yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Sometimes I think it's the emergence of that historically improbable institution, romantic love as the basis for marriage, that more than anything else makes the topic of who gets to marry who so loaded. For most cultures and most of human history, marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, was a purely pragmatic contractual relationship meant to provide a stable environment for childrearing, and through that, the perpetuation of one's caste, clan, tribe or nation and their practices. It might also be seen as divinely ordained (basic social institutions generally are) or particularly demanding of self-sacrificing and compassionate behavior (as you'd expect when the mission at hand is so central to longterm group survival) but the main point was always to ensure a thriving next generation. Not individual "fulfillment" through the sanctioning of one's own particular desires--who you personally might prefer to make a life with, how many children you might personally prefer to have, etc. The idea that such choices are "rights" due to individuals--ANY individuals--would've seemed dangerously self-indulgent to pretty much anyone anywhere 2000 years ago, just as it still seems to most in societies today where arranged marriages remain the norm. To them, what we call romance is ultimately indistinguishable from lust, and has nothing to do with the enduring sort of love that--if you're lucky--develops over years of shared, patient and selfless endurance of the trials and tribulations building a home and a family together inevitably entail. An understanding of marriage as submission to the expectations of the community as embodied by tradition--not just to God.
I know I keep harping on this point, but I really do think this particular transformation of marriage was far more portentous and radical than anything like the legalization of interracial marriage--or, for that matter, gay marriage--could ever be, and in some sense is what makes those transformations conceivable. I love all those Bible passages about the ideal marriage and family as much as anyone else, and very much enjoy the thought that my own reflects them. But in the end I didn't get married because I wanted to honor God, give back to the world by raising just and righteous children, fulfill all the commandments, blah blah blah. I got married because I was in love--and my entire sense that all those other wonderful-sounding things were now within my power (or should I say, worth my time to try?) to achieve followed from that. If those are the fruits, then romantic love was the ground they sprang from; in love was where I found the potential to realize all those other things in my life to begin with.
It would be hard to overemphasize what a radically distinct idea this is. I know from trying to discuss it with traditional Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians in India (all of whom practice arranged marriage) that it really makes no sense at all to them. And I do understand and respect the wisdom behind the take-your-due-burden-and-prayerfully-accept-your-fate approach to marriage and family they have. They correctly point out that the volatile and unpredictable nature of romantic love leads to a divorce rate that far outstrips theirs; that the passions which are indulged through dating and courtship lead to a lot of disastrous mistakes and heartache; that women and, worse, children are often left hung out to dry in the worst way because of these kinds of mistakes. I can't deny any of this. But I am enough of a believer in the power, beauty and wonder of finding--not making--the potential within another to fulfill together some of the most amazing acts of compassion and sacrifice human beings are capable of, that I am willing to say it is worth these risks.
But it is a comparatively self-indulgent way to think--there are simply no two ways about that. Why are we really okay with the idea of a man and a woman who have no intention to have children, claiming the "sacredness" of marriage for themselves? Why are we really okay with the idea of a healthy, fertile man with a promisingly prosperous future ahead of him declining to marry and raise a family because "I've just never found the right girl" or "Marriage just isn't for me"? I think these things can only be explained by our belief that love--the romantic attraction kind, not the affection-born-from-patience kind--is the necessary precondition and grounding from which all the other things that we exalt marriage for follows. A man and a woman can derive a kind of stength and support from each other in marriage that enables them individually to become more powerful forces for good in their community than either of them alone could have achieved--even if they choose never to have children. A man and a woman who want children, but are physically unable to have them, can adopt a child and fulfill their desires to give the world the blessings of new life that way--there is no need to divorce or add on a second spouse because of it, as would have been done in the old days. A black man and a white woman, even if they grew up in the most stereotypically insular of worlds associated with those communities, can through love transcend all the inevitable moments of mistranslation, rejection from unsympathetic friends or family, etc. to build the kind of household and family that exemplifies above all else the promise of a society like ours that defines belonging and solidarity as commitment to a shared belief in the compatibility of personal liberty and public good--not ancestry or shared historical legacy.
I don't understand why two men who love each other can't do the same, and how the natural design of their bodies leads them to express that sexually seems as irrelevant to me as the color of their skin. I don't know why the ancient Hebrews apparently believed God hated sex between men so categorically as to call for the death of anyone who tried it, any more than I know why they apparently believed God hated disobedient, "gluttonous" and drunken sons (Deut 21) so categorically as to call for their own parents having them stoned to death. But God is not a person, people are inherently imperfect interpreters of God's will, and everything else I know about the core Jewish values of healing, sanctifying and transforming the world through loving your neighbor as yourself that I was taught leads me to believe that someone misread the message big-time in these cases, and that the rabbis got it right when they overruled Deut 21, just as the oral law got it right when it explained that "an eye for an eye" means monetary compensation and not physical revenge, just as the Talmud got it right when it declared that "a Sanhedrin who put a man to death even once in 70 years are butchers." Core values don't change, but understandings of the potential of whole categories of people to share in the realization of them do, and so do understandings of the range and form of social roles through which they might (or might not--e.g., slavery) broaden and deepen their achievement of that. I think the ideal of the marriage freely entered into based on love (or not, in the absence of it) is one of the best of these changes, and I don't see how we can justify denying the pursuit of all the things we exalt marriage for to two people who love each other simply because they are of the same sex.
