A blog about LGBTQ+ History, Art, Literature, Politics, Culture, and Whatever Else Comes to Mind. The Closet Professor is a fun (sometimes tongue-in-cheek, sometimes very serious) approach to LGBTQ+ Culture.
Pages
▼
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Same-Sex Marriage
Research has shown that marriage provides substantial psychological and physical health benefits due to the moral, economic and social support extended to married couples. Conversely, recent empirical evidence has illustrated the harmful psychological effect of policies restricting marriage rights for same-sex couples. Additionally, children raised by same-sex couples have been shown to be on par with the children of opposite-sex couples in their psychological adjustment, cognitive abilities and social functioning.
The American Psychological Association. Aug. 11, 2010 press release “American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage”
I am not persuaded that samesex "marriage" is a good term. The word "marriage" gives too many the flash point for objections. And I think they are right if one accepts the Biblical definition of the word. If the gay community had chosen some other term - i.e., "union", "relationship", "association" or even "contract" the opposition would not be as strong. The same benfits/obligations and relationship would exist, without the ability, or at least most of it, for the objections to be raised.
I have no difficutly with two males or two females chosing to live together under whatever arrangment they may choose. This is their business and not mine. I have a male friend that love very much. He is married to a female, and we call each other "husband", and we honor each other as such. So, we too adopt the Biblical expression "husband", but I do not support the "marriage" of two same sex persons....and if were able to be united in some formal setting, it would not be what we would call "marriage".
The definition of words changes over time. The Bible is NOT the end-all for everyone in the world, nor is it the reference for every situation in the world. I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, but here is what "marriage" means - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage, and according to this etymology, the word wasn't even around when the Bible was written so it is a translation from whatever the original Aramaic or Greek meant, and since it appears around 1250 or so, I'd guess some of the earlier translations were where it first appeared. But it had already been used in different contexts than just a religious one. Since the word has morphed, there is no reason to oppose using it, even if there might be less opposition (there wouldn't be - the haters would call it a smoke screen for what we "really mean").
Before you decide you don't support same sex marriage, read this: http://www.oursimplelives.com/2012/01/stop-deportations-story-of-bi-national.html
Joe: Those who argue that "marriage" -- perhaps not the most basic definition but the social purpose and the practical meaning has not changed in "thousands of years" are just being intellectually dishonest. Women for the longest time were just considered "property." People marry for all different reasons instead of just child rearing. As a historian, you know that marriage in the past was often used for political purposes and for influence peddling.
And the silliest of all, that if we allow same sex marriage it is the end of the human race, because people will stop pro-creating? 5% of the population won't stop the other 95% from having babies.
Thank you for commenting. I always want to know what you have to say. However, I have a few rules: 1. Always be kind and considerate to others. 2. Do not degrade other people's way of thinking. 3. I have the right to refuse or remove any comment I deem inappropriate. 4. If you comment on a post that was published over 14 days ago, it will not post immediately. Those comments are set for moderation. If it doesn't break the above rules, it will post.
Joeblow...
ReplyDeleteI am not persuaded that samesex "marriage" is a good term. The word "marriage" gives too many the flash point for objections. And I think they are right if one accepts the Biblical definition of the word.
If the gay community had chosen some other term - i.e., "union", "relationship", "association" or even "contract" the opposition would not be as strong. The same benfits/obligations and relationship would exist, without the ability, or at least most of it, for the objections to be raised.
I have no difficutly with two males or two females chosing to live together under whatever arrangment they may choose. This is their business and not mine. I have a male friend that love very much. He is married to a female, and we call each other "husband", and we honor each other as such. So, we too adopt the Biblical expression "husband", but I do not support the "marriage" of two same sex persons....and if were able to be united in some formal setting, it would not be what we would call "marriage".
The definition of words changes over time. The Bible is NOT the end-all for everyone in the world, nor is it the reference for every situation in the world. I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, but here is what "marriage" means - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage, and according to this etymology, the word wasn't even around when the Bible was written so it is a translation from whatever the original Aramaic or Greek meant, and since it appears around 1250 or so, I'd guess some of the earlier translations were where it first appeared. But it had already been used in different contexts than just a religious one. Since the word has morphed, there is no reason to oppose using it, even if there might be less opposition (there wouldn't be - the haters would call it a smoke screen for what we "really mean").
ReplyDeleteBefore you decide you don't support same sex marriage, read this:
http://www.oursimplelives.com/2012/01/stop-deportations-story-of-bi-national.html
Peace <3
Jay
Joe: Those who argue that "marriage" -- perhaps not the most basic definition but the social purpose and the practical meaning has not changed in "thousands of years" are just being intellectually dishonest. Women for the longest time were just considered "property." People marry for all different reasons instead of just child rearing. As a historian, you know that marriage in the past was often used for political purposes and for influence peddling.
ReplyDeleteAnd the silliest of all, that if we allow same sex marriage it is the end of the human race, because people will stop pro-creating? 5% of the population won't stop the other 95% from having babies.