Marriage in the new millennium (Marriage and California Proposition 8)

Marriage between a man and a woman (or between a man and women) has been the norm for every culture in human history that has lasted more than a brief time. Even cultures that freely accepted bisexuality, such as the ancient Greeks and Romans, reserved marriage for heterosexual relationships only.

Why?

First, because no culture can escape the hard biological fact that the human race must continue, and it cannot continue without heterosexual coupling. Male on male and female on female sexuality will never produce children.

It's true that scientific intervention may produce children without coitus, but even scientific intervention requires heterosexual cooperation. And without constant scientific intervention or proselytizing, a homosexual society will die out in one generation.

Second, because what we know from research, and what the ancients knew from experience, is that children do best when they are raised by both genders.

Children do not normally die or become serial killers, and most do not even become homosexual, when they are raised by same-gender couples. Still, all else being equal, it is best for human development that children be raised by two people of different genders. The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, is overwhelmingly in favor of children’s need for bi-gender parents.

Finally, societal support of heterosexual marriage is necessary at least because heterosexual relationships are so difficult, especially when conception, pregnancy, and child-rearing are part of the mix.

For this reason, most cultures have created a variety of benefits (including ritual benefits, such as weddings, and biological benefits such as granting the right for sexual expression) to encourage and sustain heterosexual marriages.

Why not just support everyone's right to marry whomever they want?

First, because the philosophy of doing so is unsustainable. There must be a limit to the philosophy, and whenever the limit is invoked, the philosophy self-destructs.

In the Proposition 8 debate, one idea is that all consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want of whichever gender they want. That idea, however, includes limitations based on consent and age, while lifting only the limitation on gender; this, however, immediately limits the idea that everyone should be able to marry whomever they want.

If the only criterion for marriage is that people marry whom they want, the first, most logical step after same-gender marriage would be to allow polygamy, including same-gender polygamy. While heterosexual polygyny has its supporters (it, at least, produces children and has been practiced by respected individuals such as Abraham and Israel), hetero- or homosexual polyandry, or homosexual polygyny certainly could not be denied.

Given the philosophy that we should marry whomever we want, then why should incestuous marriage be forbidden among consenting adults? (The Romans allowed it.)

Clearly the philosophy doesn’t work past the immediate application; therefore, it annihilates itself.

Second, because marriage is not just between two people, it is a contract with all of humanity, including those as yet unborn.

In many cultures, the long-term consequences of marriage are so valued that the short-term needs of young couples are completely subjugated in favor of the community’s overall needs. In America, we have elevated love to an essential in marriage, but in many cultures it’s only something you may hope to grow into.

Ideally, marriage is born of mutual respect, affection, love, and interests; but lacking the ideal, marriage is still the best way to further the species. To reduce marriage to the mere wish-fulfillment of two people in love is to focus inward only, and to ignore the consequences on both society and posterity.

Redefinition and Proposition 8

First, I must openly state that I support California's Proposition 8 which will restore traditional marriage by defining it in the California Constitution as the union between a man and a woman.

What has precipitated the current debate over same-gender marriage in California is the California Supreme Court's overtly stated ruling that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court even suggests that the legislature may want to seek definitions that would allow domestic partnerships to be called marriages while still allowing religious groups to use a word that would distinguish their marriages from the more general type to be allowed by the state.

Since redefinition of a word to mean something vastly different from its original meaning is at the core of the debate over Proposition 8, I think that it would be useful to illuminate, at least, the shifting meanings of some key words associated with it, then explain how I plan to frame my own discourse.

Gay
"Gay" has long ceased to mean "happy or joyful." It almost always means "homosexual" as both a noun and an adjective. It usually means male homosexual, but it may include females, especially when it is used in a political context. The expression, "That's so gay," is considered hate speech because it usually implies the idea that something is bad, and it conveys that badness by associating it with homosexuality.

"Gay marriage" has come to mean same gender marriage. Because of its political connotations, I avoid its use. I prefer the more specific "same-gender marriage."

