Gay
Marriage—Understanding Human Partnerships, Same-sex Unions, and the Transitive
Nature of Marriage
The issue confronting me was “Gay Marriages”. Having
experienced profound changes in my own life wherein I identified and functioned
at various times as both heterosexual and homosexual, I found the discussion
among the students in the class resulting from the assigned readings from my
writing class at Lane Community College, most illuminating. I realized that
this issue is perhaps as emotionally charged as the debate over abortion rights
or the legalization of drugs.
In the eyes of many people gay marriage, much like
abortion, is considered a moral issue due to the fact that most religions in
the world view homosexuality as a deviance from the norm, whereas abortion the
murder of innocent children. I believe that this stems from the idea
established in the book of Genesis, and similar creation accounts from other
“sacred” texts, that the primary purpose of humanity is for men and women to
join together in “one flesh” couples and procreate. This arrangement later
became referred to as marriage and is often regarded as the foundation of human
civilization. Both homosexuality and abortion are in strong opposition to these
absolute concepts. I also found that
there are those conservative, not necessarily religious, people who view
homosexuality as a mental illness or a psychological disorder and therefore
oppose gay marriage on that basis.
After reading the two essays on the subject of gay
marriage from the book, Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to
Critical Thinking and Argument, With Readings, Sixth Edition, I decided
that I needed to do some fundamental research into what marriage is now and was
before in order to arrive at a more balanced
understanding of the issue at hand. I found that the nature of marriage has
been transitive throughout history. Heterosexual marriages come in many flavors
and manifestations and same-sex unions, partnerships, and marriages have
existed in different cultures at different times for millennia. Only a small
percentage of mental health professionals actually believe homosexuality is a
mental illness while a large percentage of mental health professionals not only
believe that homosexuality is not a mental illness but would also
venture to say that strong community support for same-sex unions would
alleviate, if not eventually entirely eliminate, a lot of other mental illness
caused by sexual repression. Gaining a greater level of knowledge about this
transitive and evolutionary human function has emphasized for me the importance
of framing the discussion squarely around human rights.
In the essay by Thomas B. Stoddard “Gay Marriages:
Make Them Legal”, Stoddard’s main argument is that:
Marriage, the Supreme Court declared
in 1967, is “one of the basic civil rights of man” (and, presumably, of woman
as well). The freedom to marry, said the Court, is “essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness”[1]
.
Stoddard builds on the idea of
“orderly pursuit of happiness” through the use of examples from the struggles
of one lesbian couple. He demonstrates how the failure to recognize their
same-sex union has led to interference in their pursuit of happiness together.
He anticipates the contradictions of those who would oppose his views by
arguing also about common assumptions about marriage as “traditional”, marriage
as “primarily a procreative unit”, and gay-marriage as “anti-family.” Stoddard
believes that marriages (presumably both heterosexual and homosexual) “create
families and promote social stability.”
In the second essay by Lisa Schiffren
“Gay Marriage: An Oxymoron”, Schiffren’s main
argument, in response to a potential court ruling by the courts in Hawaii that
she believed would require other states to be bound to, is that:
“Same-sex
marriage” is inherently incompatible with our cultures understanding of the
institution. Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and woman
committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring. For
most Americans, the marital union—as distinguished from other sexual
relationships and legal economic partnerships—is imbued with an aspect of
holiness. Though many of us are uncomfortable using religious language to
discuss social and political issues, Judeo-Christian morality informs our view
of family life[2].
Schiffren makes assumptions with regard to “most Americans.”
She strongly equates marriage with the production and nurture of offspring. She
argues consistently that removal of sexual repression has led to “social
devastation” such as high divorce rates, illegitimate children, and gay-male
promiscuity. While she believes that homosexuals are “seeking a small expansion
of the definition of marriage, the majority of Americans perceive this change
as a radical deconstruction of the institution.” Again, here she is making
assumptions about “the majority of Americans.” Schiffren
attempts to present her views as “balanced” by making statements like lesbians
are more capable of being “domesticated” and that some people can be
affectionate to their homosexual friends and relatives, genuinely pleased with
their happiness while opposing gay marriage on principle, however she never
unequivocally states that she herself has any gay friends. Her tone is
aggressive, precocious, and prudish. Her statements reflect her strong
identification with the absolute concepts
I mentioned earlier; Judeo-Christian morality informs her entire view of life.
