Well, it's about time I expanded on my little personal boycott on marriage. I'll try to lay out my whole thought process that brought me to where I am right now, and you can either sympathize with it or be even more disgusted by it than you already are.
If you'd rather not read an entire manifesto, just stick with the paragraph from my previous post, which sums things up pretty well.
Before we begin, I'd like to start taking two things for granted.
I. As atheists go, you might consider me "staunch." This shouldn't be too shocking -- I haven't believed in god since I was an infant, and even then I wasn't exactly an avid churchgoer.
II. Social pressure tends to have the opposite effect on me from the one society was going for. (See Article I.) And I like it that way.
Now that we're all on the same page, here's the number one thing about marriage that bugs me: it is, at its core, a religious institution. If it's not historically, then it sure is in contemporary American culture. As you'll see, the exclusion of homosexuals from full marriage rights is at the root of this problem.
Q. You don't have to get married in a church, you know. Or by a minister. Ship captains can do it.
A. Yes, I'm aware of this. But why don't we allow homosexuals to get married?
You've probably heard the argument from some of our right-leaning politicians that allowing homosexuals to marry would open the door to polygamists, siblings, and NAMBLA. If you're reading this, you probably already think that argument is stupid, so I'll move on.
Then there's the argument that children would be innately harmed by having homosexual parents. Personally, I think that argument comes from fear of the unknown. I don't think homosexuals are all that much different from heterosexuals, and I don't think two dads or two moms would do all that much more psychological damage than one of each (or one of either, for that matter). If you're worried that the children could be socially ostracized, well, a little social ostracization can be good for you. (See Article II.)
My point is that these arguments are smoke screens. Nobody on the right wants to admit the real reason, in fact the one and only valid reason, that homosexuals can't get married: because marriage is innately religious, and in America we're Christians, and God is not cool with gays.
Well, God's not cool with atheists, either.
Q. But what about all the benefits?
A. First of all, let's not overstate the benefits. Any tax breaks or other financial benefits would be pretty small for me, since I'm already dealing with small amounts of income.
Marriage clears up some legal questions, like who can unplug me from the machine, or who gets my comic books after they're done unplugging me. But these are all things that can be cleared up in other, less matrimonial ways. Maybe it's not as easy, but it can be done -- and if homosexuals aren't allowed to have it easy, I don't see why I should.
It also occurs to me that something like half of all marriages fail. Marriages don't offer permanence; they just penalize breakups by making them more emotionally, financially, and legally difficult. I don't see that as a benefit.
Q. But if people see that you've been with someone for so many years and you're not even engaged, they're going to think you're weird.
A. See Article II.
Q. What if you want to have kids some day?
A. As it turns out, the biology works out in much the same way.
Sure, this would make my children "illegitimate," or even better, "bastards." The facts that I'd be in a monogamous relationship with the mother, that we'd all live together as a family, and that I'd be a good parent and provider would in no way "legitimize" my children, whatever that means. Because apparently it's all meaningless if you don't enter into a socially required contract. (See Article II.)
Would my children be ostracized for having unmarried parents? I don't see why. I'm unlikely to live in any town small enough that anyone would know that my kids' parents are unmarried. And if they were ostracized, well, see Article II.
Q. But your girlfriend wants to get married.
A. Yeah, and I don't. Should I flip a freakin' coin?
Put more diplomatically: I'm just as depressed by the idea of going against my principles and being a total hypocrite by getting married, as she is by going against contemporary American societal norm and not getting married. That my position is maintenance of the status quo does give me some measure of advantage, and I apologize for that.
Q. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, will you get married? (this question brought to you by RM)
A. I'd certainly consider it. At that point the only things holding me back would be ambivalence and a general dislike of boring ceremonies. The promise of gifts would probably tip the scales.
Q. This is why you're not joining the Army, too, right? (sarcastic comment brought to you by M. Pinz)
A. I've been talking about this for a while now, but this sarcastic comment is maybe the first thing I've heard that's actually made me stop and think. So, congratulations, M. Pinz.
This comment could be read to mean, "you're just using homosexuality as an excuse to get out of something you already don't want to do." Well, I've already written my response to that in the above 400,000 words or less. But this actually made me think of something totally different.
The truth is, if someone tried to pressure me to join the Army, its exclusion of homosexuals (or its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which I've always thought was patently stupid) wouldn't even make the list of reasons not to before I totally abandoned the idea. Here's what my thought process would look like...
PROS
* ...?
CONS
* I totally disagree with this administration's military policies, strategies, and tactics.
* I'm also not too keen on murder.
* Mom would never allow it.
* I know it doesn't always look like it, but I'm actually trying to build some kind of career here, people. Two years in the desert might set me back.
