Good strictly secular argument against same sex marriage

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I would consider that what is essential and not present in a thing would render the thing broken.

That doesn’t quite make sense, Stephen. Think about it. There is nothing that is what it is that is also lacking in what it needs in order to be what it is, and whether or not a thing is broken does not mean that it is lacking some essential part of what it is. There are no humans that actually lack their essential humanity, regardless of the degree to which they behave inhumanly. There are no chairs that lack the essential features of chairness. There are no butterflies that lack the essential qualities and features of a butterfly. A ham sandwich will always have ham in it, regardless of the quality of the ham or the other ingredients of the sandwich.

“Broken” is not really applicable to a thing’s essence, but is more applicable to a thing’s telos. I.e., a thing is broken when it is unable to fulfill it’s purpose. A hairdryer is broken when it can no longer dry your hair. A chair is broken when no one can sit on it or in it. But when a hairdryer is broken, it does not suddenly cease being recognizable as a hairdryer–it doesn’t suddenly become unthinkable or unrecognizable as a hairdryer, nor does it suddenly become something else simply because it ceases to operate as it “should.” Telos and essence may be mutually conditioning in some ways (depending on your perspective–which comes first, essence or telos?), but they are not interchangeable.

We can speak of the purposes of marriage, as I have. We can speak of purposes that are essential, and we can also speak of purposes that are not essential–i.e., purposes that are conditional or optional. The various ends of marriage are not all identical with marriage, but to the extent to which any of those ends is present in every marriage that is recognizable as a marriage, then we’re speaking of essential purposes. If those ends are not universal, then they are not essential.

The procreative act is essential to marriage; it creates children which have a right to be raised by their biological parents.

You have identified the procreative act as essential to marriage. This is to say that any marriage in which the procreative act does not occur is not a marriage. I urge you to reconsider what you have stated here, Stephen, because you are not only judging modern Josephite marriages as inadequate or invalid, but you are also rendering a judgment on the marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph. I would argue that it is better to see the procreative act as a conditional purpose of marriage and not an essential purpose.

Moreover, you assert that a child has a “right” to be raised by its biological parents. In many cases, children are given up for adoption because the biological parents are not able to provide for the child adequately. Insisting on a child’s right to be raised by its biological parents would make giving up a child for adoption impossible, and may in fact be contrary to the child’s best interests in those cases in which a child cannot be adequately cared for by his or her biological parents. If the mother dies in childbirth, meeting the child’s “right” to be raised by both biological parents becomes difficult or impossible without supernatural or preternatural assistance. It is less the case that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents, and more the case that parents have the right to raise their biological children…unless they give up that right in one way or another.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I might add here that what is essential to marriage is the ability to engage in marital relations. And only opposite sex couples are able to engage in marital–conjugal–relations because only opposite sex couples are sexually complementary. A marital relationship is impossible to same sex couples.

The possibility of procreation is simply a corollary of the ability to have conjugal relations.

I’m glad you mentioned this, JimG, because the ability to engage in an act is not the same thing as the actual performance of the act (which may be what Stephen is getting at, but certainly not what he’s saying). Of course, this is why impotence is a diriment impediment to marriage that cannot be dispensed.

However: while an impotent person cannot be married ecclesiastically, he can be married civilly. This suggests that, where civil marriage law is concerned, neither the ability to engage in procreative sex nor the actual performance of an act of procreative sex are essential to how the state understands marriage.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JimG]

You have identified the procreative act as essential to marriage. This is to say that any marriage in which the procreative act does not occur is not a marriage. I urge you to reconsider what you have stated here, Stephen, because you are not only judging modern Josephite marriages as inadequate or invalid, but you are also rendering a judgment on the marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph. I would argue that it is better to see the procreative act as a conditional purpose of marriage and not an essential purpose.

Allow me to address this one point, not speaking for Stephen, but to my own point.

The Church puts antecedent, permanent, and incurable impotence as an impediment to marriage. There must be the capacity to engage in marital relations.

That in itself does not rule out Josephite marriage. A capacity need not be exercised, but it must be present.

If there is no capacity for marital relations, there can be no marriage.

 

[JimG]

Grace & Peace!