During the discussion period for this issue, there
was one particular student who strongly advocated the idea that homosexuality
is a psychological disorder that can be treated. This type of therapy is called
“reorientation” wherein a homosexual person is reoriented with “normal”
sexuality. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
(NARTH) has an extensive website at http://www.narth.com
wherein they outline who they are, what their purpose is, and what they
believe:
Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very
useful definition of "normal." The practical wisdom of that
definition is still apparent. Normality, he said, is "that which functions
according to its design."
As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense
suffering caused by homosexuality, which many of our members see as a
"failure to function according to design." Homosexuality distorts the
natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex.
It threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which
is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the
sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.
In males, homosexuality it is associated with poor
relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of
masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and
misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers. In adulthood we also see a
persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors and a documented higher level of
psychiatric complaints[3].
After
further searching, I found another website maintained by Ontario Consultants
for Religious Tolerance at http://www.religioustolerance.org
wherein they publish research, essays, articles and news in support of
promoting religious tolerance. They have quite an interesting compilation of
information about the history of “reparative” or “reorientation” therapy.
In the past, researchers attempted to change sexual
orientation through psychotherapy, aversion therapy, nausea producing drugs,
prayer, castration, electric shock, brain surgery, breast amputations, etc. All
failed. These methods were largely abandoned by the mid-1970. However, Outrage!, a British support group for lesbians and gays,
recently found it necessary to ask the Royal College of Psychiatrists to renounce aversion therapy and instruct its
members to halt "the use of all therapies that attempt to cure homosexuality."
Reparative Therapy emerged in the early 1980's as a
new method of "curing" homosexuals. It was spearheaded by Elizabeth
Moberly, a British, conservative Christian theologian. She based her theories
on the findings of a few psychiatrists in the past whose conclusions had long
been abandoned by almost all mental health professionals. Her belief is that
homosexuality is caused by incompetence by the same-gender parent. Moberly
determined...that the homosexual men in the studies were suffering from what
she termed ’defensive detachment' and 'same sex ambivalence.' The theory
presumes that the young boy, for any of a variety of reasons, did not bond with
his father in a meaningful way." Her book, published in the 1980s,
has been recently reprinted and is still in print. Her theory led to a treatment method
in which a gay or lesbian develops a close but non-sexual relationship with a
person of the same gender. This is expected to replace the close parental bond
that was missing in childhood. According to her theory, heterosexual feelings
would emerge during therapy, and homosexual feelings would fade over time. More details.
No peer-reviewed study has ever been published on
reparative therapy. No longitudinal study has ever been conducted into its
long-term effectiveness and hazards. Sufficient anecdotal evidence has surfaced
to convince the large mental health professional societies, like the American
Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy
of Pediatrics, etc. to condemn
reparative therapy as ineffective, and warn of potentially dangerous side-effects.
The one exception is
the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -
the topic of this essay. They strongly advocate the use of reparative therapy,
believing it to be very effective and safe[4]. This is what they had to say about NARTH.
NARTH was founded in 1992 as a "non-profit,
educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of
homosexuality." It currently consists of "more than 1,000
mental-health professionals." These are believed to be psychiatrists,
psychologists, other therapists, social workers, and behavioral scientists.
(This number represents a small percentage of mental health professionals; the
American Psychological Association alone has over 132,000 members.) Anyone who
is sympathetic to their goals who are not a therapist is asked to join as a
"Friend of NARTH." Many conservative Christian ministries have done
this.
The association states that their members follow many
different religions and ethical systems, ranging from Roman "Catholic,
Jewish, Mormon, Baha'i, Protestant, to secular
humanist/atheist." The vast majority of its members are believed to be
from the conservative wings of Christianity and Judaism.
NARTH is becoming widely accepted among some
Evangelical Christian ministries, because it is the only professional mental
health organization that teaches that sexual orientation is a disorder, that it
is chosen, and that it can be changed through effort4.