I know I keep harping on this point, but I really do think this particular transformation of marriage was far more portentous and radical than anything like the legalization of interracial marriage--or, for that matter, gay marriage--could ever be, and in some sense is what makes those transformations conceivable. I love all those Bible passages about the ideal marriage and family as much as anyone else, and very much enjoy the thought that my own reflects them. But in the end I didn't get married because I wanted to honor God, give back to the world by raising just and righteous children, fulfill all the commandments, blah blah blah. I got married because I was in love--and my entire sense that all those other wonderful-sounding things were now within my power (or should I say, worth my time to try?) to achieve followed from that. If those are the fruits, then romantic love was the ground they sprang from; in love was where I found the potential to realize all those other things in my life to begin with.
It would be hard to overemphasize what a radically distinct idea this is. I know from trying to discuss it with traditional Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians in India (all of whom practice arranged marriage) that it really makes no sense at all to them. And I do understand and respect the wisdom behind the take-your-due-burden-and-prayerfully-accept-your-fate approach to marriage and family they have. They correctly point out that the volatile and unpredictable nature of romantic love leads to a divorce rate that far outstrips theirs; that the passions which are indulged through dating and courtship lead to a lot of disastrous mistakes and heartache; that women and, worse, children are often left hung out to dry in the worst way because of these kinds of mistakes. I can't deny any of this. But I am enough of a believer in the power, beauty and wonder of finding--not making--the potential within another to fulfill together some of the most amazing acts of compassion and sacrifice human beings are capable of, that I am willing to say it is worth these risks.
But it is a comparatively self-indulgent way to think--there are simply no two ways about that. Why are we really okay with the idea of a man and a woman who have no intention to have children, claiming the "sacredness" of marriage for themselves? Why are we really okay with the idea of a healthy, fertile man with a promisingly prosperous future ahead of him declining to marry and raise a family because "I've just never found the right girl" or "Marriage just isn't for me"? I think these things can only be explained by our belief that love--the romantic attraction kind, not the affection-born-from-patience kind--is the necessary precondition and grounding from which all the other things that we exalt marriage for follows. A man and a woman can derive a kind of stength and support from each other in marriage that enables them individually to become more powerful forces for good in their community than either of them alone could have achieved--even if they choose never to have children. A man and a woman who want children, but are physically unable to have them, can adopt a child and fulfill their desires to give the world the blessings of new life that way--there is no need to divorce or add on a second spouse because of it, as would have been done in the old days. A black man and a white woman, even if they grew up in the most stereotypically insular of worlds associated with those communities, can through love transcend all the inevitable moments of mistranslation, rejection from unsympathetic friends or family, etc. to build the kind of household and family that exemplifies above all else the promise of a society like ours that defines belonging and solidarity as commitment to a shared belief in the compatibility of personal liberty and public good--not ancestry or shared historical legacy.
I don't understand why two men who love each other can't do the same, and how the natural design of their bodies leads them to express that sexually seems as irrelevant to me as the color of their skin. I don't know why the ancient Hebrews apparently believed God hated sex between men so categorically as to call for the death of anyone who tried it, any more than I know why they apparently believed God hated disobedient, "gluttonous" and drunken sons (Deut 21) so categorically as to call for their own parents having them stoned to death. But God is not a person, people are inherently imperfect interpreters of God's will, and everything else I know about the core Jewish values of healing, sanctifying and transforming the world through loving your neighbor as yourself that I was taught leads me to believe that someone misread the message big-time in these cases, and that the rabbis got it right when they overruled Deut 21, just as the oral law got it right when it explained that "an eye for an eye" means monetary compensation and not physical revenge, just as the Talmud got it right when it declared that "a Sanhedrin who put a man to death even once in 70 years are butchers." Core values don't change, but understandings of the potential of whole categories of people to share in the realization of them do, and so do understandings of the range and form of social roles through which they might (or might not--e.g., slavery) broaden and deepen their achievement of that. I think the ideal of the marriage freely entered into based on love (or not, in the absence of it) is one of the best of these changes, and I don't see how we can justify denying the pursuit of all the things we exalt marriage for to two people who love each other simply because they are of the same sex.
Last edited:
(But that slow kind where you start out with a single clap of amazement, and build in momentum from there).
What are the benefits I'll gain access to from that, and will they be recognized outside the state of Indiana? (or FYM, for that matter)
You should see some of the stuff the Kabbalists derive from Ezekiel...