I’m glad you mentioned this, JimG, because the ability to engage in an act is not the same thing as the actual performance of the act (which may be what Stephen is getting at, but certainly not what he’s saying). Of course, this is why impotence is a diriment impediment to marriage that cannot be dispensed.

However: while an impotent person cannot be married ecclesiastically, he can be married civilly. This suggests that, where civil marriage law is concerned, neither the ability to engage in procreative sex nor the actual performance of an act of procreative sex are essential to how the state understands marriage.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Sorry, I replied before reading this post.

True, a civil marriage might not entail the same impediment with respect to lack of capacity of marital intercourse as does Canon law. Still, in many states, I suspect that such incapacity might be grounds for civil annulment rather than divorce.

The whole point of marriage is the mutual self-giving of persons, including the giving of the use of their complementary sexual faculties. It is this which leads to the possibility—and acutality—of procreation. And it is the possibility of procreation and family formation that even provides the State with a reason to become involved with regulating the institution of marriage. The State does have an interest in the generation and raising of future citizens.

 

[Rau]

However: while an impotent person cannot be married ecclesiastically, he can be married civilly. This suggests that, where civil marriage law is concerned, neither the ability to engage in procreative sex nor the actual performance of an act of procreative sex are essential to how the state understands marriage.

The State recognises all heterosexual unions (of sufficiently unrelated parties) to be the kind ordered toward building the society, and it does so without intruding into the potency, age (other than to confirm the minimum is attained) or fertility of the participants. That seems quite proper.

It would be an interesting discussion to review why the Church law (which I assume is changeable) disqualifies a candidate on the basis of impotency [though, I don’t recall the priest asking me about my potency; I think I’d remember that if he did…] and whether the less intrusive tack taken by the State causes the Church any difficulties/concerns.

 

[Stephen168]

That doesn’t quite make sense, Stephen. Think about it. There is nothing that is what it is that is also lacking in what it needs in order to be what it is, and whether or not a thing is broken does not mean that it is lacking some essential part of what it is. There are no humans that actually lack their essential humanity, regardless of the degree to which they behave inhumanly. There are no chairs that lack the essential features of chairness. There are no butterflies that lack the essential qualities and features of a butterfly. A ham sandwich will always have ham in it, regardless of the quality of the ham or the other ingredients of the sandwich.

It does make sense but I agree with you.

“Broken” is not really applicable to a thing’s essence, but is more applicable to a thing’s telos. I.e., a thing is broken when it is unable to fulfill it’s purpose. A hairdryer is broken when it can no longer dry your hair. A chair is broken when no one can sit on it or in it. But when a hairdryer is broken, it does not suddenly cease being recognizable as a hairdryer–it doesn’t suddenly become unthinkable or unrecognizable as a hairdryer, nor does it suddenly become something else simply because it ceases to operate as it “should.” Telos and essence may be mutually conditioning in some ways (depending on your perspective–which comes first, essence or telos?), but they are not interchangeable.

True, they may not be interchangeable but they point to each other.

We can speak of the purposes of marriage, as I have. We can speak of purposes that are essential, and we can also speak of purposes that are not essential–i.e., purposes that are conditional or optional. The various ends of marriage are not all identical with marriage, but to the extent to which any of those ends is present in every marriage that is recognizable as a marriage, then we’re speaking of essential purposes. If those ends are not universal, then they are not essential.

Every chair is designed to have four legs, a ham sandwich has ham, a hair dryer is designed to blow hot air. The substance is related to the telos. When they break neither changes. When a couple is not able to have children the substance and the telos of their marriage does not change.

You have identified the procreative act as essential to marriage. This is to say that any marriage in which the procreative act does not occur is not a marriage. I urge you to reconsider what you have stated here, Stephen, because you are not only judging modern Josephite marriages as inadequate or invalid, but you are also rendering a judgment on the marriage of Our Lady and St. Joseph. I would argue that it is better to see the procreative act as a conditional purpose of marriage and not an essential purpose.

Yes, a “modern Josephite marriage,” if I understand your meaning, is not a marriage. It doesn’t have the telos of marriage. But as a male and female they could decide to have a marriage.

