The other morning I was walking down the stairs when I noticed a five-fingered appendage on the end of my arm, holding the handrail. My parents and schoolteachers had taught me it was called a “hand.” But I got to wondering, what exactly is my hand? The answer, it seemed to me, would come from observing what I could do with it.
At the moment it was helping to stabilize me on the stairs. It does other things, too. Right now it’s taking part in typing these words on the computer. Earlier it was conveying some chocolates to my mouth for dessert.
I was getting a clue to what my hand was: a stabilizer for my body, a means to place thoughts on screen, and a conveyor of tasty treats. Now, if I could just build some kind of gyroscopic stabilizer system that could take electronic dictation, with maybe a reservoir for chocolate milkshakes and a straw to go with it, I would have a third hand.
I mentioned that to my wife just now, and she said, “Tom, that’s not what your hand is.” I asked her why not. “Well, it leaves out lots of things your hand can do, for one thing. But that’s not the main thing. It really misses the whole point of what a hand is. You could build a contraption that does everything you can think of, but it wouldn’t be your hand!”
“Well, that’s your opinion,” I answered, “but really, you have quite a conservative, strait-jacketed view of what a hand is.”
Today I noticed that I was sitting here with this computer, and I got to wondering what I was. I figured I could observe what I was for, and that would tell me what I was. It seems I’m for talking with my wife sometimes; she seems to like that. Another thing I seem to do is sweep the floor in the hallway and living room; sometimes I notice that’s needed before the other family members do. I pick up heavy things that no one else in our family can lift. So it seems that what I am is a talker/sweeper/lifter.
I mentioned that to my wife, and she got flustered with me. “Tom, that’s not all you do, not at all! And even if you made a list of everything you do, that wouldn’t explain what you are! You’re a man, a human being, and human beings are more than just what they’re for, aren’t they?
“Okay, honey,” I said. “That’s your view. But really, you’re stuffing a lot of metaphysical baggage into your definition of what I am, aren’t you?”
This was putting some stress on our marriage. I got to thinking about what marriage really is, and I figured I could understand it if I just knew what it was for. It serves a purpose of letting my wife and me share a bank account and an insurance plan. We get to take time off work when the other one is sick. It gives us moral cover in case we might feel guilty about intimacy together. It simplifies our legal relationships with our children. And of course we wouldn’t have gotten married if we hadn’t loved each other, so I guess somehow that fits into what marriage is.
Now I know. Marriage is a love thing that lets people share bank accounts and insurance plans and medical time off. It straightens out a few other legal details, and then there’s also some you-know-what in the mix of it all. That’s what it’s for, so that must be what it is. That’s the true essence of marriage.
What with all the stress we’ve already had on our relationship today, I’m not passing this discovery on to my wife. I have a suspicion she might find something wrong with it. But I’m satisfied now that I know exactly what my hand is, what I am, and what marriage is. All it took was figuring out what you can do with them.
December 12th, 2010 | 10:01 pm | #1
Good, well written essay, Tom. Marriage is unquestionably, is about love.
December 12th, 2010 | 10:19 pm | #2
“In our world,” said Eustace Scrubb, “a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.”
“Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.”
December 12th, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #3
Marriage, pentamom, is essentially about love, and life long commitment, between partners.
December 13th, 2010 | 12:28 am | #4
Is it sad that I find this a lot more realistic than your last post, and think this marriage would last longer than one focused on the heavenly rapture and rightness of it?
December 13th, 2010 | 6:30 am | #5
Well, Pentamom got it, but otherwise my experiment seems to have fallen short. Oh well.
The “hand” is not just what it’s for, especially this incomplete list of what it’s for. “I” am not just what I am for, especially this incomplete list. And this description of marriage, based just on a few things some people think it is “for,” is as ridiculously wrong and incomplete as my descriptions of “hand” and “I.” One does not find the essence of a thing in what it is “for;” especially when the list of what it is “for” is so truncated as these three lists are.
Satire and parody are tricky, and this attempt apparently did not work.
December 13th, 2010 | 8:32 am | #6
I feel your pain.
If marriage, unquestionably and essentially, is about love, then I can marry my dog, as a man in Australia just did last month.
