Repsonse to Jim Blazsik’s post titled: “The Republican case for Traditional Marriage: a response to Maura Flynn”

I am a bit cranky that all the responses I posted to the BLog post titled “The Republican case for Traditional Marriage: a response to Maura Flynn ” by Jim Blazsik have not been approved. My first Response was June 16, recipe and then I made 2 more – 1 on June 23 and 24. Currently, page they are all still sitting in the moderator’s queue, apoplexy so it seems that my only recourse is to publish it here and hopefully someone will see my response to it.

I have written at length about my support for the Gay Marriage issue and I will ask readers to peruse that for more information, especially since much of what I will post here is taken directly from that writing. Please forgive me a head of time. My writing may see quite stern and down right antagonistic, since this topic makes me really cranky, so take this all with a grain of salt..

Without further ado…

Jim Blazsik and His Arguments Against Gay Marriage

His entire argument against gay marriage is predicated on the following fallacious argument:

Marriage has always been considered between a man and women in all cultures, everywhere, and at all times.”

Now this is fallacious simply because it ignores contrary historical and anthropological facts. Ancient Greeks and Egyptians have recognized same sex marriage, and so have many indigenous peoples. The Greeks at one time revered male homosexuality, and it was not until the Catholic Church became dominant when this practice stopped and became heavily stigmatized. Marriage between homosexuals has been done even within Christianity at times.

Jim’s claim of heterosexual monogamy having been the only marital solution throughout humanity’s history is very lost and willfully ignorant of the truth. His claims show an acute and blind indoctrination into the ultraconservative teachings of the Catholic Church without regard for the harm that this causes others, and because of this it makes me quite angry.

What follows is most of what I posted over there and then little bit more since I have the time =):

Your Religious Basis for Discrimination

You (Jim B.) may have not explicitly mentioned the Bible, but you definitively equate “Natural Law” with populist and conservative Catholic morality in your arguments. Even your bio points to conservative Catholic views. You say the “Biblical Law” in all but name, and yet you patently ignore actual anthropological and historical evidence, as most conservatives like to do.

I have a list of quite a few links on the mythical “Traditional Family” and actual historical and anthropological evidence of alternative familial structures on my BLog page on Gay Marriage.

Redefining Marriage

Are we redefining marriage? No. We are merely accepting a marital structure that has  existed and has been accepted in humanity’s history. Marriage is continuously evolving and changing throughout all of history as my references definitively point out. It is really conservative Christianity that is trying to redefine marriage to promote oppression and bigotry.

Traditional Marriage and the Unnaturalness of it all

As many opponents to SSM would like to say “We are trying to save traditional marriage.” meaning life-long heterosexual monogamy.

Anthropological and historical fact, and even Biblical writings speak specifically to the invalidity of that phrase. “Traditional marriage” is a relatively new construct that has been attempted to be forced upon us by the Catholic Church following the Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion, and the church’s mad grab for money and land. My references highlight the fact that what we consider “traditional marriage” is not really traditional at all. The romanticization of marriage started in European writings in the early to mid 1800’s which strongly contributes to magical ’soul mate’ or ‘the one’ factor common in our culture and standards and helped to cement the illusion “traditional marriage” into our culture.

Marriage has taken very many forms over the years from matriarchal and patriarchal polygamy, celibacy, to heterosexual and homosexual monogamy, even within Christianity, but the first recorded case of homosexuality was 2400 B.C.E in Egypt, and homosexuality is found throughout 1500 species in the world. Both of these facts tend to point to homosexuality (and bisexuality by extension) being a natural permutation of sexual expression within living creatures far beyond our recorded history. Of course, homosexuality could not be the statistical norm otherwise our species would die out, so in the interest of species perpetuation (by virtue of natural selection) heterosexuality has to be the majority.

