tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post1708749208627770735..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Civil Marriage vs Civil Union: Why NOT Leave Marriage to Churches?Eric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-78207546082829253842014-02-11T10:14:39.820-06:002014-02-11T10:14:39.820-06:00At the end of the first paragraph of the above com...At the end of the first paragraph of the above comment, the phrase "but not the room for variation even within each quadrant" should have been "but with room for variation even within each quadrant." I think I was changing it from "not without room" and decided the double negative was unneeded--but failed to fully change the sentence accordingly. Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-51448357316102983002014-02-11T10:11:30.257-06:002014-02-11T10:11:30.257-06:00It is not my intent to generalize but to identify ...It is not my intent to generalize but to identify a class of people for whom a marital institution limited to heterosexual couples excludes members of that class from enjoying goods that marriage makes available to others. To make this case, I do not need to make generalizations about everyone who self-identifies as gay. There is obviously immense diversity here. When I talk about sexual orientation in my classes, I represent it in terms of a field defined by two independent variables: degree of attraction to the opposite sex and degree of attraction to the same sex. I then divide the field into four quadrants (asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual) but not the room for variation even within each quadrant.<br /><br />It may well be that you fall either into the bisexual quadrant or the homosexual one but edging towards bisexuality. Either way, the reality of your experience does not determine whether or not there is a class of people who, unlike you, have so little opposite-sex attraction that they cannot sustain romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex or enjoy heterosexual sex absent fantasy. But I have enough friends whose self-reports of a lifetime of attempts to "play straight" establish that the class I have in mind is real and not trivially small. I do not mean to say that all with same-sex attraction fall into this class (I know plenty of people for whom this is not true), nor do I need to say this to make the case I want to make. <br /><br />If it sounded as if I was generalizing about every person who self-identifies as gay or lesbian, I apologize for conveying that impression. I wish you well on your relationship and hope it continues to be a source of meaning for you.<br /><br />My argument is not much affected by the fact that the good of having one's intimate partnerships (defined as I do above) recognized and supported by law hasn't been a central concern of marriage in other societies and historical eras--so long as it is a good that marriage as it exists today is making available to some while denying to others. And such intimacy clearly has become a normatively central feature of marriage in the modern Western world. If you haven't read Stephanie Coontz's MARRIAGE: A HISTORY, it's worth a look on this topic.<br /><br />The deeper issue raised by your remarks here has to do with the coherence of making romantic intimacy as central to our understanding of marriage as it has become. It certainly true that romantic idealism about marriage has led to false expectations and subsequent disappointment. But a partnership defined by romantic and sexual intimacy needn't be idealized artificially. Consider a relationship that, in the beginning, is characterized by strong sexual interest and romantic feelings--that complex of intense emotions and desires we call "being in love." Predictably, those intense feelings fade into something less all-consuming. The couple pursues various individual projects that lead to less time together. Maybe kids become the focus for several years--and tag-team parenting so that the other partner can do other things leads to little time together. Before long the couple are almost strangers to one another. But they remember those strong feelings and want them back, and so they work on rebuilding that closeness--in part fueled by the memory of what was so rewarding and meaningful to them both. It never is exactly as it was at the beginning, but a settled affection is layered with moments of strong romantic feeling, and a mutually satisfying sex life continues to be a source of closeness even if it is nothing like the intensity and frequency of early in the relationship.<br /><br />A relationship of that sort fits what I have in mind by an intimate partnership, and is far more realistic than the idealization that leads to so much disappointment. And this more realistic kind of intimacy is just as unattainable as an unrealistic ideal with a partner who falls outside the class of those towards whom you have sexual and romantic attraction. Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-61914971316168367752014-02-06T10:52:38.305-06:002014-02-06T10:52:38.305-06:00I'm the same commenter as Anonymous above. Ha...I'm the same commenter as Anonymous above. Having read the other posts you linked to, I don't think I've misconstrued your point at all.