If you don’t think I can marry my dog, well, you are making the same mistake as Mr. Gilson’s wife. (This also is supposed to be a satirical sentence. Never hurts to point these things out.) :)
December 13th, 2010 | 3:54 pm | #7
Tom, I would have to say that this article really confused me because you are a very intelligent person and I had a hard time deciding whether this was a satirical post or if you really were convinced that your body, people, and even marriage derive their meaning from pragmatic use. I was relieved when I read your post saying that this was a satirical piece.
I must be fair and point out that satire is likely not your strong suit. However, I will say that I got the hint of satire from reading the blog, so you were very close to succeeding. I applaud you for attempting satire, it’s a tricky, yet usually very effective tool.
December 13th, 2010 | 7:28 pm | #8
One hardly need read between the lines to know that this is satire. I thought it was pretty good, Tom. You made your point effectively.
December 14th, 2010 | 4:51 am | #9
Try “The eye is the organ of vision”
December 14th, 2010 | 10:04 am | #10
Marriage is not essentially about love, otherwise, there would be no marriage where there is no love, and that is not the case.
Marriage necessarily includes lifelong commitment, but still I think Ramandu’s distinction applies there: that is not what it is, that is what it is made of. And even then, that lifelong commitment is objective, not subjective; someone who lacks integrity in making the commitment and has little intent to honor it, has still made it.
December 14th, 2010 | 10:40 am | #11
Pentamom: marriage is essentially about love, and committment, that’s lifelong. Why would anyone wish to deny that, to any sincere person?
December 14th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #12
Because, as was pointed out earlier, if marriage is essentially about love and commitment, there are no essentialist restrictions on the constituents of a marriage. I love spaghetti, too; in fact, I am more committed to spaghetti than to many of my more fleeting commitments (intellectual commitments, for instance). But I cannot marry spaghetti. Or a dog. Or another male. Or three people of assorted sexes. Even if I love them, that is simply not what a marriage “is,” as Tom Gilson has written.
December 14th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #13
Craig: the principal reason, the “slippery slope argument” against gay marriage doesn’t work, is that, it’s been empirically shown, that marrying animals, is harmful to one’s sexual development, and the animal cannot consent. Marrying a bunch of people results in the same problems. Also, polygamy, as well as bestiality, results in emotional problems to the participants. One cannot give proper love and time to ten wives, for example.
December 14th, 2010 | 11:35 am | #14
Craig, I have to agree, spagetti is pretty good :)
December 14th, 2010 | 12:02 pm | #15
I don’t necessarily “wish” to deny them, I simply find the statement unsupportable. As I already pointed out, love cannot be of the essence of marriage or else marriage could not exist without love, but it does every day, all around us, and even more so in cultures where marriages are primarily economic, social, or convenient arrangements.
The other point I’m making is the necessary distinction between what is necessary for something to exist, and what something is. You and I are not primarily beating hearts, though a beating heart is indispensable to either of us insofar as we are living human beings. Now you may see this as a philosophical approach that you don’t find compelling; that’s fine. But my taking this approach does not come from any desire to separate commitment from marriage, or to diminish its importance. It’s just that there are things in this world that are different from being the sums of their parts, and I believe marriage to be one of those things.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:08 pm | #16
Dear Bret: So if a sincere, committed group of several people all wanted to marry each other, you would tell them no? On the basis of some studies?
I don’t really think of this as a “slippery slope” argument. It’s more like an either/or argument: Either marriage is a union of two individuals, one male and one female of the same species, not related in such a way that their union would be incestuous, or it is not. I don’t really see your basis for saying, “Well, we won’t keep the male/female requirement, but everything else we keep.” This seems a simple assertion of power.
On the other hand, if there is a basis in fact for the definition as I have outlined it (say a natural basis), that would prevent our picking and choosing which parts of the definition we want to keep.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:15 pm | #17
Pentamom: good comments.
I do find it striking, though, that, we can have men and women, who are “married”, and don’t love each other, and gay couples, who do, love each other, but gay couples are not “really” married?
I certainly respect your approach, pentamom, but I think maybe we’ve gone astray, when we can still call two people, of the opposite sex, who were married, and yet don’t love each love, still “married”, but not same sex couples, who DO love each other.
