Monday, March 05, 2007
Marriage
The recent proposed ballot resolution in Washington to force married couples to reproduce or face mandatory annulment sent me running off to two sermons by John Piper on "Staying Married Is Not About Staying In Love" - Part One & Part Two.
We have to make good arguements for keeping marriage between one man and one women, or I am afraid all will be lost. This resolution in all it's spiteful, self-indulgent meanness makes a point worth considering. The arguement that mariage is for reproduction and therefore the survival of society cuts both ways. If we can't do better than that, my wife and I need to go ahead and and file for divorce. Joe Carter started to hit on something when he said:
We really need to look for the core of what a marriage is. Which brings me back to Piper. His sermons are really excellent pointing out in Part One that marriage is about demonstrating God's glory. I agree, but that arguement will not work in the public/political arena. In Part Two; however, Piper begins to looks at what I think may be the seed of a good civil arguement. Marriage is an act of submission. Piper notes the parallels to the gospel and that is great, but such cannot, again, carry the day in a religiously pluralistic civil debate.
But the idea of the submissive parallel is one that I think can be used. Our society, in order to function requires, in some instances, the submission of the individual will to the good of the whole. It happens every day. The simple act of waiting in line instead of pushing to the front is an act of submission to the greater good. (Think about it....)
The key, the very key, difference between the commonly held notion of traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is that idea of submission. In a traditional marriage, ideally, the spouses submit to one another, holding the other as more important than themselves. Admittedly, this is rare these days, but I think it remains the theoretical ideal. Same-sex marriage, by it's own admission, is just the opposite - it is an expression of self, not a subjegation of same.
By maintaining marriage as a societal institution built on submission, we reinforce the necessity of submission to the greater good for the functioning of society. If we define marriage in terms of self-expression we decrease the greater civil good. If something as important and vital as marriage becomes a method of pure self-expression, then why not also something like pushing to the front of the line?
Initial thoughts....Comments?
Related Tags: marriage, same sex marriage, reproduction, definition, public argument
We have to make good arguements for keeping marriage between one man and one women, or I am afraid all will be lost. This resolution in all it's spiteful, self-indulgent meanness makes a point worth considering. The arguement that mariage is for reproduction and therefore the survival of society cuts both ways. If we can't do better than that, my wife and I need to go ahead and and file for divorce. Joe Carter started to hit on something when he said:
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.But that still defines marriage in terms of sex, at least some forms of what is commonly considered sex, and could still serve to punish people for things out of their control. For example those with medical conditions, some of which even in this day and age of Viagra, prevents proper function. Also, I think it really is a bad idea to have government in the bedroom, and as long as government is to sanction marriage, such a definition would do so.
We really need to look for the core of what a marriage is. Which brings me back to Piper. His sermons are really excellent pointing out in Part One that marriage is about demonstrating God's glory. I agree, but that arguement will not work in the public/political arena. In Part Two; however, Piper begins to looks at what I think may be the seed of a good civil arguement. Marriage is an act of submission. Piper notes the parallels to the gospel and that is great, but such cannot, again, carry the day in a religiously pluralistic civil debate.
But the idea of the submissive parallel is one that I think can be used. Our society, in order to function requires, in some instances, the submission of the individual will to the good of the whole. It happens every day. The simple act of waiting in line instead of pushing to the front is an act of submission to the greater good. (Think about it....)
The key, the very key, difference between the commonly held notion of traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is that idea of submission. In a traditional marriage, ideally, the spouses submit to one another, holding the other as more important than themselves. Admittedly, this is rare these days, but I think it remains the theoretical ideal. Same-sex marriage, by it's own admission, is just the opposite - it is an expression of self, not a subjegation of same.
By maintaining marriage as a societal institution built on submission, we reinforce the necessity of submission to the greater good for the functioning of society. If we define marriage in terms of self-expression we decrease the greater civil good. If something as important and vital as marriage becomes a method of pure self-expression, then why not also something like pushing to the front of the line?
Initial thoughts....Comments?
Related Tags: marriage, same sex marriage, reproduction, definition, public argument
