|
[Previous entry: "Diversions II"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "We're up and running"] 03 September 2003: "A brief rant on 'the definition of marriage'"
Okay, this is à propos nothing specific, but in this so-called "debate" surrounding gay marriage in the United States which is going on right now, what's with this "it would change the definition of marriage" argument from the nay-sayers? Even while the institution has been limited to partners of different sex, we've seen such phenomena as "swinging" and "open marriages," and while some disapproval may have been heard, nobody suggested that these activities should be outlawed on the grounds that they "changed the definition of marriage," even though they unquestionably did. Ditto for game shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" American tabloids have been filled with the impending marriage of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck (not that they've set a date yet), which was announced even before J.Lo had finished divorcing her previous husband. How has this not changed—and, more importantly, devalued—the public perception of "the definition of marriage"?
As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.And I feel the same way about same-sex marriages. Well, actually, I'm significantly more in favour of same-sex marriages, not in the least place because I number several gay couples among my friends. But the way I see it, permitting same-sex marriages doesn't harm the interest of any particular segment of society (well, unless some conservatives want to get apoplectic and give themselves a coronary, but I rather think that's their own lookout), and it certainly won't inflict any change on "the definition of marriage" greater than that already inflicted by the activity of various heterosexuals. It's almost two and a half years since my home country of the Netherlands legalised same-sex marriages. Hey, guess what? The last time I looked, public order hasn't collapsed since then (or insofar as it has, the cause cannot be traced to gay marriage). It's about time "the Land of the Free" got with the programme on this one. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