What is the essence of a marriage? It’s a good question, that I have not settled in my own mind,in a philosophically rigorous way. But I think it has to include love, and an intention, at least, for a life long committment. I believe that, although for most humans, it involves opposite sex couples, it can involve same sex couples, since, when they love each other, there’s no evidence of harm, which is clearly the case with bestiality, polygomy, which is why they cannot be legitimately considered marrages.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:23 pm | #18
Craig: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think that there are more than just some studies, that show polygomy, for example, is harmful, to those involved. many have shown that it’s incongruent to emotional and sexual development, proceeding normally.
but, Craig, I just don’t see how the assertion, that, marrage is “only between a man and woman”, is not an assertion of power. the reason I would allow marraige between, not only a man and woman, but also a man and man and woman and woman, but not any other arrangement, is the other arrangements, have been shown to be psychologically harmful, to those involved. Therefore, there’s a rational basis, for denying these other groups (e.g., polygomists) the right to marry. No such basis exists for denying marraige to gay couples.
December 14th, 2010 | 12:29 pm | #19
Okay, then, Bret (re comment #13), what about the reality that homosexual sexual practices harm persons’ sexual development?
December 14th, 2010 | 12:37 pm | #20
Tom, there’s no evidence, that I’m aware of, that this is the case. Could you please cite the studies? I think, that, as long as the sexual relations, are in the confines of a monogomous relationship, they’re not harmful.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #21
Homosexual practices are themselves the fruit of a damaged sexual self, for healthful sex is by definition between a man and a woman in the context of marriage.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:03 pm | #22
Oh, you’re probably wondering where I got that definition from. Let me ask you first. Your statements in #13 and #20 assume a certain definition of sexual health. Where did you get yours from? Since your comments (#13 and #20) preceded mine (#19 and #21), I think it’s fair to ask you to go first.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #23
Tom, you’re the one who adressed me. You don’t really need sources about the harm of polygomy, bestiality, etc, do you?
You made an assertion, that homosexual activity is harmful. The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, both conclude, that homosexuals, and homosexual activity are not harmful. Are they wrong? Seems unlikely, but possible.
I agree with you, that sexual health demands, that one be monogomous. You don’t needa source for that, do you? I also, believe that homsexuals who are monogomous are healthy sexually. I base it on my discussions, with many, many homosexuals. Anecdotal? Sure. but I doubt they’re lying to me, and perhaps they’re not representative of homosexuals, at large.
But since homosexuals live healthy lives, don’t consider themselves harmed, and the two most respected organizations, concerning mental health in our country, don’t consider it harmful, I think that it’s reasonable for the burden of proof, to be on you, and others who claim it’s harmful. I’ve tried to answer your question, as best I can.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #24
Thanks, Bret. You got your definition from the APAs. Where did they get it from? (I got mine from natural law and from Scripture.)
December 14th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #25
Tom, how about you cite some examples from science?
December 14th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #26
Why?
December 14th, 2010 | 1:32 pm | #27
Still your turn, by the way. Where did the APAs get their definition of sexual health from?
December 14th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #28
Because God gave us our reason, and expects us to use it. The bible is not a scientific text. If it was harmful, I would expect that God would not leave us in the dark, empirically, and experimentally. the only harm I’ve seen, is the mental anguish that gays/lesbians suffer, as a result of not being accepted. Otherwise, they’re fine.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #29
Tom, you addressed me, and made a claim. I asked you first. Therefore, in my humble opinion, you should answer. By the way, I did answer! Your turn.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:41 pm | #30
The Bible is not a scientific text, but it does address morality. Is sexual health divorced from sexual morality? (By the way, I did answer your question. Then I asked another one. Now I’ve asked two: where did the APAs get their definition from, and is sexual health divorced from sexual morality?)
December 14th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #31
By the say, I can’t cite examples from science unless I know that the operational definitions used in the science are correct and accurate. That’s a very large issue in psychological and social research. That’s why I’m pressing the definition question.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #32
I asked you first, then you claimed that I should answer you. But who’s counting?
The APA got its answer from the evidence, but you know that, right?
i agree with you, that sexual morality should not be divorced from morality, which is precisely why I’ve always advocated any sexual relationship to be within the confines of monogomy, because other forms, have been shown to be harmful.
There’s no evidence, whatsoever, derived from scientific inquiry, to show that homosexual relations, between consenting, same sex adults, within the context of a monogomous relationship. But you know this. As your conspicous absence of the citing of any scientific evidence, for your view, shows.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #33
i meant to say, above, there’s no evidence, derived from scientific inquiry, to show that homosexual relations, between consenting same sex adults, within the context of a monogomous relationship is harmful. Sorry for the error.
