Home > Marriage, Philosophy, Same Sex Marriage > Stuart Schneiderman: The Grand Pantomime

Stuart Schneiderman: The Grand Pantomime

January 4th, 2011

Dr. Stuart Schneiderman has a new column out about same sex “marriage.”

What is a funeral when no one died? It is theatre. What is a dinner where you go through the motions of eating without there being any food? It is pantomime.

Same-sex marriage is a fiction. Even if everyone believes that the fiction is real– or be too afraid to say otherwise– that does not make it less of a fiction. The world does not become flat just because everyone says it is. In many ways the strangest part of the current debate over same-sex marriage is how little of it involves rational argument.

One of our least insightful commenters constantly beats the dead horse of marriage and fertility.  He’s fond of saying that the Ruth Institute and the NOM secretly long to ban old or infertile couples from getting married.  Dr. Schneiderman neatly slips the dagger into that one:

Proponents of same-sex marriage declare that if infertile couples are allowed to marry, then fertility cannot be a basis for marriage.

Grant that they do not understand the difference between possible and impossible. More importantly, it is nonsense to say that same-sex couplings are infertile.

If two people, between themselves, cannot perform any action that might lead to conception, they are both might be perfectly fertile. Since they cannot perform an action that would actualize their reproductive potential and resolve the issue of their fertility, we cannot say that they are either fertile or infertile.   If Jack and Jill or Jack and Jim shake hands, and if no conception results, we would not say that this makes them sterile.

And now Dr. Schneiderman really lets you have it:

What happens if Jack and Jim are declared by the state to be married? At the least, everyone will be required to play along, for fear of hurting their feelings.  Anyone who might be inclined to tell the truth will be forced to shut up.

It’s like the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” As Hans Christian Andersen told it, a couple of unscrupulous tailors convinced the Emperor that they have bedecked him in the most exquisite finery, but that it would only be visible to his most worthy subjects.

Of course, his subjects knew that he was not wearing anything, and was being played for a fool. Or else they were simply afraid of being punished.

Only one boy was sufficiently naïve to blurt out what everyone knew: “He isn‘t wearing anything at all.” If same-sex marriage becomes the law, you do not want to be that little boy. You will instantly be denounced as a bigoted hate-monger.

Most people know that same-sex couples are not really married. Some of them are too polite to say so. Others are being cowed into going along.

After all, it’s just a harmless illusion, so why not just go along?

Not to be too dramatic, but what happens to us when we are forced to accept that reality is what we say it is? What happens to us when we believe that we can change reality by controlling what people say and how they think?

All of a sudden, this does not feel quite so harmless.

  1. nerdygirl
    January 4th, 2011 at 21:25 | #1

    No offense, but you aren’t really required to believe gay marriage is marriage marriage. Legal marriage, yes, but at no point do you, the individual, have to believe it is marriage marriage. I mean, no one believes the marriage of an 90 year old business tycoon to a 22 year old bunny as marriage marriage, and yet it is awarded recognized status from the state. Do you find marriage for money to be the same, as vital, as important to society as your own? Why not work on elevating marriage itself instead of trying to prevent gay marriage (arguably decreasing gay marriage, I honestly don’t think it would, but I know some people like to claim straight men/women will marry other straight men/women for tax benefits and the such) I don’t think anyone can seriously take marriage as OMG UNIVERSALLY SANCTIMONIOUS anymore, largely because of old men and bunnies, drunk-in-vegas marriages, etc. Lead by example, be the boring group inspiring couples about the joys of traditional marriage. I mean, I get that whole gay marriage is the thing that will break the camels back to you folks. But yeah, sometimes that whole focus-on-denouncing gay marriage thing makes you sound a bit, well fixated on one very small aspect of a much larger problem.

  2. chrisse
    January 4th, 2011 at 23:02 | #2

    nerdygirl’s argument : the 1960s sexual revolution has successfully devolved society to a degenerate’s cesspool. So why bother with what marriage is, our society has ruined it anyway.

    our argument : the 1960s sexual ….degenerate’s cesspool. We will put up the good fight to restore our society to a moral and ethical society based on the inherent dignity of the person from conception to natural death and human rights (individual and collective) based on natural law NOT created and decreed on Caeser’s whim.

