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.
