“Marriage” seems to be a nebulous concept on its own without sexual orientation entering the debate. Civil unions, marriages, lifepartnerships benefit communities by providing stability, and this benefit alone is sufficient for promoting them, but the debate over lifepartnerships extends into definitions that include the potential to produce viable offspring, religious requirements, appeals to tradition, sexual norms, and the social stigmas surrounding various types of unions. While most of these arguments are meant to prohibit homosexual partnerships, accepting any of them has the unintended consequence of prohibiting lifepartnerships to most heterosexual couples as well.
Easily the least inclusive definition of marriage/civil union are the religious ones. Various religious dogmas prohibit a wide variety of sexual practices both hetero and homo. Many Jews and Christians are prohibited from marrying outside of their religion. If Christian or Jewish or Islamic faith was a requirement for marriage then a large portion of the population would be prohibited from getting one. The religious definition of marriage also carries a great deal of subjectivity, as we must wonder which religion has the proper definition of marriage
The appeal to a traditional approach to marriage requires the invalidation of our modern concepts of equality and human rights. Traditionally, the female half of our population was considered property of the male in a marriage contract. Men and women with mental illnesses were sterilized to prevent their producing offspring. Miscegenation was also illegal. Similar to religious appeals, the problem of subjectivity, which traditions are we to maintain and which to let go, provides us with no strict standards to base our decisions.
The slippery slope argument states that if we legitimize homosexual unions, then we come closer to legitimizing sexually abhorrent behaviors such as pedophilia and bestiality. The core difference between homosexuality, heterosexuality, rape, bestiality and pedophilia concerns the issue of consent. Animals and children in our society cannot give their consent to a sexual act. This is the reason pedophilia, rape, and bestiality will never be legalized in our society, because each of these acts involves the victimization of another being. Homosexuality and heterosexuality involve two consenting adults acting of their own freewill. There is no gray zone in this equation. We have strictly defined criteria for consistently determining what society will allow.
The other problem with this argument is that it betrays a total lack of faith in the human race’s ability to moderate its behaviors. This argument, by implying that bestiality and pedophilia would become social norms, equates human beings with beasts that cannot be trusted with any freedom whatsoever. We are one step from burning down our houses and murdering one another in an orgiastic exercise of self-indulgence. Let’s try and keep a realistic perspective on one another.
Defining a marriage as a union with the potential to produce viable offspring also leaves us with too much subjectivity. Asexuals, the impotent, and the sterile would be prohibited from marrying, and this is an unintended consequence for many who argue this point. For those who this is not, then we must consider couples with the potential to produce children who do not. At what point would we invalidate their union for failing to serve this purpose? What happens when cloning allows lesbian couples to cultivate sperm cells and artificially inseminate one another?
The social stigma associated with some unions is also used as an argument for disallowing them, but social stigmas are dependent on subjective social norms, which are also mercurial in nature. Today’s stigma becomes tomorrow’s accepted difference. Miscegenation was prohibited partially because it violated social norms. Interracial marriages are still unique enough to potentially fail a social normalization test. What criteria do we apply to establish what unions evoke sufficient stigma to warrant their prohibition? Ugly people marrying evokes revulsion in many people. Should that qualify?
It’s interesting that in the corporate world, this whole definition of marriage is a non-issue. I used to build Human Resources Intranets for companies like Sony, Lockheed Martin, and PSINet. The word “marriage” appeared nowhere in these systems, instead they used the term “lifepartner.” This term was inclusive to heterosexual marriages, homosexual unions, and heterosexual domestic relationships. It made employees happy, reduced the stress in their lives and provided stability.
Social Stability is the common benefit all of these partnerships provide our communities. Domestic Partnerships, romantic or practical, allows two people to assist one another in living. Their incomes merge, their skill sets compliment one another, they take turns cleaning and cooking, or one can drive the other to work when a car breaks down. These are relationship “franchises” that plant roots in communities because one partner can’t do anything without the other’s consent.
What about “marriage?” The purely religious nature of this term violates the separation of church and state. The Government must cease acknowledging it and begin using the term “Partnership,” “Lifepartners,” or “Civil Unions.” This would also eliminate any concerns about the emergence of a “separate but equal” paradox.
Civil Unions or Lifepartnerships are not always about producing children or religious virtue, so we cannot produce a definition of them according to these standards. Homosexual and Heterosexual partnerships involve two consenting adults living according to their own personal standards of acceptable behavior that do not infringe upon the rights of others. No solid objective criteria for preventing one and allowing the other can possibly be established.
When two consenting adults agree contractually to cohabitate and cooperate, their potential grows beyond what they were capable of as individuals. Partnerships provide stability to their communities and it’s in the interest of local governments to encourage them. Get rid of “Marriages” and welcome “Lifepartnerships.”