Sanctity of marriage

[julesjones]

A little something for those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that the purpose of marriage is procreation:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gayweddings-pg,0,5597152.photogallery?index=17

(The rest of the photo gallery is worth looking at as well, though you might want to have a tissue handy.)

Comments

[svilleficrecs.livejournal.com]

AWWWWWWWW.

I love how the little kid is all, "Yeah, whatever, my dads are getting married, I've got a video game to play."

[julesjones]

He's sweet, isn't he? :-)

[tharain.livejournal.com]

I am NOT CHOKED UP. NOT A BIT.

[julesjones]

Made me teary, and it doesn't affect me personally. Just a lot of my friends..

[jthijsen.livejournal.com]

I went "awwwww" when I read about the couple who'd been together for 57 years and who could now finally tie the knot.

[julesjones]

Yes, some of these people have been waiting a long, long time.

[hafren.livejournal.com]

The baby looks interested! But you know you're getting old when your reaction to the kid with the video game would be to knock it out of his hand and snap "pay attention, you uncivil brat".... I have encountered too many students with mobile phones in the classroom.

Re the procreation thing, it is now almost unbelievable that married couples were, less than a century ago, supposed to give up sex after the menopause, not because they'd stopped enjoying it but because, in the words of the then bishop of Southwark, "it must cease after the natural period of child-bearing [...] if you relax the idea that intercourse has any other purpose behind it except the procreation of children, you are bound little by little to give the whole situation away [...] it seems to me that you open the door to a lowering of the whole idea of the union between the man and the woman". This was in evidence to the National Birth Rate Commission of 1915, a year when you'd think he would have had more to worry about than whether middle-aged people were illicitly enjoying themselves.

[julesjones]

Your students are old enough to know better, though. :-)

There was someone on Radio 4 this morning, I think but am not certain in the God-slot, cheerfully dismantling the religious objections to marriage. I think it was in connection with this week's tempest in a teacup about the Anglican vicar who married two other ministers who both happen to be men, though I didn't catch the start of it. One of the things he said was in relation to the procreation thing -- are we going to ban the infertile and those too old to bear children from getting married, then?

[jthijsen.livejournal.com]

Actually, in Italy a bishop did indeed quite recently keep a man who'd become impotent from getting married in church for exactly that reason.

[julesjones]

Oh, I'm well aware that the attitude is still around -- two of my friends were subjected to some deeply unpleasant remarks during the sermon at a relative's wedding that were clearly a reference to their infertility problems. But it would be rare these days for anyone in the UK to seriously suggest that it should be a reason to bar people from even a religious wedding ceremony, never mind a civil marriage.

[sarahf.livejournal.com]

I don't know how anyone can look at those pictures and think that there's anything wrong with all that love.

[julesjones]

Or suggest that it isn't about love. As noted upthread, one of the couples had been together for 57 years. If that isn't devotion, I don't know what is.

[zeborah]

I saw a comment thread in a newspaper with one person repeatedly posting things like "Look at those two men kissing! EWWWWWWW!" If I posted to newspaper comment threads I would have been sorely tempted to ask her if she realised she sounds like a fifth-grader.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

The arguments against it are not based on logic. If they tell you marriage is for procreation, and you counter that gay couples can adopt or use a surrogate, they'll just reply that it's bad for the kids to be raised that way.

There is no way to fight illogical attitudes, because there's no argument that will beat them. But we can keep sharing happy stories and sweet pictures like this, and hope that each subsequent generation has more people who look at the evidence in front of their eyes, and fewer people who lock themselves in their own little hate-filled worlds.

[julesjones]

Keep challenging it with real life examples, and one or two of them will start to think for themselves, the ones who aren't filled with hate but just haven't thought it through. There are a lot of people (like my parents and many of their friends) who are desperately uncomfortable with the existence of gay people and would be happier if gays stayed in the closet, but are also horrified by the idea that anyone would be harmed just for being gay. They're the ones who can be reached by pictures like these.

[luscious-words.livejournal.com]

The love in these photos is so obvious. Marriage is about devotion and love, wanting to create a bond with that person(s) with whom you want to share your future. These photos express that in spades.

[julesjones]

Yep. There's a reason I put a hankie warning on the post. :-)

[luscious-words.livejournal.com]

*nods* My eyes were not dry, that's for certain.

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

These are very lovely. It's been a great thing to read about this week.

[julesjones]

Of course, I was living in the Bay area when the Mayor of San Francisco decided four years ago that he was going to put the state constitution first and start marrying same-sex couples. It was a sad thing when those marriages were annulled, but it was clear he'd started something that wasn't going to go away. I'm so glad that both houses *and* the state supreme court have said that he was doing the right thing.

[literaryfeline.livejournal.com]

I imagine there would be a few people who are appalled by my husband's and my choice to not have children.

I was so pleased with the court's decision about allowing gay marriages, but I admit to being a little concerned about what the outcome of the proposed California constitutional amendment will be this November. It could undo the progress that has been made.

[julesjones]

Given the number of people in the Bible Belt areas (even in California's Bible Belt) who think it's perfectly reasonable behaviour for a pharmacist to tear up a prescription for birth control pills, I'm inclined to agree with you.

What gives me hope is that it is emotionally much harder for fence-sitters to vote to annul existing, real marriages than to vote not to allow those marriages. These photos have a purpose, over and above the simple pleasure of seeing very happy people. They remind the fence-sitters that it *is* real people and real marriages that will be ripped apart if they vote yes on the amendment. Scalzi has an excellent rant on the subject here: http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=896