December 14th, 2010 | 2:00 pm | #34
Tom, in comment 19, you made the assertion, that, homsexual relations are harmful. i asked you for your evidence. a simple question, in my view. You told me the bible, and natural law. I would prefer one, that all rational people can accept. I’m still waiting for an answer.
What scientific evidence, do you have, that it’s harmful? If you don’t have an answer, that’s ok. but you made the first claim. Where I come from, if you make a claim, you may want to be prepared to have an answer, ready?
December 14th, 2010 | 2:03 pm | #35
Tom, the APA, as you know, bases its decesions on the empirical statistical evidence. You have every right to disagree. But if you’re not going to give me a scientific source, for your claim, that homosexuality is harmful, i’m going to have to move on. i’m a busy man. Thanks for the discussion.
December 14th, 2010 | 2:26 pm | #36
The APAs do not base their definitions of health on empirical statistical evidence. On this you are factually incorrect. They base them on judgments of what constitutes health. Empirical studies can show that behavior A leads to outcome B, and perhaps B leads to C, … but eventually the trail lands on some D, E, or X that the researchers choose just on the basis of judgment. I assure you that moral considerations have a very mixed reception into those judgments; and to the extent that they are included, which you say you would support (in a certain form), they are not science, they are moral judgments.
And not all rational people can accept their judgments, just as you say that not all rational people can accept the Bible’s statements. This is the point I’ve been trying to move us toward. Your definition of sexual health is based on principles you claim to uphold, but which can’t bear their own weight. Do you see how this is so?
December 14th, 2010 | 5:55 pm | #37
Tom, the APA, base their decisions on evidence. Their judgments, are clearly rationally, and empirically based. Statistics, while they may not be the conclusive factor, clearly play a role. No doubt, they choose to not include homosexuality, as a disorder because of the lack of evidence that it meets the criteria, of a disorder.
I’m a little unclear, and I don’t want to misinterprete you. so I’ll ask: are you saying that their judgments are not empirically (which would include statistics) and rationally based? Or are you saying that, yes they’re empirically based, but there’s so many judgments involved, that a rational person is not obligated to accept their findings, or what?
Because I respectfully, stand by my assertion that their decisions, although not perfect, and inevidably their will be judgments (we’re not talking physics, after all, this is a more soft science), that are mistaken, they’re still empirically and rationally based.
December 14th, 2010 | 6:12 pm | #38
“empirically and rationally”? I don’t want to read anything into that, but just to ask you, what kind of equivalence (or otherwise) between the two are you implying in your three pairings of those words here?
Anyway, you missed my point. Please re-read my previous comment. I am indeed saying that at the end of the empirical research trail (or perhaps at the beginning; it matters little how you view it) there is a non-empirical standard of what constitutes health. I tried to explain that clearly.
I am not saying that none of their judgments are empirically based, so I could agree with a certain construal of “their judgments are clearly rationally and empirically based.” That is, given their non-empirically based assumptions, the rest of their work can and usually does flow out of empirical research. But there are always non-empirical assumptions.
I pointed out to your own assertion that sexual health is associated with sexual morality. Sexual morality is not a matter of .empirical research. Your own view on this supports my position.
December 14th, 2010 | 6:30 pm | #39
Tom, empirical, refers to the case studies, clinical cases, etc. Rational is referring to the deductions that experts derive, from them.
“sexual morality” is connected to empirical research, in the sense that the latter provides the basis for the former (of course, this presupposes, that one already accept such moral notions as, it’s good to be free of emotional harm, etc., etc.). If the empirical research supports the view that certain things are harmful, then one should conclude that they shouldn’t be done.
Speaking of which, you haven’t provided any non biblical, non “natural law” reasons why homosexuality is harmful. therefore, unless you do so, I think it would be best to end this particular conversation. Thanks.
December 14th, 2010 | 7:21 pm | #40
Bret,
Empirical and rational are not divided in that manner. In psychology as in all research, there is rational input into research topic choices and methods.