Moreover, you assert that a child has a “right” to be raised by its biological parents. In many cases, children are given up for adoption because the biological parents are not able to provide for the child adequately. Insisting on a child’s right to be raised by its biological parents would make giving up a child for adoption impossible, and may in fact be contrary to the child’s best interests in those cases in which a child cannot be adequately cared for by his or her biological parents. If the mother dies in childbirth, meeting the child’s “right” to be raised by both biological parents becomes difficult or impossible without supernatural or preternatural assistance. It is less the case that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents, and more the case that parents have the right to raise their biological children…unless they give up that right in one way or another.

Yes, a child has a right to be raised by its biological parents. When for whatever reason that does not happen; the child’s rights have been violated. Society’s recognition of marriage is to ensure, as much as possible, the child’s rights are maintained or it is made as whole as possible. To have a child’s rights violated by accident is sad, but to have them violated by design should be a crime.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Still, in many states, I suspect that such incapacity might be grounds for civil annulment rather than divorce.

That may very well be, and it’s not an unreasonable assumption to make.

The whole point of marriage is the mutual self-giving of persons, including the giving of the use of their complementary sexual faculties.

I agree with you that marriage is about the mutual self-giving of persons, but where I don’t quite see your point is the degree to which biological sexual difference/complementarity is definitively constructive of the ground of the mutual self-giving of spouses in a way that *necessarily *excludes any other form of difference or complementarity as a constructive basis of self-giving. The more I’ve looked into the thinking behind the language of sexual complementarity (understood as a language of marital privilege), the more I’ve noticed a troubling tendency towards gender essentialism at the heart of things.

Witness, for instance, Balthasar’s dizzying take on sexual difference which leads him to affirm a basic equality between men and women on the one hand while positing on the other an even more fundamental hierarchy between them in which man is analogized to the divine and woman analogized to creation. Equality is defined out of that analogy. Woman’s gaze is directed to the man, he says, but man’s gaze is directed to the world. Woman comes from man, but she does not so much share his mission as support him in his… All of this leads to a construction of gender (and, ultimately, one may say, of sexuality) that sees sex not in terms of man and woman, but in terms of man and not-man, where not-man/woman becomes little more than the boundary against which man defines himself. That all may sound at first deeply mystical…but it winds up being dehumanizing the more it essentializes.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand quite well how important sexual difference is to procreation and that procreation ideally occurs within, as opposed to without, marriage. I don’t, however, understand how sexual difference must be definitively important to or constructive of mutual self-giving, unless the sexual act is burdened with a symbolic weight that sees procreative sex as an intensely mystical Mysterium Coniunctionis or the sine qua non of the human capacity for mutuality and self-giving. In which case, folks who are celibate for whatever reason really actually are missing out on an essential human experience, even though it’s one that Jesus himself (who is the very incarnation of self-giving) declined to experience, and one of which St. Paul advised people that they’re better off not experiencing it, even though, really, they could take it or leave it. So much for a grand Mysterium Coninuctionis. And, really, so much the better, because if sex is to bear that sort of mystical/teleological weight, then sex and all that goes with it is probably too much of a burden for your average pair of spouses to assume without seriously stressing their marriage: what happens when it just isn’t mystical? (That, by the way, is one of the criticisms I’ve encountered of the Theology of the Body–it makes just having sex with your spouse stressful if not impossible…and therefore undesirable.)

The State does have an interest in the generation and raising of future citizens.

More immediately, though, it has an interest in tax revenue, and marriage (whether “traditional” or “same-sex”) helps stabilize households and secure in a particular place otherwise mobile taxpayers. In places where same-sex couples can adopt, they can relieve the state of the care of children that have been placed in its custody and provide for the needs of future citizens more (cost) effectively (at least from the state’s point of view).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JimG]

Gender essentialism? Well yes, at least in the sense that mankind is comprised of two sexes, man and woman. That is an essential aspect of our humanity. Sex difference is not essential to every aspect of self giving, but it is an essential aspect of self-giving within marriage. Self-giving is not limited to marriage, but within marriage, self donation of the sexual faculties is an essential aspect of it, without which marriage need not exist. Man and woman are complementary in more ways than sexual, but sexual complementarity is an essential aspect of it.

