The Irish Times - "Making A Nonsense Of Marriage"

Da!

Hi Folks,

Unfortunately this one is similar in theme to the recent Examiner article. In particular the last couple of paragraphs made me gag.

Making a nonsense of marriage
By John Waters, 29/11/04

Perhaps the most unhelpful, if not damaging, word in Irish political discourse in my lifetime has been "moral", writes John Waters.

Time and again, we have engaged in discussions about whether we should go the "modern" way or the "moral" way, when really we should have been talking about what was useful. Discussions about morality are interesting and important, but they do not address the salient aspects of public issues from the viewpoint of the common good.

The reason we prosecute and punish murderers, for example, is not to make a moral statement but to discourage the wholesale slaughter of human beings by others who find them inconvenient. Similarly with the "moral civil war", fought over the "liberal agenda" of contraception, divorce and abortion, which dominated the last quarter of the last century.

The reason we should have pause for thought about a liberal free-for-all is not because this would amount to encouragement of sinners, but for the same reason we see fit to discourage murder: to protect our society from damage or collapse.

The reason many of the discussions we have had on these issues has been unhelpful - in the sense of failing to anticipate the social consequences of what is termed liberalism - is that defenders of the status quo were almost exclusively intervening on moral and religious grounds.

There are profound arguments, without any reference to religion or morals, to be made against, for example, both abortion and divorce. Contraception is a different matter. There may be rational arguments as to why pieces of rubber are damaging to society, but I have yet to hear them. If the argument is against promiscuity, then the social interest needs to have this separated out from questions rooted in puritanism and piety.

Why this has been such a catastrophic matter relates to the fact that the debates we've had about the "liberal agenda" have been carried, to the extent that they have, not on objective merits but largely on the back of a neurotic reaction against Catholicism. Because the counter arguments originated in Catholic traditionalism, it was easy to present the liberal agenda as representing some more modern, progressive and beneficially liberating option. At issue, we came to believe, was whether we wanted a bunch of dandruffed old men to continue dictating how we should live our lives.

During the divorce referendums, for example, the discussion became embroiled in the "moral" dimensions of marital break-up, when really the focus needed to be on the functionality of a society in which divorce was available. The debate was therefore dominated by false opposites: church teaching versus personal rights and "compassion". A more useful discussion would have been defined by a different set of opposites: personal rights versus a concept of collective rights centred on the idea that, though ostensibly individuated, human beings achieve autonomy in harmony with their society or not at all. This is what Bunreacht na hÉireann seeks to achieve: a society in which the common good is understood, not as the accumulation of several million sets of personal rights, but the vesting of those rights in a broader set.

Marriage is seen primarily not as an arrangement between two individuals but a partnership in which the State has an investment, arising from the fact that the family based on marriage is the crucible in which the next generation of citizens is nurtured.

The primary purpose of Bunreacht na hÉireann is not to impose "moral values", still less the "moral values of one particular faith". What it seeks to do, in this context, is ensure that children have a safe, secure and appropriate structure in which to grow in a healthy way. There is an escalating crisis that requires urgent attention here with regard to the way society has evolved to withhold such protections from large numbers of children, but this requires to be approached again from first principles.

Some religious leaders, perhaps anxious to develop reputations for "progressiveness", have intervened in the current debate about same-sex marriage in a way that implies there are no religious difficulties with such a concept. But even if homosexual marriage is no longer a problem for Jesus, it remains one for Caesar.

It is interesting, too, that the same liberal mouthpieces, who for decades demanded that Catholic clergy remain silent about matters of "private morality", now welcome such interventions when these appear to aid their cause.

There is, contrary to the repetitive assertion of vested interests, no "exclusion" of homosexuals from the institution of marriage and therefore no inappropriate discrimination.

What excludes homosexuals is the simple fact that such partnerships cannot procreate. The State is entitled, indeed obliged, to mount the same degree of opposition to the concept of marriage between, for example, two stamp collectors who do not qualify as an adult heterosexual couple, as between two men or two women who claim to be in a sexual relationship. God has enough to worry about.

I'm assuming he had to resort to the 'stamp collectors' example (jaysus) as the two farmers had already been used last week in the Examiner.

You can email the author at jwaters@irish-times.ie. Keep it civil.

segadreamcast

"What excludes homosexuals is the simple fact that such partnerships cannot procreate."