  3. Mark
    January 5th, 2011 at 04:44 | #3

    Well said, nerdygirl.

  4. Ari
    January 5th, 2011 at 05:38 | #4

    Nerdygirl,
    When law contradicts reality, it can only diminish respect for the law. If the law says that sunrise is at midnight every night and that sunset is at noon every day, it doesn’t make it sunrise sunrise or sunset sunset. It just makes asses out of the people who made that law. It makes people lose respect for the law.

    Likewise if the law takes something that’s not marriage, whether it be a union of two same sex people, a union of two hundred and two people of mixed sex or it be a union of a kitchen table and a bedroom set, it can only make asses of the people who redefined marriage and diminish respect for the law.

  5. Mark
    January 5th, 2011 at 06:15 | #5

    Ari, let me ask you, then, what is sunrise? is it when the sun has just peaked above the horizon, when half of it is seen, or when the sun is fully above the horizon? Does it make a difference if there are trees, mountains or oceans on the horizon? And who should decide which is really sunrise?

    There are natural events in our world (sunrise, two people forming a relationship) but the law will often set the standard. People are free to disagree with the standard and use legal methods to change it if they wish.

  6. nerdygirl
    January 5th, 2011 at 16:15 | #6

    Chrisse’s argument: Let’s ignore all historical uses and implications of marriage, (Let’s also ignore suggestions that a better way to fix marriage would be to FIX MARRIAGE THE HARD WAY, and let the gay/lesbian couples do as they please, whether it’s legal marriage, civil union etc.) that doesn’t fit with our defense and blame everything on the 1960’s.

    Response: RLY? The only thing you could come up with was it’s all the 60’s fault? Cause, heavens no all marriage before the 60’s was pure and clean and magical and unicorns blessed each one.

    Ari: Do we give law the power to decide the validity of a couples marriage? If the bunny and tycoon can marry and be recognized, why not two men? Why is the bunny and tycoon better then two men in love? Unless you’re willing to give the law power to investigate individual relationships (and very highly doubt you do) and only grant legal status to those it deems worthy, marriages of convenience between the bunnies and tycoons will continue. Does this tarnish marriage? Do people lose respect for the law because of it? Granted it’s not common, (hey, kinda like, gay people actually getting married?)

  7. Leo
    January 5th, 2011 at 21:58 | #7

    NG,

    The original point of the post is that changing the name of something doesn’t change its essence, but I want to explore something else here.

    Why exactly do you object to the marriage of the “bunny” and the tycoon? I can imagine possible reasons, but I am interested in knowing why you think this marriage can’t be a real marriage. The law rightly recognizes that an elderly person can become irrationally dependent on a caregiver and that an elderly person can be past the age of making rational decisions. This usually comes up in inheritance law. We do rightly give the law power to judge the validity of such marriages, but I suspect you are objecting to something else here.

    These days a “marriage of convenience” typically means people don’t really intend to be related other than to fool the government into granting immigration status for one of the parties. The marriage is fraudulent because the parties don’t intend to be married in their own eyes. We do rightly give the law the power to judge the validity of such marriages I don’t believe this is this case you are referring to here.

  8. Sean
    January 6th, 2011 at 08:50 | #8

    I think rampant and easy divorce is the real reason marriage is falling out of favor. People are generally rational creatures and seeing how many marriages fail, a lot of people just reason that why get involved in the whole mess anyway?

    As marvelous as love is, it’s not enough to keep a marriage intact. Marriage, rightly or wrongly, was glued together by social disapproval of divorce, religious constraints on divorce, concerns about finding new companionship at a certain age, and other factors that have largely disappeared.

  9. Ari
    January 6th, 2011 at 09:53 | #9

    Sean,
    Bravo. I agree with your post of 08:50. Good job.