The State has an interest in the continuance of society through family formation, and in the stability of families. The only reason that same sex ‘marriage’ is now seen as a civil option is that family structure has been already so destabilized (by contraception, divorce and other social ills stemming from the sexual revolution) that even its most essential aspect has been forgotten or lost. Same sex ‘marriage’ represents one more step down the road to family deconstruction, and whatever legislators may think of the matter, it merely advances the decline of society.

 

[BOProof]

BOProof;11624830:

What “unique, society-building potential” that is essential

to marriage do opposite-sex marriages have that same-sex marriages do not? Certainly it isn’t the ability to generate new children, since people too old to have children are permitted to enter a civil marriage.

Civil Marriage is not a pre-existing idea. Unions of people are the pre-existing idea, and civil marriage is a recognition of the special merit of opposite sex unions - their society building potential.

Yet you have refused to tell me what this society-building potential is that’s essential to marriage that opposite-sex marriages have that same-sex marriages do not. Certainly it isn’t the ability to generate new children, since people too old to have children are permitted to enter a civil marriage.

Marriage has always and everywhere been established as a recognition of opposite sex unions.

Two Roman emperors (Nero and Elagabalus) were married to spouses of the same-sex, and some Native American tribes recognized same-sex marriage. So your assertion is false.

Even if it were true that same-sex couples were always banned from civil marriage, that’s a terrible argument in favor of continuing to ban those couples from civil marriage.

The State recognises all heterosexual unions (of sufficiently unrelated parties) to be the kind ordered toward building the society, and it does so without intruding into the potency, age (other than to confirm the minimum is attained) or fertility of the participants. That seems quite proper.

How is the marriage between two people in their 80s (who you know are obviously sterile without doing any medical tests) more “ordered toward building the society” than a same-sex couple who intends to help build society by raising children?

 

[BOProof]

Marriage also carries with it the concept of matrimony (motherhood); same sex unions are sterile.

Because marriages can produce children. Homosexual unions are sterile; therefore not marriage.

So is a marriage ceremony between two people in their 80s be a marriage? If so, why should their obviously sterile union be open to civil marriage, but not the union between two people of the same-sex?

Note: No medical tests are necessary to know that two people in their 80s cannot produce new children.

 

[Rau]

Yet you have refused to tell me what this society-building potential is that’s essential to marriage that opposite-sex marriages have that same-sex marriages do not. Certainly it isn’t the ability to generate new children, since people too old to have children are permitted to enter a civil marriage.

Two Roman emperors (Nero and Elagabalus) were married to spouses of the same-sex, and some Native American tribes recognized same-sex marriage. So your assertion is false.

Even if it were true that same-sex couples were always banned from civil marriage, that’s a terrible argument in favor of continuing to ban those couples from civil marriage.

How is the marriage between two people in their 80s (who you know are obviously sterile without doing any medical tests) more “ordered toward building the society” than a same-sex couple who intends to help build society by raising children?

I thought I had been clear, and in fact you have referenced the answer a couple of times yourself. Heterosexual unions are the foundation of the society. That a particular person may have passed an age where they are no longer fertile is not fatal from the State’s perspective because the union remains of the type which is significant for the State.

I think it was you who mentioned Ancient Greece, Feudal Japan and American Indians once before, and I did respond then. I can’t speak with authority on these events, but I would note that Emperors perhaps make their own rules, and the society as a whole may have had little say. I wonder too whether the institutions you refer to were actually the same as the peoples at that time viewed Marriage to be. I think the point is that the overwhelming sweep of history, has considered marriage as a recognition of opposite sex unions, because such unions,as a class, are of societal significance. Note that no individual union is of much significance to society, but the heterosexual class is.

And as I explained previously, there is no “banning” as such. Marriage has been a recognition of opposite sex unions. A same sex couple presenting don’t qualify. Were my aged, poor father banned from the Aged pension, that would be unjust. I do not qualify for said pension, and that is just. I am not “banned” - such a claim would simple be emotive language. The State has the right to recognise the (class of) unions it deems to be of significance.

 

[JimG]

No matter the age of the individuals involved, an opposite sex couple, if they have the capacity to engage in marital intercourse, engage in an act that is ordered to procreation, for that is the nature of the act. Same sex individuals, no matter their age, can never engage in a marital act, that is, one which is ordered toward procreation. The very lack of sexual complementarity precludes it.