Empirical research most emphatically does not provide the basis for sexual morality. It can only provide information as to how to express or apply what we take to be morally true. You more or less acknowledged that in nodding toward “already accepted such moral notions as ….” But you blithely blast right on past at least one real question, which is whether homosexual practices might themselves be immoral. You have a list of what you regard as basic moral notions, but you’ve offered (if I may borrow your phrase) any non biblical, non “natural law” or any other kinds of reasons why that list should be authoritative over any other list.
I’m not sure why it’s a problem that I haven’t offered any non “natural law” reasons, by the way. Natural law refers to that which does not require religious support.
But I’m okay with ending this conversation here, with this as a review. In comment #13 you listed several factors that you seemed to think relevant to sexual/moral choices. I decided to challenge that list, but I did not do it directly, I did it indirectly, by posing in #19 an alternate view with as much authority as you seemed to think your list held. I did the same in #21. You called for evidence, especially scientific evidence, to support my position, and you referenced the APAs as support for your own position. What I have done in response has been to show that the APAs’ positions are not as scientific as you suppose. If they are wrong about the basic, unscientifically chosen moral assumptions underpinning their definitions of emotional, spiritual, and sexual health, then all the empirical research that flows out of those assumptions will be equally as wrong.
The result of this is that I hope you see that your position as stated in #13 is not based in any empirical evidence. It’s not scientific. I don’t know now on what basis you would try to support it, but you can’t use science, it just isn’t there as you seemed to think it was.
My intention in this was never to prove the truth of my admittedly bald assertions in #19 and #21. My intention was to show that your equally bald assertions implied in #13 were equally unsupported. Having reached that point, I agree we can exit.
December 14th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #41
Thanks Tom. i enjoy talking with you, it’s just that I think we’ve exausted the subject. We, it seems to me, are unlikely to convince each other.
But I would add (please feel free to respond if you wish, it wouldn’t be fair for me to pose an issue, and then close the discussion!) that I think reason and empirical evidence is very mixed in practice. And, clearly, the people who are in charge (e.g., research scientists, clinical psychologists,) of the APA are human, like the rest of us, and have their own biases that they bring to the table, so, sure, they probably don’t base it completely (their decesions regarding controversial issues like gay topics) on bjective criteria. But it does seem to boil down, if I’m not mistaken, and please correct me, if you believe I am, to the bible says it’s wrong, so it’s wrong. This, interestingly, if not combined with a reason, that all rational people would be compelled to accept, seem to imply that, God commands it, so it’s true, which may have implications for our ability to know essences, concerning homosexuality, and marriage. If God merely commands it, without giving a reason, then perhaps there isn’t an essence to marriage, with the implication being, that, this could not persuade non religious people.
December 15th, 2010 | 6:17 am | #42
Bret Lythgoe
Is it not the case that polygamy is permitted, at least in some cases, in the jurisprudence of a very large number of societies, including Jewish, Islamic, traditional Hindu and Chinese, as well as in many pre-literate cultures?
If the effects of polygamy are demonstrably harmful, how has this escaped the notice of these jurists? Do they, perhaps, hold different notions of human flourishing and of public policy? If so, are we justified, in a pluralist society in legally enforcing monogamy?
December 15th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #43
I think the discussion here lends credit to the article’s motif: defining marriage by its uses and benefits is both subjective and dangerous.
Does not the scripture clearly define the purpose and model for marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33? It says that Jesus loves us as his bride, and “for this cause…”(v. 31) a man should marry a wife and love her the same way. As for me, I did not marry my wife only because I love her, but also because I want to typify the love of Christ. Love is integral; the Bible even commands it! Biblical marriage, however, is more than love, just as Tom is more than a talker/sweeper/lifter.
Thanks, Tom, for the insightful satire.
December 17th, 2010 | 6:39 pm | #44
Highly enjoyable. Very well done.
December 18th, 2010 | 7:34 am | #45
Sometimes satire is even more effective than rational arguments, as the above dialog illustrates. Satire disarms and unmasks its opponents, while logic eventually pushes people into a corner where they defend their illogical assumptions with emotion, rendering them unpersuadable. Nevertheless, I would remiss if I did not illustrate some of the history which led to the APA’s declassification of homosexuality as a pathological disorder in 1973: see here.
December 18th, 2010 | 8:26 am | #46
Thank you for that link! I read that article in print, or something very much like it, years ago, and I’ve been looking for it on the web. Note also the Princeton University Press book referenced in that article as historical source material.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact