DC Cookie: Controversy Thursday: Til Death Do Us Part

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Controversy Thursday: Til Death Do Us Part

Traditionalists believe that the union of marriage is intended between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family. I believe that vows should be taken by anyone who is willing and able to make a lifelong commitment. Man and woman. Man and man. Woman and woman. It shouldn't make a difference as long as the pledge is solemn and the devotion is boundless.

But then I got to thinking, where should the boundaries be set, if at all. What about the shearer who wants to marry his ewe? The polygamist who wants to marry his granddaughter? The Hazzard who wants to marry his General Lee? The porn star who wants to marry a cucumber?

In which case, perhaps I understand why a federal bill to allow same sex marriage has not yet passed. You know, because if you let one non-conformist 'get away' with something 'unnatural,' then you let them all...

30 Comments:

At July 06, 2006 12:59 PM, cs said…

I see the polygamist/incest/bestiality arguments as non-starters. Incest and bestiality are completely separate as they involve situations of power/consent among other things, while polygamy is not about a one to one bond but rather about perpetuating a relatively naked form of patriarchy.

At bottom, marriage is conducted under two separate entities: the spiritual component and the state. We are mainly talking about the state, since any church of bestiality could marry farmers and sheep -- it's the state recognition that's at issue. So what we're really talking about is legal protection and property rights. That's all marriage in front of the state has ever been, anyway.

That's why so many conflicts were settled by the nobles intermarrying...
At July 06, 2006 1:12 PM, Kathryn Is So Over said…

Do you mean General Lee?
At July 06, 2006 1:19 PM, Anonymous said…

Coming from a place called Hazzard, one might actually want to marry their General Duke ;-)
At July 06, 2006 1:32 PM, DC Cookie said…

Um - yes. That's the name of the car. Apparently I need an editor.
At July 06, 2006 1:44 PM, A Unique Alias said…

That is easily solved by saying marriage is an agreement between "two humans with the capacity to make the legal commitment" to do blah blah blah. In the same way that a contract with a mentally-disabled person (I believe the law says 'idiot') isn't enforceable, or a contract with a child isn't enforceable, it's pretty easy to rule out all of your concerns about dogs and cats living together.
At July 06, 2006 1:55 PM, KassyK said…

Agreed with AUA...just say "Two humans". Although that porn star and her cucumber union would be hilarious. I'd pay to see that. Who am I kidding? I've already paid to see it.
At July 06, 2006 2:09 PM, Raincouver said…

Oh Cookie, you are so right about this. I just hope I do have that one marriage. That's why I aim to keep in shape so that she doesn't dump me for a cucumber or any other fruit or vegeatable.

Klassy - can I borrow the DVD sometime? Or does VK have it right now?
At July 06, 2006 2:28 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

AUA is dead on...the state should not be in the business or legalizing the "sanctity" of anything. Marriage is a business agreement in terms of the state. And in my opinion, I think the state should get out of the business of marriage altogether. There are plenty of legal ways to commit to each other without having to have the government set definitions around it.

As far as bestiality or pedophilia, the laws against that apply equally to everyone, gay or straight, so there is no reason why allowing gay marriage should even affect the laws that do not allow those activities. Same with polygamy. Though in my honest opinion, I see absolutely no reason why three people (of same or varying genders) cannot enter into a similar union as two people. Or four or five. So long as all are adults and consenting. Honestly, if you can get beyond the religious aspects of the counter argument, what reason can one have for why three people who are truly in love with each other (or not) cannot commit to one another for life? I actually know several sets of polygamists and they appear on the outside to be just as "normal" and committed to each other as any other couple I have ever seen. What is wrong with getting over the number 2? Why is 3 so much worse?
At July 06, 2006 4:47 PM, Anonymous said…

AUA said it.
At July 06, 2006 4:52 PM, Anonymous said…

AUA - Amen.
At July 06, 2006 5:03 PM, Bad at Life said…

I don't buy the notion that we can't set boundaries. We set these moral boundaries all the time. We don't allow bestiality, pedophilia, or polygamy precisely because society generally regards such behavior as immoral. But when we don't allow unions between two people of the same sex we indicate that our society views homosexual unions on par with those other behaviors--which I think is total bs.
At July 06, 2006 8:42 PM, Mybrid said…

This reminded me of a funny article I read recently.
At July 06, 2006 8:45 PM, Anonymous said…

I married my dick.
At July 07, 2006 5:32 AM, Anonymous said…

Put another check mark in AUAs column for me.
At July 07, 2006 9:32 AM, Anonymous said…

I'm just upset that your little cookie icon is gone from your post signatures :(

(btw, was it a Chocolate Chip? or an Oatmeal Raisin?)
At July 07, 2006 9:35 AM, DC Cookie said…

The cookie icon is still there. Maybe it's your computer...