* The Army? I have a degree in computer science! Can't I at least get into the Air Force, or something a little less cannon-foddery?
* ERROR BREAK
See? I didn't even make it to discrimination, or the fact that I don't want to shave my head.
Does that mean my position is somewhat contradictory? Probably...I'm willing to admit to some glaring contradictions. As I mentioned in my reply to RM, I eat meat even though I'm ideologically against it, because it's just too hard to give up. In the case of marriage, my ideological problems with it just plain outweigh the benefits. (And in the case of the military, all the benefits in the world would have trouble stacking against the cons.)
Q. So, you think you're so much better than married people?
A. Nobody's actually asked this, but I just want to make it totally clear that I have no problem with anyone other than me getting married. There's an element of political activism to my little boycott, but for me the intention of political activism is to raise awareness, not to expect other people to join me. If I went on hunger strike, I wouldn't resent you for still eating.
In closing: I expect to be with Julia for the foreseeable, and even the unforeseeable future. I moved from a big city where I had friends and disposable income, to a comically-named much smaller city where I didn't know anyone or have any prospects, just to stay with her while she goes to graduate school. If anyone still doubts my commitment to our relationship after that, I don't have much to offer them.
In fact, right now I'd say the one and only reason I can envision us ever breaking up is if Julia finally gets completely fed up with me for not marrying her, and she decides to leave in search of someone who will. I really hope that doesn't happen. She's not as big on Article II as I am.
I'm interested in a discourse on this, so feel free to comment.
Wait, so people actually HAVE asked the other questions? Even the baby one? I mean, you are not the only person I know in a many-multi-year non-marrage relationship, and they do mention lots of dumb questions, but, wow.
Also, I wan't really challenging you. I just seem to get these pangs of intuition - like you only seeing the commercial for "The Shield"
The idea of throwing a really kick-ass party for my friends is appealing to me. But having gone to a wedding now, it's not really as kick-ass or "with your friends" as I envisioned it. I say you just invite everyone to one of the anniversaries that as a culture of base-ten number systems say are important. All the party, less of the pomp, you are not distracted, you still get presents.
Or dress as a woman during your marriage. You could defray the cost of the wedding by filming then selling it as a pilot to NBC to fill the whole Joey left. You get a career, Julia gets a wedding. I'm a fricking genius.
Anyway. I totally will join your symbolic cause. Though, the symbolism is hurt by the fact that I will also not be levitating in the time period before gays can marry.
Yes, the baby one especially has been brought up by more than one person.
I had this whole plan where if I won Powerball and got ludicrously rich I'd arrange for a reality show, starring me and all my friends who comprise my staff, globetrotting for treasure. Incidentally you and Kurt were going to be my celebrity attorneys. But, eh, I didn't win.
It was, indeed, saracastic and was, indeed, implying just what you figured. But I'm surprised to see that if the gay-marriage ban were lifted, you would consider getting married. In that case, I withdraw my snarky implication that you were using principle as an excuse for getting out of something you just don't feel like doing.
Have you considered the possibility that you may, in the forseeable (or unforseeable) future be put to an ultimatum on this issue? How would the pros and cons match up at THAT point?
You make a good point about the presents. I often think of doing it all again to rectify my pitiful lack of serving platters.
I would not call health insurance a "small" benefit, especially given that you now have it (I think) and Julia doesn't.
Have you considered the possibility that you may be put to an ultimatum on this issue?
The possibility has occured to me of course. (See end of manifesto.) I'm very lucky to be with an emotionally mature woman who loves me very much, and we both know that our relationship is exceptionally healthy. I can't say for sure what I'd do if faced with an ultimatum, but I do fear that if I felt I had been forced into a marriage, I'd feel resentful and unhappy about the situation. I think she also would prefer that I go to marriage willingly.
I would not call health insurance a "small" benefit, especially given that you now have it (I think) and Julia doesn't.
That's true. I did tell my employers that I have a life partner, and they said they were totally okay with that -- but that he wouldn't be covered.
This thread reminds me that I forgot to tell you that my brother proposed to his boyfriend and I will be officiating at the wedding. That's right. . . I'm a celebrity attorney with or without you.
"celebrity attorney?" Well if someone had said "celebrity chef 10-15 years ago I'd have had the same look on my face so?
(I thought Josh's wedding already happened?)
He got a marriage license from the state. Like Andrew, however, he thinks that human marriage is a corrupt institution, however, and hence the trees, with me as their liason, will be performing the wedding in August.
Which does raise an alternative for Andrew. he could have the trees marry him.
I don't know...are they Lutheran? Ba-dum ching!
Words I recognize individually, are being combined into sentences I can not understand.