viewed as a contractual partnership for householding and childcare. No wonder people tire of it so quickly and so often. No wonder so many of our parents are divorced.
As a wife, I’m striking out in a new direction. Not exactly traditional, not exactly modern. I’m learning as I go. All I really know for sure is that, as the saying goes, women who aspire to be equal to men lack ambition. It’s not that we’re better than men, but we are different, and we have a crucial role to play. I’ll let you know if I ever figure out what exactly that role is.
"If I was in a monogamous relationship, how much I love Jennifer would break some rule, I just know it. Even though we're not lovers, our friendship feeds the bisexual part of me, the part that is sexually inspired by women."
Seems to me these women want their sexual partners to be all things to them. It naturally follows that they would find themselves rejecting monogamy. I find it especially fascinating that in the quote above, Higginbotham calls herself bisexual because she is "sexually inspired" by women, and that the bisexual part of her is being fed by a friendship with a woman who isn’t her lover. It deeply disappoints me that she feels that loving a woman in a non-sexual way would be breaking some rule of a monogamous relationship, even though she can’t identify exactly what that rule is.
When my girlfriends and I get together to scrapbook on a Saturday afternoon, we talk about a lot of things, but the number one topic is our husbands. After all the complaining and bragging, we go home really feeling like women. And the sex with our husbands on those Saturday nights is mind-blowing. So it seems we've been "sexually inspiring" each other for years without getting naked in the process. I’m pretty sure we’re not breaking any rules, and our husbands certainly aren’t complaining. I suspect that women have been inspiring each other, sexually and otherwise, for generations.
I haven’t read Baumgardner’s book, but it appears that she has touched on a profound truth about the importance of female relationships to a woman's emotional health and even her sexual identity. However, I get the sense that Baumgardner and her ilk have sexualized female friendships in an unconscious effort to compensate for the deficiencies that plague the modern state of Sisterhood. I've long been saying that the worst consequence of the feminist movement isn't that it has exacerbated the Battle of the Sexes (although it has) but rather that it has disordered and sometimes destroyed the female support networks that used to be our source of sanity and, indeed, power. We’ve lost touch with the unwritten wisdom of our grandmothers.
In modern marriages, instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of women through the ages, we’ve decided the best way to get what we want from men is to act like men. Our marriages become competitions. We nag and argue rather than charm and persuade. We sacrifice our greatest womanly strengths and gifts on the alter of equality.
A wife can make up her husband’s mind for him without him ever knowing she did it, but my generation has never been shown the way. Instead, we’ve been taught to bargain as equals, to hammer out a deal for the management our day-to-day life in a 50-50 partnership with our husband. Marriage used to be something unique, something greater than the sum of its parts, but now it’s viewed as a contractual partnership for householding and childcare. No wonder people tire of it so quickly and so often. No wonder so many of our parents are divorced.
As a wife, I’m striking out in a new direction. Not exactly traditional, not exactly modern. I’m learning as I go. All I really know for sure is that, as the saying goes, women who aspire to be equal to men lack ambition. It’s not that we’re better than men, but we are different, and we have a crucial role to play. I’ll let you know if I ever figure out what exactly that role is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)