LAST WEEK my column was about gay marriage. The column got a lot of response, both in letters to the editor and to me personally. We columnists know we have engaged our readers when they take the trouble to respond, especially in such numbers.
Instituting gay marriage would sever the ancient link between marriage and sexual differentiation. Obviously heterosexual couples would continue to marry and procreate, but marriage as such would no longer reflect the natural division of people into two sexes. Now we have all heard "gender" is "socially constructed," but I don't think anybody really believes that. I haven't yet heard of the society where children are produced by a group or unit other than one woman and one man.
We have all heard the argument that government should prevent people from doing things that harm their bodies, such as smoking. Regarding our souls, however, we generally make the egalitarian assumption that people can take care of themselves. But is that true? Or isn't it more true that we all need guidance, especially when we're young, from parents, schools, churches and other institutions? Marriage is one such institution, perhaps the most important one. It guides and forms people's imaginations and desires. And it does that more powerfully insofar as we feel it is bigger than we are, a reflection of the larger natural order of which we are part. Disconnecting marriage from procreation and natural sexual difference would disconnect it from that natural order and make it merely a legal institution, aiming merely at satisfying our desires.
Some people say marriage is a social construct. To some extent, that's obviously true. But do they really think that's all it is? Do they think they would be equally happy in a society that had abolished marriage? Do they themselves hope to marry only so they can fit in socially? I suggest that marriage is semi-natural. It satisfies people's longings as no other arrangement can.
As widespread divorce shows, marriage is not simply natural. Even good marriages run somewhat against the grain, to say nothing of bad ones. Our natural selfishness makes us prefer ourselves to everybody else -- even spouses, sometimes even children -- and that makes marriage difficult in many ways. But would people be better off without it, following every whim and fancy? Of course not. That's a formula for loneliness, not happiness.
One might say the purpose of marriage is not to make individuals happy so much as to produce and raise children. That is true historically; nonetheless, people naturally pursue happiness. Some find happiness above all in doing what they consider their duty; however, for better or worse, that's not where most Americans are now. The fundamental argument, and the only one likely to prevail in an advanced democracy, must look to happiness.
"Aha!" the attentive reader might say. Lopez says he is arguing in terms of happiness, but he criticizes making marriage aim at our desires. Well, we humans are complicated, and our happiness does not always lie in satisfying our desires. Some desires are better redirected or curbed -- for our own sake. If we make marriage nothing more than a legal arrangement, people will instead find guidance in desires or whims. They will experiment before marriage (more than we already do), and once they are married, they will leave more readily when the going gets tough. After all, it's there to make us happy, right? Alas, happiness does not lie along that path.
For those of us who are homosexuals, of course, traditional marriage is not the answer to our longings. But we are a small number, and we don't (naturally) participate in the indispensable task of producing the next generation. We should by all means demand that others respect our rights. But should we demand they change the meaning of their most fundamental institution in a way that is likely to diminish their own lives?
Moreover, I don't think "gay marriage" is the best route for gays themselves. We don't have the same longings as others do, and I believe our longings are in some respects higher. Instead of aiming at domestic and parental concerns, we are freer to remain adults. It is not a coincidence that philosophy itself was born in an ancient Greek milieu in which homosexuality was widespread. Instead of looking to the next generation, some people looked to eternity.
Instead of trying to imitate heterosexual couples, let's raise a higher standard, not of promiscuity but of deep friendship and the conversation and thoughtfulness which can flourish there, unencumbered by children and many other domestic cares. One reader wrote that gay marriage will be "just plain different from heterosexual marriage." I agree. So why call it marriage?
Manuel Lopez's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mlopez@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