Oatmeal raisin.
At July 07, 2006 11:42 AM, Anonymous said…

"if you can get beyond the religious aspects of the counter argument..."

I see "religious aspects" in this context synonymous with "morality".
You take the morality component out of any argument, all things seem ok... You take away the very line between good and bad and all things become good.

For those who choose not to remove or even adjust the above mentioned line and still categorize homosexuality/same-sex-marriage right along with polygamy/incest/bestiality, well, they feel none of the acts falling in the immoral bucket should be condoned at any level… state, federal or otherwise.

To the “close-minded”
Open-Minded = Loose Morals
At July 07, 2006 12:16 PM, Anonymous said…

What about the "Woody Allen"?
At July 07, 2006 2:16 PM, Phil said…

The states contend a homosexual couple could marry for the sole purpose of receiving free health care from the spouse's employment, tax benefits of filing as a married couple, etc., when they really aren't committed to being married.

Don't shoot the messenger - that's the "business end" from the states' view.
At July 07, 2006 2:32 PM, Barbara said…

I would just require that the two parties be able to intelligently communicate in speech or in writing the "I do". That would leave out the ewe and the cucumber at least. I'm not sure I have a problem with polygamy if it's with consent. In societies where there is a big imbalance between the sexes because of war, it at least allows people not to be left in isolation. There is a certain obligation not to tempt the genetic mistakes that result from inbreeding. I've certainly never understood the big hullabaloo about gay marriage!
At July 07, 2006 3:13 PM, Anonymous said…

I am not a big responder to blogs however much I enjoy reading them, mostly because what needs to be said has by someone already. But I will add a favorite quote of mine to the debate.

"I resent the idea that the only reason someone might be good or moral is because the're religious. I do what I do with out hope of reward or fear of punishment. I do not require heaven or hell to bribe or scare me into acting decently."

In other words morality does not come from religion alone. Open minded = think and examine all sides before choseing one.
At July 07, 2006 3:13 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Ornac, close but no. To ignore the religious aspects is not the same as ignoring morals. What I meant was that if you are discussing the aspects of religion and homosexuality, even non-legal commitments between two men or two women should be condemned. The government however, should not be making such decisions based on religious aspects of morality, but rather on equal treatment under the law. Pedophilia is deemed immoral by most societies because there is no ability to consent accorded to a minor. The relationship is forced upon a child who is of not legal standing to consent. And that is universally agreed upon to be immoral (regardless of any religious aspect). Bestiality is considered wrong because, as well, it's a matter of the ability to consent. As sick as it sounds, raping a sheep is still rape and is also just a bit revolting. Which is why most people find it universally immoral to fuck a sheep. I think the idea of consent has everything to do with it. And if marriage is good for two consenting members of the opposite sex, why can't it be okay for two consenting members of the same sex or multiple members of varying sexes? If you think it shouldn't be sanctioned by the government, then neither should a heterosexual union. Maybe the government would do best to stay out of it altogether. Nearly every benefit you get from marriage (aside from filing joint taxes and some property issues in cases of divorce) can be done outside of marriage through other legal means.
At July 07, 2006 3:51 PM, Anonymous said…

DC Cookie said...
Oatmeal raisin.

Classy. You're a good woman Cookie.

(still can't see the cookie, maybe it is my computer)
At July 07, 2006 3:52 PM, cs said…

Phil, be honest. That's exactly why the playaz have several wives under different names.
At July 07, 2006 4:27 PM, Anonymous said…

“Open minded = think and examine all sides before choseing one.”

You forgot to mention the second half …

Close-Minded = Open-Minded who didn’t choose your side
At July 07, 2006 5:54 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

point being, morality and religion do not have to coexist. you don't have to be religious to be moral. and no one can make a perfectly logical argument for why homosexuality is immoral beyond saying, god said it was bad in the bible. there is nothing immoral about two people having sex, so long as it is consensual. so why are two people committing financially and emotionally to one another immoral?
At July 08, 2006 5:10 PM, Anonymous said…

Sorry in advance for the long post. I'm bored.

Three issues that might clarify some of the above concerns.

First with regards to bestiality/necrophilia/inanimate objects/ext...

The contract of marriage bestows and adjust the rights of a citizen in the eyes of the government. Only consenting human adults may legally enter into such a contract or any contract for that matter. As such, no additionally "blurring" of the lines can be possible even if the definition of marriage were expanded to include same sex parties.

Second - With regards to incest/pedophilia. These issues are already dealt with by current laws. Just as a man can't marry his daughter, he likewise is prevented from marrying his son by the same law. It does not become an additional concern legally. Further, the same motivations that led to those laws still exist in same sex couples, meaning society would still benefit by maintaining their illegality.