  10. nerdygirl
    January 6th, 2011 at 20:13 | #10

    Actually, I think as much as our society is constantly changing and evolving, thats not true. Look at our language alone, look at the evolution of the word gay. Look at how Ashely and Shannon have gone from being nearly male only names to being nearly female only names. Nothing’s permanent.

    The bunny and tycoon is basically prostitution. While I’m sure there are some cases where love happens. (Hey, i’m not saying super romantic love is the best or only reason to be married, but generally speaking if your not al too fond or feeling of love towards the person you want to marry, it’s probably not a good idea) ((If a person is elderly that their rational is suspect, should marriage between them and another be legal))? I find marrying for financial gain to be tacky (and not what marriage should be about) , the same for marrying for sex (ditto). I would think the supporters of NOM would feel the same way. (parenthesis are fun)

  11. Mark
    January 7th, 2011 at 05:41 | #11

    Ari, it’s interesting that you responded to Sean’s post but not mine. It appears you are, once again, incapable of responding in a rational, civilized manner to a simple question.

  12. Leo
    January 7th, 2011 at 09:29 | #12

    Rampart and easy divorce is incompatible with a healthy marriage culture. It was after divorce became easy and sexual fidelity within marriage became devalued that it became an attractive political goal for the gay lobby.

    NG, so marrying someone who makes more (or less) money than you do is prostitution?

    I would, however, agree that in some situations the motivation for marriage is criminality. I am thinking of murders in “black widow” cases. I know of one where the dearly departed was quickly cremated and the extended family’s suspicions could not therefore be proven. These marriages I would definitely recommend avoiding. Caveat emptor.

    I also agree that society is constantly changing. Not always for the better, I would add. Note also how the new meaning of the word gay has virtually destroyed the old meaning.

  13. Mark
    January 7th, 2011 at 13:36 | #13

    Leo: “It was after divorce became easy and sexual fidelity within marriage became devalued that it became an attractive political goal for the gay lobby. ”

    1. Should divorce be made more difficult? How do you respond to the spouse who is abused (physically or emotionally) ? Or to the spouse whose partner has cheated on them? In all these cases should divorce be “difficult”?

    2. I am not aware that sexual fidelity within marriage has been devalued. Do you have any resources on this “fact”?

    3. And, while this is not the reason gays want to be able to marry, thanks for pointing out that, in your opinion, marriage was already damaged so it’s not really SSM that is harming OSM.

  14. nerdygirl
    January 7th, 2011 at 19:21 | #14

    Leo, I’m pretty sure sexual fidelity is still valued within marriage, few people really swing or are honestly open.(most are just plain selfish. They cheat but do not want their spouse to cheat). Easy divorce, well, is more people being lazy, instead of making divorce harder to obtain, it be better to foster a culture that encourages working through problems, this would be much more beneficial to society.

    If the only reason you marry someone is for money, then yeah, it’s prostitution(ish, probably doesn’t meet the full definition of prostitution). If there are multiple, non-monetary reasons involved in one decisions to marry, then no. Thats kind of a no brainer isn’t it?

  15. Leo
    January 8th, 2011 at 06:10 | #15

    Regarding Mark’s first point, in societies where divorce is prohibited, the partners can separate in abusive situations but since they are still married are not allowed to remarry, a definite penalty. In societies where divorce is allowed but only for causes such as you list, divorce can occur, but it is not a trivial matter. In societies with easy divorce, a marriage can be dissolved for any reason, sometimes by the whim of either party. I do not favor this last solution, which is what I mean by easy divorce. Some have argued that today in America it is easier to divorce a spouse than to fire an employee, reversing the historical situation.

    As for your second point, adultery was once considered and is still considered in some countries, a criminal offense. For further evidence of society’s more lenient attitude toward adultery, I invite a comparison with TV, films, and what sexual scandals were politically survivable from, say, sixty years ago.

    Regarding your second and third points, see http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

    “The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed [!] gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.

    Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.” Not even close.

    While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships.”