Homosexual, bisexual, homophobic
"Homosexual" as a noun ought to mean a person that has sexual relations exclusively with someone of the same gender. It is often used to refer to someone who has only desires for sexual relations with the same gender. I believe this latter definition is incorrect; homosexuality ought to refer to the actions not the desires of people.

Because "homosexual" frequently becomes a label for someone who desires sexual relations with the same gender, or who has physical characteristics that are stereotypically associated with homosexuals, the label is difficult. I am certain that it has the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Homosexual" is often mistakenly used to mean "bisexual." "Homosexual" is exclusive same-gender sexuality; "bisexual" is non-exclusive; for political reasons, many bisexuals are called "gay" or "homosexual" when they have actually practiced bisexuality. People who marry the opposite gender and successfully conceive children should more properly be termed bisexual.

Bisexuality creates problems for those who would argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Bisexuality means choice, and those who suggest that people may choose their sexuality are usually shouted down. Furthermore, pederasts are frequently bisexuals, though homosexual apologists prefer to characterize them as heterosexuals.

"Homophobia" originally meant "unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." As long ago as 1992, a large US school district defined it as "intolerance of homosexuality." There is a vast difference between the two definitions, but the difference is rarely clarified.

Resolution
I think it's important to be specific when discussing the issue, and to avoid vague, multi-definitional words. I use "same-gender marriage" to refer to the proposed redefinition of marriage. I use "bi-gender marriage" to describe the historical marriage between man and woman. I prefer "same-gender attraction" when I refer to the condition that causes homosexuality.

If someone asks me if I'm homophobic, I ask them to define the word. Am I afraid, rationally or not, of homosexuals and homosexuality? No. Am I intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. I am intolerant of anything that is destructive of individuals or humanity, and homosexuality is destructive of both.

In the heat of rhetoric, it is important make sure what you agree to or disagree with is properly defined and very specific.

Frankly, it would be easier if meanings of such simple words as "marriage" would not change.

The Neo-Rococo in Art

I cite the following from Denis Howe’s Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing as a definition of the word “rococo,” when used as computer slang:

“Baroque in the extreme. Used to imply that a program has become so encrusted with the software equivalent of gold leaf and curlicues that they have completely swamped the underlying design. Called after the later and more extreme forms of Baroque architecture and decoration prevalent during the mid-1700s in Europe. Alan Perlis said: ‘Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble.’”

While I use “rococo” to refer to new trends in art, it is because of computers that art is able to be as complex as it is, so Howe’s definition is appropriate in both ways.

Think of watching a film in a digital format. Whereas formerly films were on film stock and could be viewed once in special viewings, or they were transferred to video where they could be viewed multiple times with poor resolution, now films may be viewed multiple times in high resolution with a variety of features intended to enhance the movie-watching experience or increase the salability of the disc.

Far more attention is paid to small details than ever before because filmmakers know that viewers are able to stop frames and clearly see and analyze backgrounds. Commentators add information to the film so that multiple viewings are intended to include knowledge gained from the commentary. Often, there are multiple levels of commentary from different people. Films may be viewed with portions edited out or previously deleted scenes reinserted. All of this creates a level of complexity--”gold leaf and curlicues”--that has either been undesirable or unattainable since the 1920s in architecture, and the 1700s in painting. Never before in film.
My wife owns a landscape, done by an Idaho artist on computer. At first glance, it looks like a high resolution photograph, but it is really a painting, and it is far more high resolution than a photograph could ever be. Leaves on trees in the far distance are perfectly executed; nothing is out of focus; and variations of the painting may be purchased with fewer or more elements, such as wildlife. The detail is overwhelming.

I may take a piece of music, digitally record it, transfer it to an editable format, use my computer to add portions that would be impossible to play live, and render the music with almost invisible seams. In the case of the music, the “performance” may actually be rococo, but I mean to suggest that the possibility of working in the music at the smallest, most delicate levels, not executed in real time, but heard in real time, makes the experience itself rococo. It has almost unlimited complexity.

Certainly this is likely in rebellion against the starkness of modernism or minimalism. It represents a decisive step away from post-modernism.