I
was somewhat shocked to learn hat the history of this type of therapy included
barbaric acts such as using electric shocks, castration, brain surgery, and
breast amputations to treat homosexuals. Also I found it interesting that many
of the conclusions published by Elizabeth Moberly seem to still parallel the
stereotypes and common misconceptions about homosexuals today. It also did not
surprise me that the organization that sprang from “reparative” movement is
largely funded today by Christian conservatives in the
The
American Psychological Association recently completed a study on lesbian and
gay parenting. In an article published on their website they had this to say in
summary of their findings:
Like families headed by heterosexual parents, lesbian
and gay parents and their children is a diverse group (Martin, 1993). Unlike
heterosexual parents and their children, however, lesbian and gay parents and
their children are often subject to prejudice because of sexual orientation
that turns judges, legislators, professionals, and the public against them,
frequently resulting in negative outcomes such as loss of physical custody,
restrictions on visitation, and prohibitions against adoption (Falk, 1989;
Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990). As with all socially stigmatized
groups, the beliefs held generally in society about lesbians and gay men are
often not based in personal experience, but are instead culturally transmitted
(Herek, 1991). The purpose of this summary of
research findings on lesbian and gay parents and their children is to assist
psychologists and other professionals to evaluate widespread beliefs in the
light of empirical data and in this way ameliorate the negative effects of
unwarranted prejudice[5].
The
article goes on to say that the results
of “existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents
and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are
quite uniform: common stereotypes are not supported by the data.”
I also considered the
writing of Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality; and John Boswell, Same-sex
Unions in Pre-modern
This would not have been the case, had it been
thought of as something quite natural. The concept "sexuality" itself
is a result of this discourse. And the interdictions also have constructive
power: they have created sexual identities and a multiplicity of sexualities
that would not have existed otherwise.
Historically, there have been two ways of viewing
sexuality, according to Foucault. In
In Western society, on the other hand, something completely different has been
created, what Foucault calls "scientia sexualis", the science of sexuality. It is originally
(17th century) based on a phenomenon diametrically opposed to ars erotica: the confession. It is not just a question of
the Christian confession, but more generally the urge to talk about it. A
fixation with finding out the "truth" about sexuality arises, a truth
that is to be confessed. It is as if sexuality did not exist unless it is confessed[6].
Writer
Andreas Ehrencrona credits Michel Foucault with
pioneering queer theory. Ehrencrona, on his website
quoted above, has done a very nice job in summarizing a very long read in his
analysis of Michel Foucault’s book, The History of Sexuality. It would
seem that if Michel Foucault has offered a convincing refutation of the common
belief in Victorian repression of sexuality then one may conclude that
repression of sexuality must have its roots in something more insidious. In
short, Foucault’s main idea is that sexuality is a “construction within any
given society” and applicable only to itself. One “cannot compare homosexuality
today with homosexuality in ancient
Boswell,
in his book, offers numerous references to same-sex unions from many pre-modern
and ancient cultures. There are many websites to be found debating his
findings, however, the most compelling website regarding Boswell is to be found
at the John Boswell Page at Fordham: New York’s Jesuit University http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html.
Boswell in his keynote address to the Fourth Annual Dignity International
Convention in 1979 made the following comments.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law,
religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This
makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in
particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from
those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the
indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The
difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely
consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the
diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual
preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an
analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits
and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the
Romans.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in
If this
is an accurate picture of the ancient world the social structure from which
Western culture is derived-then where did the negative ideas now common
regarding homosexuality come from? The most obvious answer to this question,
and the one which has most generally been given in the past, is that
Christianity is responsible for the change. There is an historical coincidence
that seems to lend some credence to this idea- namely that when Christianity
appears on the scene that this tolerance spoken of earlier disappears and that
general acceptance of homosexuality becomes much less common[7].
In
this address, Boswell is forthcoming with his belief that Christianity is
responsible for shaping prevailing attitudes today about homosexuals and
same-sex unions. As for more ancient archeological evidence of same-sex unions,
there was the discovery of the Egyptian tomb of two men whom were joined,
according to the inscription of their names within the tomb, in life and in
death: for all eternity. Clearly from the depictions of the two men in intimate
embrace one concludes that they were two men in a same-sex union. These two men
were not looked upon with scorn, “they both shared identical titles as
‘Overseer of the manicurists in the palace of the king’; King Niuserre of the Fifth Dynasty.”[8]
Also there is strong archeological evidence to
suggest that ancient Egyptians had long considered mankind to be comprised of
three genders: Men, Eunuchs, and Women. The common misconception is that the
Eunuchs of ancient
Gender complexity is not limited to isolated
incidents or individuals in ancient Egyptian culture. In the Egyptian story of
the creation of the gods, the first god is male and female, and its name is Atum. Through asexual reproduction, Atum
creates two other gods, Shu and Tefnut.
These two in turn produce another pair, Geb and Nut.
