Though I’m horrifically biased, I’m inclined to agree. Family bonds are far-reaching, and not grounded in sexual intercourse. Plus Huang Di rocked it. Hard to argue with a Sage King. I also think the duty to reproduce could at least be circumvented. After all, “You may put aside the one who gave birth to you; the efforts of the one who raises you are greater than Heaven.”
There are two problems as I see it:
1) Gender roles. Confucius doesn’t strike me as the kinda guy who would be OK with swapping gender roles around. So while he would probably be OK with the idea of gay marriage, or at least not staunchly opposed to it, I don’t think he would approve of third-gendered dandyism. Since that is a part of the homosexual sub-culture, at least in the US, I think that could prove problematic.
2) Yin/Yang cosmology. While the Analects are fairly silent on this issue, Confucius’s appreciation for the Yijing can be taken as an endorsement of that formulation. While they are both ultimately divisible into further aspects of yin and yang (a possible work around), I’m not sure how he’d view double yin or double yang relationships given the way this system is devised. They would be unbalanced.

LikeLike

I think that depends. In the ancient world, marriage was essentially a property contract. Since men could own themselves, marriage was unnecessary. Given that the definition of marriage has changed since then, we have to ask how Confucius would view marriage in light of the new definition. When in barbarian lands, follow their rituals and all that.

LikeLike

Good words.

LikeLike

“Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.” Confucius

LikeLike

Hi Justice&Mercy.
1. You say, “Upon consideration, this approach appears to stem from the Classics.” I’m wonderin what is the consideration that appears to show that it wasn’t the opposite way: that the Classics weren’t simply reflecting the culture. Or do you just mean that once the Classics were in place, they added stability?
2. It seems to me that your points 1 and 2 are consistent with the idea that the authors were simply unaware of homosexuality as we understand it: as a natural orientation to the same sex that is similar in nature, stability and intensity to most people’s natural orientation to the other sex (characterizing a significant minority of people). For that reason I’m not convinced that the Classics express a view about gay marriage. That is, it might be that the worldview of the Classics is in error on a factual point in such a way that for them the question does not arise.
3. If according to the Classics “the primary purpose of 礼教 is to 别男女” and there is no specific comment about discreet same-sex sex, then it seems to me reasonable to think that the implicit view of the Classics is that discreet sex swims against a very important normative stream, and so is bad. I’m not sure why that isn’t your reading.
4. This isn’t a question or a challenge – – but it’s fascinating to me that in the Confucian tradition “别男女” can be on its face a matter of fundamental moral importance. Not that such a thing can’t be prima facie very important – – but as a recent Westerner (a person of the recent West) I’m used to the idea that in ethics, the fundamentals are about how people are the same; the fundamentals are universals. Or, universality or equality is the fundamental. Rightness is basically horizontal, not vertical. This is a point mainly about imagery, and I suppose it might be related to the point that (as I gather) Western thinkers have aimed at moral theory in a way that Confucian thinkers have not. ??

LikeLike

Dear Bill Haines,
It’s good to talk with you again.
(1) If the Classics strongly condemned homosexuality, then the culture after Confucius would have strongly condemned homosexuality, too. (E.g. Like Christianity in Europe.) However, the Classics did not strongly condemn homosexuality. Therefore, while people were generally against it, they did not see this as an urgent issue.
(2) The Classics express a view on marriage, that its foundation is the distinction between man and woman. I don’t see, therefore, how gay marriage could work in terms of the Classics.
(3) Males and females are distinguished in several ways: (a) symbolically, to reinforce their differences, (b) functionally, to create division of labour, (c) spatially, to prevent unwarranted contact. These goals are not necessarily frustrated by the gay sex. At least, it is not apparent to me. We must remember that the assumption here is that there is no gay marriage in the first place. The goals (a), (b), and (c) are meant to protect marriages. Marriages are threatened by adultery with an opposite sex person, but not necessarily by gay sex, if there is no gay marriage in the first place.
(4) Equality is anathema to Confucianism as traditionally understood (e.g. anytime before May Fourth). A serious Confucian does not believe in equality. (Men are equal with respect to their Heaven-bestowed nature. They are unequal with respect to their material force and position in life.)

LikeLike

Hi J&M.
“The more fundamental question is whether human decency can be known without reference to the Classics.”
I don’t understand – are you saying you yourself think it might be true that a person can’t have basic human decency, or have it intentionally, or know what it is, without the Classics? Or are you not saying that this is a serious question for you, but only saying that it is a serious question for Confucians?

LikeLike

I think there is a shorter way to rephrase the above.
(1) Goodness is objective. It is also accessible apart from the Classics.
(2) The Classics are the infallible standard of goodness.
(3) If a person’s view of goodness differs from that of the Classics, then either (1) that person’s view of goodness is wrong, or (2) he has misinterpreted the Classics.
We are encouraged to develop the goodness within ourselves, but the Classics is the only sure measuring stick.
The above is my Confucian position.
My objective position is that each ideology contains its own goals and values. Different ideologies conflict, because they prioritise different goals and values. Sometimes, they differ on whether something is good or not.
The Classics contain its own goals and values, such as the differentiation of males and females. Personally, I agree with the Classics. The naivete of women, the bravado of men – Silly stuff, perhaps, but these are what make life beautiful. I don’t understand why liberals and Marxists see differences as bad.
I also agree with the Classics factually: Men and women are inherently different. Attraction is based on differences, not similarities.

LikeLike

Dear Bill Haines,
Both.
I am at present a Confucian, and this is what I take to be the Confucian position.

LikeLike

Separately, J&M, in connection with a discussion I was having with Sam here
http://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2011/10/confucian-child-rearing.html
, I’d be interested in your input. Do the classics have much to say about what kinds of early childrearing practices produce good moral results? Do they say early childrearing practices are crucial, or not? And what do they advise? I simply don’t know.

LikeLike

Thanks for asking!
1
I don’t have any definite or articulate view about the kinds and degrees of natural statistical difference between women and men (other than gross physical differences, which science has already reduced for the general population – easy birth control). I expect there are some natural psychological statistical differences. If there is some small difference in the average intelligence or average general moral virtue of the genders, or capacity for good rule, I have no suspicion as to which side has the advantage. (Perhaps a Confucian would think the key virtue for a ruler is the tendency to be sensitive and caring.) Like most educated people nowadays I think social practices of differentiation tend to create a greatly exaggerated appearance of natural differences, and that even currently in the West there are pretty significant social practices of differentiation, including in early childhood. On the other hand: I see no reason in principle why there couldn’t be significant natural psychological differences; and I think it can make sense for society to treat groups differently on account of merely statistical differences.
To return also to an earlier topic on this page, I don’t think the practices and ideas suggested by the terms “equality” and “universality” are justified on grounds of exact similarity, or are generally thought to be justified on the basis of that sort of reason.
Regarding the requirement that fundamentals be universal, I think one of the main attractions is a concern for simplicity in fundamentals. For example, if someone says men should do this and women should do that, it’s natural to think there must be some underlying reason – one that doesn’t similarly take the form of a list. For example, a more fundamental principle could be something like utilitarianism, which might be thought to support various kinds of social differentiation. I gather you hold some such view: that what justifies very different roles for the genders is the general well-being of society.
Regarding equality, and the requirement that laws be universal, I think one main justification is a concern for security. Social arrangements must often be changed, for we learn and conditions change; but so long as we are resolved that the arrangements will keep us all in the same boat in key ways, we are protected from being done too far down by the changes. For example, the principle that legislators aren’t to exempt themselves from the laws protects us all from the legislators, as does the principle that taxation should be equal in some sense. If the sexes have different roles and part of the differentiation is that one gender is basically in charge, the other sex is in danger of having its needs and natural authority inadequately noticed and taken account of. Further, insofar as the frameworks of our lives are the same, we can understand, sympathize with, and learn from each other better: promoting harmony, community, and intelligent social decisions.
You ask me if I think the Confucian depiction of marriage is charming. Ideals do tend to be charming, independently of whether they’re unrealistic and unsustainable, or even obviously so. (I’m inclined to think disagreements about ends often come down to disagreements about what’s sustainable.) But I’m not sure just what picture you have in mind. Is it an ideal such that people aiming at it would receive the mere idea of footbinding with incredulity and horror? I do feel at home with the modern liberal view. The idea of one person being in charge of a household strikes me on a gut level as ugly.
I say more about liberalism in Comment #9 of this thread:
http://warpweftandway.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/free-access-to-dao-and-other-springer-journals/
2
I wonder what, in your view, is the practical significance of the view that “men are equal with respect to their Heaven-bestowed nature.”
3
You say, “The more fundamental question is whether human decency can be known without reference to the Classics.” I am not sure whether any of what you say after that in the same comment is meant to address that question. The one point that seems to come close to addressing the question is when You say, “Rural England before the Industrial Revolution was an idyllic society – in my view, embodying many values dear to Confucians” – which seems to imply that in your view human decency (the easy, elementary part of virtue) can be quite widespread without any contact with the Classics. But you might distinguish holding or embodying from “knowing” the values (or knowing goodness).
In talking about values, you’re talking about more than just morality or basic human decency. But my view is that ‘morality’ is a name for roughly this:
(a) Appreciating that you are one person among others, (b) respecting people (including yourself), (c) caring about people, (d) looking at things also from others’ points of view, and (e) holding yourself to those standards you hope others will hold themselves to.
(I say a little more about that here:
http://warpweftandway.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/qanda/#comments)
I think the more one does that, the more one grasps its value.

LikeLike