Given this line of thought - it seems inevitable to assume that he thinks infertile people should not be allowed marry either?

Stark

Oh dear god, how do these people find jobs? That article doesn't even make any sense, he starts off talking about "morality vs practicality" to make himself sound intelligent, then doesn't have anything to back it up with so ends up talking himself round in circles.

But even if homosexual marriage is no longer a problem for Jesus, it remains one for Caesar.

Indeed, what would Caesar think? :rolleyes:

Yoda

Is this polite?

Dear Mr Waters,

I noticed in your article of 29 November last your view on the exclusion of homosexuals from the institution of marriage. "What excludes homosexuals is the simple fact that such partnerships cannot procreate."

Why, in your view, are women who are past the menopause permitted to marry in this State?

Yoda

I received a reply. He spelled my surname incorrectly. Unfortunately, I am not able to post the response here.

This e-mail - and any files and attachments transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged. They are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Any views and opinions expressed are those of individual author/sender and are not necessarily shared or endorsed by The Irish Times Limited or any associated or related company. The content of this e-mail and any file or attachment transmitted with it may have been changed or altered without the consent of the author. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any review, dissemination, disclosure, alteration, printing, circulation or transmission of this e-mail and/or any file or attachment transmitted with it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

ixoy

Yoda wrote:

I received a reply. He spelled my surname incorrectly. Unfortunately, I am not able to post the response here.

Well without disclosing the contents, was the e-mail a satisfactory response?

Yoda

No, it was the usual "natural law" argument. Of course gays can marry, as long as they marry people of the opposite sex. Their unions with one another are prohibited because they don't serve society's need.

It wasn't very coherent, and dodged the question. "Barren women have the right to have babies" if I may misquote The Life of Brian.

Da!

Yeah - he replied to me as well. Basically saying that equality (i.e. marriage) will eventually risk serious damage to society...

He also uses 'homosexual' as opposed to 'gay'.

I think he needs to meet a nice young man and settle down. Any takers?

ixoy

Da! wrote:

Yeah - he replied to me as well. Basically saying that equality (i.e. marriage) will eventually risk serious damage to society...

Did he bother explaining how it exactly would risk serious damage to society? I hope he didn't go the "if we allow this, what will we allow next" route...

luckat

Surely marriage, acknowledged as a stabilising force in society, should be pressed on homosexual people - a substantial group within society?

Yoda

Waters is perfectly happy for "homosexuals" to marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Now there's a recipe for domestic and societal happiness....

moridin

Why clean up what you can brush under the carpet?

Half-Bicycle

I too am thinking of sending off a letter to Waters,

Dear Mr Waters,

I am writing an article which I hope to have published in Arses and their Reasons. I was wondering if you could help me out by replying to the following questions.

1) Why are you such an arse?
2) Have you always been an arse?
3) What would you say the qualities are of being an arse?
4) Do you look up to any famous arses for inspiration?

Yours Sincerely,

HB

Beruthiel

just saw this now!

anyways I had to write to him as he comes from the same town as my good self:

John
I have always been proud that you came from Castlerea, my family has lived there for more than 4 generations - however your article regarding homosexual marriages has greatly upset me.
For the life of me I do not understand why they cannot marry if they wish. Who does it hurt? How will it change mine or your life?
We as heterosexuals have it easy, we are in the majority and can dictate to everyone else as we wish, but do we have that right? I do not believe so.
If a homosexual couple wishes to marry and set up a home together, how do we have the right to take that happiness away from them? I certainly would not be happy if that right was taken away from me, I do not believe you would be either.
Compassion is what is need here and a little bit of less of the moral high ground.
Perhaps another article on the view point of a homosexual couple would be in order?
Regards
Anna Harte

I await his answer....

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Yoda

Two contracts are on offer. One, a contract between the State and two individuals, who agree to enter into that contract and to accept legal rights and responsibilities from the State. The other, a contract between a Church and two individuals, who agree to have their partnership "blessed" and "sanctioned" by that Church.

The word "marriage" may apply to either of these, depending on usage. In Mexico, the State requires that two people marry/enter-into-civil-union before a justice of the peace; those people may marry/get-blessed in a church as well, at their option – but the ceremonies are separate. In Ireland, the State allows a man and a woman to marry/enter-into-civil-union before a registrar, but also allows a priest to act as a registrar during a ceremony in which the man and the woman marry/get-blessed in a church.