Nature

No where in nature does marriage exist. Marriage is a human secular institution for bestowing specific rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Nature has never defined marriage. Nature has never written a book or a law, or given a speech, or anything else for that matter. “Nature” is an abstract concept that is being personified in a vain attempt to rationalize prejudice and fear mongering.

The only thing that nature has wrought via natural selection and necessity (within this context) is that heterosexuality is statistically the genetic majority to ensure that our species is perpetuated. That is it. Assuming that heteronormity as definitive nature’s plan for marriage is in incorrect. “Nature” does not have anything to do with marriage, since it cares not about secular institutions, it only cares about species perpetuation.

Marriage is a construct of humanity and it is us that cares about heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nature does not, especially since homosexuality exists in nature too. So, please do not use some slanted abstraction such as “nature” as a rationalization and a cover for prejudice within humanity’s institution of marriage.

Marriage and Sexual Intercourse is for Procreation Only

If you check my Traditional Marriage links you will find distinctly that marriage has not historically been done with the primary reason of procreation – lust perhaps, but not specifically procreation. I have never looked a woman and thought “I think we would have great children.” and then decided to pursue them solely based on that criteria (at least not on a conscious level). Marriage has been mostly about power, influence, land, or, more recently in humanity’s history, marriage has evolved to be primarily about love. Rarely has it been specifically about procreation. You could say that the existence of heterosexuality in humanity is for procreation and the perpetuation of our species. That I would believe.

Contrary to what some may say or think, but the act of sexual intercourse for most humans is not done solely for the intent of species perpetuation. Humans, as well as some primates and dolphins, if I remember correctly, are the primary species that have been found to engage in sexual play or intercourse for recreational purposes. Sex is not just for generating progeny. It is also for pleasure, bonding, and social interaction.

Of course, if you really are going to use this argument then those couples who chose to be celibate, who choose to not have children, or who are infertile should also not be allowed to get married. This would also apply to the elderly as well. It sounds as if you almost want to require a document to be signed by the couple to be married that they ‘will have children‘ otherwise you are not really married.

God? Whose God? What God?

Well, first you should understand that Jefferson was a Deist as were quite a few of our founding fathers, and note that in what you quoted they used the words “Nature’s God” and ‘Creator’ and they did not specify ‘God’ (full stop) in the Christian sense. You are most assuredly assuming and projecting that it is referring to Christianity when it most definitively is not. Had they meant that, they most assuredly would have said so.

Nature’s God could very well have been Artemis as some Wiccans may prefer. Our founding fathers were very careful about that. Hell, our Constitution was almost never ratified due to everyone clamoring for a bill of rights with a religious protection clause. Many believed in a deity of sorts, but the colonists were quite the diverse lot running running from the religious persecution of the Catholic church in Europe. They ranged from Unitarians, Universalists, Anglicans, Quakers, Catholics, Deists, Secularists, Humanists and so on, so the Christian God does not make a whole lot of sense historically and especially in light of how the documents are very carefully written and what history shows.

Separation of Church and State most definitely exists. Those specific words are not in the constitution, but the First Amendment most assuredly is.

Keep our government out of you religion, and keep your religion out of our government.

Tyranny?

Let us talk about the Tyranny of Conservative Christianity attempting to legislate religious morality upon the majority when, in fact, everyone is not Christian, nor your specific flavor of Christianity. This is also a violation of our constitutional rights with the little Separation of Church and State thing…

This sort of conservative tyranny is what has supported slavery, segregation, and the oppression of women, since all of those, in there time, were most assuredly conservative social values supported by the church. This conservative tyranny opposes cultural advancement and promotes maintenance of the status quo. It is a disease with which the United States (and many other cultures) has always struggled with, but fortunately civil rights and cultural progress eventually wins in the end.

The Winning Issue?

The winning issue is loving and supportive family structure with parents, regardless of whether they are single, married, homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexual or Heterosexual parents can both provide a loving and supportive home to children, which is more important than the individual genders of the parents.

This is just my humble opinion. =)

I think I have written enough for now.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply