M
MilesVitae
Guest
I’d like to hear others’ thoughts on this.
I think that conservatives tend to give a rather poor defense of traditional marriage when they appeal to procreation as the purpose of marriage (this has, at least, been my experience). Procreation and the rearing of children is the purpose of marriage, or at anyrate is the reason it is of concern to the state, goes the argument. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate, then they should not be permitted to enter into a legal marriage.
The classic response to this, of course, is that if we followed this line of reasoning, then we ought not to permit marriage between couples who are infertile (due to old age or other reasons). That is, of course, not the Catholic position, and the rationale of the Catholic Church does not lead to such a conclusion. But, I think that those in support of so-called gay marriage are correct - the typical manner in which traditional marriage is defended by appeal to the procreative purpose, like above, does seem to imply that infertile couples ought not be permitted to marry. I think this common defense of traditional marriage is flawed - it is, at least, incomplete. After all, it is not simply because a particular couple cannot procreate that they cannot marry - or else the elderly could not. I would also ask, is procreation really the only reason the state is concerned with marriage? I’m not so sure about that…
In any case, the reason does not have to do merely with this or that couples inability to procreate - although it does have to do with procreation - but, personally, I have trouble articulating the reason. It has to do with the nature of sexuality, having procreation as one of its purposes. As such, any kind of sexual act which is, by nature, not reproductive (as opposed to infertile by circumstance), is an inauthentic (for lack of a better word) sexual act…and, thus, any union which cannot involve sexual acts that are procreative by nature is an inauthentic marital union.
At anyrate, I’d like to hear if others agree or disagree, and if anyone would like to offer a clearer argument than mine…
I think that conservatives tend to give a rather poor defense of traditional marriage when they appeal to procreation as the purpose of marriage (this has, at least, been my experience). Procreation and the rearing of children is the purpose of marriage, or at anyrate is the reason it is of concern to the state, goes the argument. Since homosexual couples cannot procreate, then they should not be permitted to enter into a legal marriage.
The classic response to this, of course, is that if we followed this line of reasoning, then we ought not to permit marriage between couples who are infertile (due to old age or other reasons). That is, of course, not the Catholic position, and the rationale of the Catholic Church does not lead to such a conclusion. But, I think that those in support of so-called gay marriage are correct - the typical manner in which traditional marriage is defended by appeal to the procreative purpose, like above, does seem to imply that infertile couples ought not be permitted to marry. I think this common defense of traditional marriage is flawed - it is, at least, incomplete. After all, it is not simply because a particular couple cannot procreate that they cannot marry - or else the elderly could not. I would also ask, is procreation really the only reason the state is concerned with marriage? I’m not so sure about that…
In any case, the reason does not have to do merely with this or that couples inability to procreate - although it does have to do with procreation - but, personally, I have trouble articulating the reason. It has to do with the nature of sexuality, having procreation as one of its purposes. As such, any kind of sexual act which is, by nature, not reproductive (as opposed to infertile by circumstance), is an inauthentic (for lack of a better word) sexual act…and, thus, any union which cannot involve sexual acts that are procreative by nature is an inauthentic marital union.
At anyrate, I’d like to hear if others agree or disagree, and if anyone would like to offer a clearer argument than mine…