Third - The issue of legislating morality. The government should not be in the business of legislating morality outside of the bounds of what is required by a society to exist and flourish. Laws should mimic the natural rules of society; right to personal property, self-determination, rights of the individual when not harming the rights of the group beyond a balance point, ext. This is why things like murder, theft, and rape are deemed illegal. Not because they are amoral, but because the contract of a society between people and their government is based upon the idea that they are willing to give up on certain rights in order to find protection from the abilities of others. What rights they give up are only those that are deemed absolutely necessary for the success of the group. That religions later decided to adopt many of these natural rules of society into their own doctrine and re-badge them "moral" does not change their origin or validity. The problem is that other non-societal rules have also been adopted. Picking at random, not eating meat during lent, adultery, or even not using the lords name in vain. None of these aspects significantly reduce a societies ability to survive and flourish. As such, government does not have a vested interest in regulating them. What individuals do beyond that is their own choice.

Now gay unions are in a slightly different category. It’s actually much more akin to some of the original kosher laws. Many of the original laws “not eating non kosher meat” for instance were designed to address a survival aspect of the society at the time the rule was made. At that time, eating kosher meat helped to ensure against eating meat was not safely slaughtered or cleaned. Thus the rule helped ensure the safety of the populace and thus the safety of the workforce of the union. Similarly homosexuality was likely considered amoral because it did not lead to a successful (child bearing) union and thus didn’t propagate the species or religion. Less propagation, less workforce, lowered ability to survive. However, just as many of the hygienic kosher laws have been made obsolete by today’s advances, the same seems to be true for the ban on homosexuality. No longer is there significant concern for the propagation of the species. If anything, the species is likely over propagated, and might benefit from unions that are not child bearing. Further, in our modern society propagation is not limited to same sex couples (in vitro fertilization and adoption). There isn’t any evidence that gay unions are in any way less successful than heterosexual unions in raising children, maintaining health, abiding laws, or being productive workers. Thus there doesn’t seem to be a societal reason for not allowing their existence at this time in history.

We each must be very careful in deciding what we allow our government to control. Each time we establish a precedent in legislative morality, we risk becoming eventual targets ourselves down the line. I for one don’t want to be told to follow the doctrine of the masses because to do otherwise would be amoral.
At July 09, 2006 11:18 PM, Anonymous said…

Hi!!!
I agree,
next what??? :)
Wish you well
tony
http://zingtrial.wordpress.com/
At July 10, 2006 11:08 AM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Anonymous' argument is perhaps the best one I've heard ever on the subject.
At July 10, 2006 12:52 PM, Anonymous said…

I’ve looked into my crystal ball and have seen that in 10 years we will have the technology to read an animal’s mind and to have dialogue. Well, interestingly one of the first animals to which the machine was hooked up was the sheep and it was during that process a shocking revelation was made. Sheep are quite intelligent beings and through a series of questions it has been determined they don’t mind being penetrated by humans and in many cases receive intense pleasure from the act. (It’s important to note that while the vast majority of male sheep surveyed revealed that while they’ve never had intimate relations with human females, they would be willing to try).

The term hewe-sexuals was coined shortly thereafter and as you can imagine with such a discovery, humans were coming out of the woodwork professing open lamb love. Suddenly local and state factions were popping up everywhere organizing sit-ins, demonstrations, and parades. But it wasn’t until the formation of the “International Society’s Hewesexuals Petitioning For Carnal Rights” (ISHPFCR) came into existence that they starting gaining national and global recognition. Of course, that success is mainly in part due to the sheer number of celebrities that came out of the barn, as it were. (Most notably, Tom Cruise… which explained why when years earlier Katie Holmes showed up to the 2012 Oscars wearing what appeared to be unrefined wool, Tom’s little sticker pecked out all night. Media had a field day with it)

There will be light hearted sitcoms such as Will and Barbie… a snapshot of living in Memphis with Will, the uptight hewesexual, and Barbie, the fun-loving sheep who couldn’t stay out of trouble. Barbie however is “straight” (only likes sheep herself)… Will is always vying for Barbie’s attention and the sexual tension is he-hi-larious.

But of course you have the protestors…
The main argument of course being “it’s unnatural” -> Nice try, but that has already been deemed an invalid argument…
What about being immoral -> They are two consenting entities; there’s nothing immoral about two entities having sex (as long as it’s consensual).
Well, it’s just wrong -> well that’s just you not listening to reason and are therefore closed-minded
Let’s see what the Bible has to say abo~ -> let me stop you right there, I don’t accept the religious argument at any level..

The moral of the story …
You can have local, state, national and even international backing, the support of a multitude of celebrities, television shows about hewesexuality, and even the majority of the public… but…
Some will always consider it unnatural
Some will always see it as immoral
Some will always see it as an abomination against God
Some will never want hewesexuality recognized in any “union” laws
And even after all of this, and after all has boiled down and the dust has cleared… Some will continue to see hewesexuals in 15 years as they are viewed now… as a bunch of Nasty Sheep Fuckers.