There is no intrinsic reason why the term "marriage" cannot apply equally to same-sex as to opposite-sex partnerships. The Church does not own this word.

Hmm_Messiah

Sometimes I wonder about people's response to articles similar to the one posted. It often seems to me that if some one can write somrthing like that, claim those thoughts and beliefs as their own, as held by themselves as intelligent persons then and response, reaction is wasted simply because if some one can embrace thinking that is so obviously flawed they will never succeed at understanding your view point, or considering it with the possibility of changing how they see things.

That John Waters has this opinion of gay people and marriage has no signiifcance to me in the least. I get that he is a journalist, that it is published, that it might somehow contribute to continuing and even defending the present circumstances.

But at the end of the day Its just his opinion. And writign to the man serves little purpsoe for the reason i gave earlier. Writign of it here serves a purpose only in that it allows intelligent people consider the topic, and maybe identify mindsets that need to be challenged. But not individual minds. Definitely I've no interest in tinkering with Mr Waters mind.

Its unfortunate that he has a voice which we don't have. But I suppose even that's not the real truth. We each have voices. The voices of all the contibutors here outnumber his. What is needed are opportunities to have our voices heard. ANd in this thread we are "preaching to the converted".

THe point about infertile women (or men) , or post menopausal women simply and completely destroys his argument. But thats because Mr Waters seems to only be able to hold one concept at a time.

Leavign aside the religious understanding of marriage or pairbonding , of course society wants to nurture an arrangement which mostt of contributes to the continuation of society. all entities seek to continue. Thats a basic drive. But Hopefully Mr Waters doesn't all human beings only basic drives. Hopefully he can acknowledge, even enjoy the fullness of what i understand to be a person, to be alive,to have awareness, intelligence, humour, emotions, aspirations. And humans then with these more than base drives might develop socieites that consequently concerns itsself with more than simply procreation and continuation. And of course society does. it recognises as valid and significant and worthwhile childless marriages. ANd if it embraces them then the "lack of procreation" argument doesnt work as to prohibit same sex marriage. This is without even speaking of the ability of same sex marriages to have and raise children! adopted or biological.

He also speaks of the constitution as something we as Irish people are committed to serving. Again this is so clearly unture I wonder about his cognitive facilities. The constitution serves society, its there as a declaration of who we are as a people,as a community, and then it puts in place regulation and values to protect that comunity, to protect and serve that community's needs (identified as a nation).
But as a community or needs, or aspiration can change. He is going to embrace a 70 yr old document to support his argument at a time when so much can change in the shrtestof time, not years, but a period of months can now see values, opinions, technology . Or does he hold all truths as absolute ? never changing.

Maybe my understanding of marriage is will and extreme. I see it as two people loving each other committing their lives to each other sharing their experience of life intimately. The ceremony is a declaration of this and just ritual. I won't go into the role of ritual in society . Legally it has significance regarding ownership of property, inheritance, recognising next of kin etc etc.

And this is where all the concerns, all the opposition confuses my little head. Marriage as an emotional bonding happens when any two people declare that love for each other, in a church, or a room, or some mornign when they wake together and realise they want to do this for ever. To that extent marriage is available to any person and cannot be denied. And I cannot see any legal argument against same sex marriage that stand sup. I only see legal argument for it. As it is society is NOT protecting the rights of its own constituents.

The suggestion that two stamp collectors can't marry for a similar reason that two gay men makes me wonder can Mr Waters really really believe what he has written. Technically in fact they could marry just for the darn heck of it, unless of course they were the same sex. and being the same sex they can't presently, not because it would be a fruitless marriage (lol no pun intended) but because that's the present law. Law influenced by the thinking, the needs, the religious argument of another time.

Many react to the customs and traditions of other religions and societies, where marriage is imposed on individuals, where your spouse is choosen for you, where womens rights seems so obviousl undervalued, and protest the injustice. Yet here we are in 2004 and if a boy meets a boy and falls in love, and wants simply everything his sister had when she met aboy and fell in love
, he is told no, he is not allowed. Because, according to John Waters, they can't contribute more to the species!

How truly pathetic and awfully sad that some one can think that way. How depressing that a grown man cannot empathise with the beautiful fully human range of emotion and feeling and concerns two people have when they share love, and gender.