Rob Tisinai is doing a very nice dissection of an article by Robert George that claims to establish the basis of "real marriage" (i.e., the "traditional" patriarchal version). My only objection is that I think Tisinai is being way too nice, but then, I have small patience with fools.
Check it out.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Update:
Here's another comment on George's article from Jason Kuznicki that's quite cogent and pretty devastating. This comment from one of Kuznicki's readers echoes the comment I left at Tisinai's Part V:
The upshot was that “marriage” (in quotes now because there isn’t a truly universal definition) was a cultural construct and can’t be properly understood outside its cultural context. If you want to understand Nuer marriage, for instance, you need to get a grasp of the panoply of formal relationships in their culture, and if one of them more closely resembles our notion of marriage and you want to call it marriage, so be it.
The larger point I’m driving at is that if a culture wants to recognize gay marriage as marriage just say it is and it is. No need to talk about penises or vaginas or any other naughty bits, which don’t have any cosmic significance that I am aware of. If society says it is, it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment