tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post8982611355299257704..comments2023-10-10T06:48:40.299-03:00Comments on the feminist librarian: "homosexual marriage?" (1953) & "the gay guide to wedded bliss" (2013)annajcookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17573723390785613915noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8743841912028246535.post-44561815070356031552013-06-01T10:46:16.589-03:002013-06-01T10:46:16.589-03:00. Re: Anyway. Have you read the Atlantic piece? If.... Re: Anyway. Have you read the Atlantic piece? If so, what did you think of it? <br /><br />Well, obviously, I was mildly alarmed by it. I don't think that the egalitarian model of marriage is the best, and I think the best marriages and relationships are those with different, complementary roles, in which one partner takes on a kind of protector/provider/guardian role over the other, and the other partner takes on a more submissive, 'honor and obey' kind of role. One of Rod Dreher's commenters put it best, I think. <br /><br />"Maybe the real problem is the whole development of the “romantic love” idea of marriage and the idea of marriage as complementary companionship of equals. Greek ideas of “love”, whether heterosexual or homosexual, presuppose inequality: there is a lover and a beloved, a pursuer and a pursued.<br />When marriage was mainly about children and property and inheritance, people seemed less likely to have the sort of existential angst that we have about it."<br /><br />I believe fairly strongly in distinct gender roles, in other words, and the idea of genderless marriage, a 'companionship of equals', is one that I don't really support. That said, I don't think this is a good reason to *oppose* same-sex marriage. If the traditional, complementarian model of marriage is the best, then it should be strong enough to survive criticism and competition from alternative family forms (and, of course, I believe it will).<br /><br />Also, that ridiculous Episcopal priest they interviewed has go to go, he's a disgrace to my church. He's also wrong: while the 'honor and obey' language isn't *mandatory* for the marriage service, it isn't forbidden either: if I was to get married in the Episcopal church, my wife absolutely could promise to honour and obey me.<br /><br />This is good, in a way, though, because it shifts the war over the definition of marriage from the legal sphere (where it doesn't belong) to the cultural sphere (where it does).Hector_St_Clarehttp://aleksandreia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com