Finally, Geb and Nut, the earth and the sky, combine
and produce the two pairs of Isis and Osiris, and
Seth and Nephthys. In the stories of these archetypal
beings, Isis exemplifies the reproductive female, Osiris
the reproductive male, Seth the non-reproductive eunuch, and Nephthys the unmarried virgin (lesbian).
Seth and Nephthys are supposed to be a couple like Isis and Osiris, but they have no adventures together and no
children. Nephthys spends all of her time with Isis,
being of assistance to her in various ways. Seth, likewise, spends all of his
time with Osiris and then with Osakis’s son Horus, but unlike Nephthys he
spends his time causing all kinds of havoc. Seth and Osiris
are in competition for primacy among the gods. Seth kills Osiris
by cutting him into pieces and scattering them all over Egypt, but Isis, with
the aid of her sister Nephthys, gathers the pieces
back together and revives him long enough for him to impregnate her.
Even in the construction of
archetypical myths of ancient
Procreation is not the only function of humanity. Not
everyone in the world is going to produce offspring. If every single person in
this world were to produce offspring, we would soon be overrun with
inhabitants, and we are having trouble feeding all of our planets inhabitants
as it stands now. Actually this has been in debate, today. The potential for
over population is a global catastrophe waiting to happen. Some countries are
starting to offer incentives to couple who are planning not to have children
i.e.
One thing is
for sure, according to the Constitution of the
Human Rights is also about freedom of expression,
which is what we are all doing here in this discussion; participating in a
discourse on whether or not the society should sanction same sex marriage or
unions. Parents have the right to educate their children in their own way.
However, the aim here should not be segregation but integration into a cohesive
whole: to promote universal harmony and peaceful coexistence. It is the human
rights of lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender citizens that are being
violated due to the social constructs and absolute
concepts.
Our government has a compelling interest to sanction
gay marriages for a multitude of reasons among which include protection for gay
citizens who wish to marry, forming civil unions to create financial stability
and to insure their future pursuit of happiness; to promote tolerance among
those who strongly oppose gay marriages by creating a legal framework in which
heterosexual and homosexual marriages can coexist; and to help support children
of gay parents by removing the legal roadblocks to inheritance, health
insurance, family leave and any other rights and benefits afforded opposite-sex
couples.
Some people have argued that those in the majority
should be able to set the standards of decency for others to follow. This is a
fundamental tenet of Christianity. I found this website http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
where it states that Christianity has the most adherents. I do believe that all the other religions
combined well outnumber the Christians. However, does the fact that there are
more Christians give Christianity the right to establish what is considered
normal for everybody else? There are other creation stories in the sacred texts
of some of these other religions i.e. Atum, Asexual
God of Ancient Egypt. What makes Christianity's creation story the right one?
Does any religion have the right to dictate reality to the others? Creation
stories are often cited by people to support their idea that the Creator’s
design was heterosexuality and not homosexuality. How can one even argue about
gay marriage when the ones we are arguing with cling to such absolute concepts?
When we set aside the objections of religion, we are
left with the human rights issues surrounding same-sex unions and the historicity
of marriage evolving over the millennia. Whatever the semantics people want to
play with words like "marriage", "union", or partnership”
essentially the issue is about two people wanting to be together, for whatever
reason, who intend on spending their lives together, in pursuit of future
happiness. We don’t need a license to love another human being. As Schiffren said in her essay, what's in a "piece of
paper?" But to most heterosexual couples in this world, that “piece of
paper” means everything. Why can’t it mean everything to a homosexual couple?
[1]
Stoddard, Thomas B. (1988). Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal. Barnett and Bedau (Eds.) Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A
Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with
[2]
Schiffren, Lisa. (1996). Gay Marriages: an Oxymoron. Barnett and Bedau (Eds.) Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A
Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with
[3] National
Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. (2002). Our Purpose: What
is “
Retrieved
[4]
[5]
American Psychological Association. (1995). Lesbian and gay parenting.
Retrieved
[6]
Ehrencrona, Andreas (2000). The History of Sexuality: Summary. Retrieved
[7]
Boswell, John (1979) The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective. Excerpts from the keynote address made by
Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979
Retrieved
[8]
Egyptology.com (2003) The Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Knumhotep. Sponsored by KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient
[9] Malik, Faris (1999) “Born
Eunuchs”: Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World. About the Author. Retrieved
[10] Malik, Faris (1999) “Born Eunuchs”:
Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World. The Third Gender in Ancient
[11]
United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights: General Assembly
Proclamation. Retrieved