Supporting same sex marriage a moral must for conservatives, says David Brooks (homosexuality, choice)

[Green Gaia]

This Op-Ed is a few years old, but still relevent. I'd like to hear others thoughts on his points. Please read the whole thing, it's not long.

The Power of Marriage by David Brooks, a conservative.

Just a couple of snippets:

Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else.


Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract.


Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment.


Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency.


You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage.

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Maize

This Op-Ed is a few years old, but still relevent. I'd like to hear others thoughts on his points. Please read the whole thing, it's not long.

The Power of Marriage by David Brooks, a conservative.

Hey I agree with him all around, but what do I know, I'm just a godless liberal.

I have made that argument to conservatives against same-sex marriage before (tho it's much more powerful coming from a conservative): Look, you won. Yay! You've been harping about how promiscuity is rampant and the family is under assault, and here are these people saying "We want to get married, commit ourselves to each other for life, raise a family." You got what you want, so what's the prob?

And I'm probably one of few liberals who agree with the rest of his article as well. We don't take sex seriously enough. It's become just another thing to do for fun. We don't value our potential sex partners enough as loving human beings, as opposed to the fulfillers of our own pleasure. We don't respect the sanctity of marriage and commitment in general. This is true for conservatives as well as liberals.

As I said, I agree with him all around.

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by Op-Ed Piece

We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Exactly! Marriage calls for devotion and encourages a couple to stay together and to work out problems when they arise, rather than split (granted not with all married couples ). No other format of a relationship does that in such a way as marriage. I think one would feel more devoted to someone that is his/her wife or husband or spouse than just a girlfriend or boyfriend or partner. It's nice to see a friendly perspective on this issue from a conservative.

[Sunstone]

If society has a vested interest, as some would argue, in promoting stable sexual relationships, then society has a vested interest in promoting gay marriage.

[robtex]

In the entiretly of the same sex debate this article seems to be much more honest in the motives and ideas. In the abrhamic religious idea, marriage is:
1) a duty
2) a one time thing
3) a neccessity for the duty of producing children (pro-creation)

Within the context of the basics of the question the qouted text in the OP is true. True being assertained upon a metaphycial belief. A belief making it absolute by the contigency of the source of the perception.

Most people, self included, who dismiss man/women marriage also dismiss one or all three listed, or Others accept 1-3 but they also accept the notion of plurality of the concept of marriage which includes 1-3 and that others may not subscribe to their paradigm and that is ok.

So if we were going to get to the heart of the matter it seems the two paramount areas of contention would be:

1) Can one know God's wants for all society?
2) Is 1-3 univesally valid and the same for all people
3) Is pluralism unacceptable in a society within the scope of marriage?

[Jaymes]

In some ways this raises my hackles as much as anti-gay marriage speech. "Aigh, people are living together and having sex instead of getting married!" isn't too attractive, even if it is slanted in our "favor".

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Jensa

In some ways this raises my hackles as much as anti-gay marriage speech. "Aigh, people are living together and having sex instead of getting married!" isn't too attractive, even if it is slanted in our "favor".

I didn't read the article that way at all. I saw him as criticizing 1) promiscuity (which is not the same thing as living together outside of marriage) and 2) not taking marriage vows seriously enough. He also criticizes straight couples who shack-up together, have a kid or two, and then split. While I understand that there are all sorts of situations where that might happen and it's not anyone's fault, I think he has a point.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

If society has a vested interest, as some would argue, in promoting stable sexual relationships, then society has a vested interest in promoting gay marriage.

Oh dear...no. Marriage must be more than just a sexual relationship, much more. I don't doubt that a same-sex couple can love each other deeply and profoundly, but the stability of a sexual relationship is definitely not the issue. The issue, as always, is that gay sex is non-procreative and marriage is a union and an institution established and enabled only by couples who can produce children and add to the multiplicity of the human tribe, so to speak. Furthermore, couples must be able to raise children in a creative and balanced environment which gay couples cannot provide: only a male and female, father and mother parenting structure provides this. I am going to be challenged on that, I know, but take your best shot if you will.

Why do homosexuals want to marry? Why? What difference does it make to have a ring on your finger or to utter some vow before a congregation that could mean as much if not more in private with partners? Marriage celebrates the union of the sexes male and female: what gays are campaigning for is status and lifestyle egalitarianism, not sacred union. It simply cannot be that same sex relationships, male-male or female-female are possessed of the same level of sanctity as heterosexual ones, and no matter how unjust or iniquitous this seems to you the fact cannot be changed because it is written into the very laws of Nature.

That said, I say let the gays marry. Why not? I would regard it as a social experiment, not to mention a legal one. However, when the inevitable problems arise and it all comes crashing down to the detriment of society as a whole, straight and gay, the family and the individual, then will the homosexuals accept responsibility for the resulting mess? I don't know, all I can say is I won't be one of the people saying "Told you so..."

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by shaktinah

I didn't read the article that way at all. I saw him as criticizing 1) promiscuity (which is not the same thing as living together outside of marriage) and 2) not taking marriage vows seriously enough. He also criticizes straight couples who shack-up together, have a kid or two, and then split. While I understand that there are all sorts of situations where that might happen and it's not anyone's fault, I think he has a point.

"We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity."

Emphasis mine. This guy's beef is with people who claim to be devoted to each other and don't want to get married. The way I see it, this is no different than people railing on about the sins of homosexuality... it's someone sticking their nose into someone else's life and telling them how they should live it when it's none of their business to begin with.

[Jaymes]

Originally Posted by Godlike

The issue, as always, is that gay sex is non-procreative and marriage is a union and an institution established and enabled only by couples who can produce children and add to the multiplicity of the human tribe, so to speak.

I can only assume you'll be first in line to protest the lack of fertility test for couples wishing to be married. After all, what business have they getting married if they can't procreate?

Furthermore, couples must be able to raise children in a creative and balanced environment which gay couples cannot provide: only a male and female, father and mother parenting structure provides this. I am going to be challenged on that, I know, but take your best shot if you will.

Here's your challenge: Prove it. Cite a nonreligious psychological or parenting association that has evidence a same-sex couple is bad for the child. I doubt you'll find one.

Why do homosexuals want to marry? Why? What difference does it make to have a ring on your finger or to utter some vow before a congregation that could mean as much if not more in private with partners?

Because marriage also grants civil rights that nothing else, including civil unions, does. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, custody of a child in the death of a partner... all of these and many more are granted by marriage and marriage alone. It's not "just" a ring.

It simply cannot be that same sex relationships, male-male or female-female are possessed of the same level of sanctity as heterosexual ones, and no matter how unjust or iniquitous this seems to you the fact cannot be changed because it is written into the very laws of Nature.

I suggest you tell that to the many devoted same-sex animal couples. And before we go down that rabbit trail: Yes, they are animals. I'm not saying that because animals do it that it is justified. It is natural, though. It happens in nature.

That said, I say let the gays marry. Why not? I would regard it as a social experiment, not to mention a legal one.

Words cannot describe how I feel on your ability to so callously refer to the marriages of literally millions of people as a social experiment. Do you treat all love and devotion that way, or are gays just special enough to get it?

However, when the inevitable problems arise and it all comes crashing down to the detriment of society as a whole, straight and gay, the family and the individual, then will the homosexuals accept responsibility for the resulting mess? I don't know, all I can say is I won't be one of the people saying "Told you so..."

Might wanna head over to the Netherlands... you'll be able to (not) say "Told you so" there first.