<br /><br />I do still find it quite striking that your "distinctive good that marriage confers" is so modern in flavor, a formulation that most cultures would not have recognized. Procreation, yes. Companionship, yes. Continually falling in love with a person whose body perfectly matches your "type"? No sensible culture has ever suggested this is the primary purpose of marriage. The contemporary feeling that this is the primary purpose of marriage is doubtless a main contributor to the divorce rate. This "romantic" aspect of marriage seems far more fragile and impermanent then the types of "love" which I identified. Sure, it's great when you can get it, but most couples go through periods of time when they don't have it.<br /><br />But you'll say that gay people can't have feelings of romance and sexual attraction for someone of the opposite gender. I beg to differ. Up until I met my current spouse, my spontaneous sexual attractions or fantasies were nearly 100% towards males (largely minors, by the way---something which made the idea that there's nothing to be done about one's natural orientation particularly unappealing). Yet, I discovered that in the actual context of a relationship with a woman (whom I of course did not conceal this issue from) that sexual feelings for her were possible. I found that tight embrace with someone you care about triggers pathways in the brain towards arousal. I married her, and everything turned out fine. I do NOT fantasize that she is a man, or anything like that. Perhaps you know some specific people who did that, but you shouldn't generalize that into a stereotype about all of us. <br /><br />Also, you should be aware of selection bias here---the relationships like mine (and I have a friend in common with at least one other successful case) which succeed tend to keep private, whereas the failures tend to be more public. You won't see me sharing my story at a Gay Alliance club anywhere, or in the news because I brought a callboy home and got a messy divorce.<br /><br />Perhaps you would therefore say that I'm "really" a bisexual---and I suppose in a sense you would be right---but that strikes me as begging the question with a definition. Obviously if you *define* a gay person as someone who immutably can never love a woman, than that's true by definition, but then I highly doubt that this can be diagnosed by kids in high school based e.g. on responsivity or lack thereof to porn.<br /><br />In fact I find the whole concept of "sexual orientation" a singularly unambiguous and unhelpful concept. I don't mean to suggest that there is no such thing as orientation, of course there is. But the idea gets people to fixate on causal sexual fantasies as being somehow definitive for who they are. But I think that healthy sexuality is something that you build up with a specific person over time, over the long haul. Has my sexual orientation "changed"? With respect to strangers on the street, probably not very much. But who cares? The important thing is that I am sexually interested in my wife. I find our sex life very enjoyable and stimulating (not perfect, of course, but whose is? that's not the standard.) I don't want your pity since I am quite happy, thank you very much.Stranger at the Tablenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-40253586295622987502014-02-05T15:43:59.421-06:002014-02-05T15:43:59.421-06:00You are commenting on a parenthetical remark in wh...You are commenting on a parenthetical remark in which I was attempting to be brief so as not to distract attention from my primary focus. I chose to offer, in parentheses, a very quick gloss on a line of argument I've developed more fully elsewhere.<br /> Apologies if this led to putting matters in a way that led to you to misconstrue my point.<br /><br />By "intimate partnership" I had in mind a sexual partnership between persons who were romantically and sexually attracted to one another and who formed a partnership in part characterized by a commitment to nurturing and expressing romantic and sexual intimacy over time (as well as other forms of intimacy). <br /><br />It is still possible to have sex with someone who falls outside the entire class of people towards whom you have sexual feelings--but to do it and do it consistently typically requires fantasy and pretense--that is, one pretends to be having sex with someone other than the person one is having sex with. Thus, the sex is not an intimate sharing of two selves (how can you be sharing yourself with another person if you are pretending that the other person is someone else?). As such, it does not qualify as intimate in the sense I have in mind. <br /><br />A relationship built around such sexual interaction is possible, but strikes me as rather sad. If one of the partners IS sexually attracted to the other, it's even sadder. Pity, rather than condemnation, seems the appropriate response in such cases.<br /><br />In any event, the distinctive good that marriage confers--recognition of partnerships characterized by romantic and sexual intimacy in the indicated sense--IS being denied to gays and lesbians so long as marriage is restricted to heterosexual pairings.<br /><br />For a fuller explication of the argument I was gesturing towards in my parenthetical, you can check out <a href="http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2011/12/philosophical-public-service.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> or <a href="http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2010/08/same-sex-civil-marriage-legal.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a>.