  16. Mark
    January 8th, 2011 at 11:24 | #16

    Leo, this “evidence” is hardly relevant. But I LOVE how anti-SSM advocates claim that gay men are some how incapable of forming a monogamous relationship at the same time preventing them from forming such a legal arrangement. I think it’s pretty amazing that 45% of the couples interviewed were in a monogamous relationship despite being prohibited from legally marrying. One wonders how non-gays would react in a similar situation.

    In addition, this was a survey in San Fransisco. It’s hardly a representation of the greater gay / lesbian population. Much like asking people on a cancer ward how many have had chemo and then being shocked when the numbers are so high.

    However, I notice how you try to avoid your comments about how marriage was already broken.

  17. Mark
    January 9th, 2011 at 06:41 | #17

    Leo: “In societies with easy divorce, a marriage can be dissolved for any reason, sometimes by the whim of either party.”

    Have you ever gone through a divorce or known anyone who has divorced? My guess would be no, otherwise you won’t have such a simplistic view of a difficult situation. My sister divorced her first husband. Why? There are a variety of “easy” reasons such as he had no job, gambled, and didn’t help with the raising of his daughter. It was an extremely difficult situation for all concerned but resulted in her happily married for over 20 years to a man who was every bit the father to my niece.

    I believe strongly in the institution of marriage. It is one that should not be entered into casually (as certain stars are apt to do) nor is it always perfect. But I would never think to force people to stay together if the relationship was not good for them nor deny anyone that was of age to marry.

  18. Leo
    January 10th, 2011 at 17:40 | #18

    Mark,

    Actually, the San Francisco study is highly relevant because in California state law, there is no difference between the legal rights of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and despite that we see this shocking difference in behavior. So you can hardly blame the behavior on the law. Do you really mean to compare the culture of San Francisco to a cancer ward? Isn’t that rather dehumanizing?

    I agree that the marriage culture has already been considerably eroded. I think it is fair to say that the Ruth Institute does not wish to avoid that discussion and, in fact, wants to reverse that erosion. I think that erosion is very unfortunate and that society would not be improved by further erosion into Sean’s definition of marriage: “whatever a couple wants it to be.”

    No fault divorce considerably weakens the concept that marriage is a contract. I have not been divorced, but I know (as do most Americans) lots of people who have been. Some divorces seemed to me reasonably justified. Some did not. Those that did not seem justified to me seemed particularly unjustified to the wives and children involved. I guess one party just decided the marriage wasn’t good enough for them. Doesn’t make it much of a contract, does it?

    Major religious traditions have grappled with what (if anything) constitutes a just cause for divorce and what interval should be required before remarriage is allowed. Your discussion seems rather shallow compared to that grappling. Divorce in this country was legal prior to “no fault” divorce, and your sister’s divorce and remarriage would have been possible before the era of no fault divorce. No fault divorce originated in this country in California in 1970. Why does that not surprise me?

  19. Mark
    January 10th, 2011 at 21:00 | #19

    Leo: “there is no difference between the legal rights of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and despite that we see this shocking difference in behavior.”

    Actually, in 2007 (when this study began) was the first year that legal rights of homosexual couples were the closest to equaling those of heterosexuals, hardly enough time to change behaviors.

    “Do you really mean to compare the culture of San Francisco to a cancer ward?”

    That’s not what I did, perhaps you need to go back and reread my post. This study does not necessarily represent the gay population as a whole. It is a very select population, which does not make a reliable study. However, if you look at one of my other postings, you will see that the amount of adultery, conservatively, may be as high as 60% in straight couples which is about what this study found in gay couples. This tells me that gay couples are much more likely to be truthful about their sexual behaviors while straight men are more likely to lie about their behavior.

    “Divorce in this country was legal prior to “no fault” divorce, and your sister’s divorce and remarriage would have been possible before the era of no fault divorce.”

    Possibly, but far from guaranteed (she may have been able to plead abandonment but since he never left, that would have been hard to prove). But, beside that, of what possible benefit to society can it be to force two people to be together when they no longer want to be together?

Comments are closed.