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-12822347026249973982014-02-05T11:49:05.930-06:002014-02-05T11:49:05.930-06:00You say above that gays and lesbians "don'...You say above that gays and lesbians "don't have and couldn't ever form an intimate partnership" with someone of the opposite gender. Isn't this obviously false?<br /><br />Throughout human history, the large majority of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have---either because of arranged marriages, cultural expectations, sincere religious or ethical beliefs, or a desire for biological children---chosen to marry spouses of the opposite gender. The idea that sexual attraction is the primary or best reason to choose a marriage partner is a feature of contemporary Western society, but historically it has not been the norm.<br /><br />Now you may not approve of these cultural situations, but to say that the marriages which resulted were not "intimate partnerships" seems plainly incorrect. These relationships involved physical sex, raising children together, and often I imagine a strong emotional bond and friendship between the persons in question. How is that not an "intimate partnership"?<br /><br />I find it ironic that a supporter of gay marriage would make such bigoted and hurtful comments regarding the practices of a sexual minority which you disapprove of. Couples like these can be monogamous, loyal, faithful, and fruitful---but you are calling the very validity of their partnerships into question! Aren't you doing the very thing you condemn in others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-34110547177726148912014-01-30T13:05:42.753-06:002014-01-30T13:05:42.753-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.JDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150403611947065465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-7022644553009363492014-01-30T10:11:16.730-06:002014-01-30T10:11:16.730-06:00You can probably easily work through the whole blo...You can probably easily work through the whole blog post and add the proper qualifiers to "discrimination" as needed. Putting things that way is clumsier but more philosophically precise--and what I would have said were I writing a professional philosophy paper on this topic rather than a blog post.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26342552348796282392014-01-30T10:05:56.129-06:002014-01-30T10:05:56.129-06:00Actually, on rereading what I wrote, your concern ...Actually, on rereading what I wrote, your concern seems to be more along the following lines: To say that conservative religious communities view marriage as "essentially discriminatory" while the state (and liberal communities) have a more egalitarian view is misleading, because the state and liberal churches also discriminate in marriage, just in a different place. I suppose, for clarity, I should have said, "essentially discriminatory with respect to sexual orientation." Still, I think that is implicit in the above. If not, I make it explicit here: The state is moving towards a practice which treats marriage as neither the kind of institution that is by its nature essentially discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation nor as one in which discrimination under the law can be justified by appeal to any of the foundational values of a liberal democracy. If the state continues to call what it confers marriage, and continues to treat it this way, that communicates a message about marriage--especially about what it is--that is at odds with the position adopted by conservative churches. While conservative churches remain free to practice their own idea of marriage, the normalization of one in which marriage is not essentially discriminatory with the respect to sexual orientation will likely lead to such practice being progressively viewed with disapproval. And a state practice that is not discriminatory with respect to sexual orientation, if it is a practice that is explicitly viewed as conferring marriage, will likely have this normalizing effect.<br /><br />In other words, society is more likely to view discriminatory practices of conservative churches as unjustified when and where the state engages in similar practices in a way that does not discriminate in the same way.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-64595452343059963932014-01-30T09:49:17.132-06:002014-01-30T09:49:17.132-06:00Since I have argued in numerous other posts for th...Since I have argued in numerous other posts for the judgment that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unjust discrimination, I didn't defend that claim here (so that I could focus on a related topic). You are right that the key issue is unjust discrimination and not merely discrimination, although in looser discourse "discrimination" is routinely taken to include the "unjust" qualifier unless on specifies otherwise. But it's probably sensible in these conversations not to follow that convention, even when the focus is on a tangential issue, since it opens one up to retorts that would be utterly misplaced if the "unjust" qualifier had been made explicit throughout.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-61302078007220253642014-01-29T15:05:34.787-06:002014-01-29T15:05:34.787-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.JDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150403611947065465noreply@blogger.com