 

[Stephen168]

So is a marriage ceremony between two people in their 80s be a marriage?

Yes

If so, why should their obviously sterile union be open to civil marriage, but not the union between two people of the same-sex?

Note: No medical tests are necessary to know that two people in their 80s cannot produce new children.

See post #274

 

[BOProof]

BOProof;11629318:

So is a marriage ceremony between two people in their 80s be a marriage? If so, why should their obviously sterile union be open to civil marriage, but not the union between two people of the same-sex?

Note: No medical tests are necessary to know that two people in their 80s cannot produce new children.

See post #274

In that post, you flatly asserted that “The procreative act [a.k.a., vaginal sex] is essential to marriage.”

Why should the government use the capacity to engage in vaginal sex with each other as a requirement for civil marriage if the couple is beyond childbearing age and can’t produce children?

NOTE: Actually having vaginal sex is not a requirement for civil marriage. It’s perfectly legal to marry but never have any sex (like Joseph and Mary).

 

[BOProof]

No matter the age of the individuals involved, an opposite sex couple, if they have the capacity to engage in marital intercourse, engage in an act that is ordered to procreation, for that is the nature of the act.

Why should the capacity to engage in vaginal sex (as opposed to other kinds of sexual activities) after childbearing is no longer possible be a reason for the government to grant or deny civil marriage?

NOTE: Actually having vaginal sex is not a requirement for civil marriage. It’s perfectly legal to marry but never have any sex (like Joseph and Mary).

 

[BOProof]

That a particular person may have passed an age where they are no longer fertile is not fatal from the State’s perspective because the union remains of the type which is significant for the State.

If the would-be spouses have become unable to produce children, then that relationship is no longer of the kind that can produce new children. So cannot a secular reason for the state to treat opposite-sex relationships better than same-sex relationship.

If your reason for the state to grant civil marriage to opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples was something other than this, then you’d need to clarify.

I think it was you who mentioned Ancient Greece, Feudal Japan and American Indians once before, and I did respond then.

I think you’re thinking of someone else, because I only mentioned Roman Emperors and Native Americans.

I can’t speak with authority on these events, but I would note that Emperors perhaps make their own rules, and the society as a whole may have had little say.

In other words, their same-sex relationship were recognized by the government (which they headed) as marriage, thereby falsifying your claim that “Marriage has always and everywhere been established as a recognition of opposite sex unions.”

Note that no individual union is of much significance to society, but the heterosexual class is.

Which is your (so far) unsupported assertion.

And as I explained previously, there is no “banning” as such. Marriage has been a recognition of opposite sex unions.

The examples of same-sex marriage in the past means that marriage has included same-sex unions.

The State has the right to recognise the (class of) unions it deems to be of significance.

The state shouldn’t treat different classes of people differently without a sufficiently good secular reason. In fact, the 14th Amendment bans that in the US.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

You may wish to moderate your initial assertion here, InSearch–the articles you reference appear to deal with male homosexuals, not same-sex couples generally.

The first article is about gay couples. I see your point with the second article, which inserted homosexual proclivities not necessarily in the context of same sex relationships. But the article still listed studies that indicate one or both partners of same sex couples in long term relationships practice or espouse non-monogamy arrangement:

[v] “Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org.

[vii] Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows,” Washington Blade (August 22, 2003).

[ix] Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.

[x] Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual
Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

[xi] Jon Garbo, “More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners,” GayHealth (July 25, 200
,

 

[Rau]

If the would-be spouses have become unable to produce children, then that relationship is no longer of the kind that can produce new children. So cannot a secular reason for the state to treat opposite-sex relationships better than same-sex relationship.
…
In other words, their [ie. the emperor Nero’s and Elagabalus’s] same-sex relationship were recognized by the government (which they headed) as marriage, thereby falsifying your claim that “Marriage has always and everywhere been established as a recognition of opposite sex unions.”
…
The state shouldn’t treat different classes of people differently without a sufficiently good secular reason. …

BOP - Your reasoning and arguments seem to be reducing to one-liners and facetiousness - making references to a same sex union millennia ago as if that “proves” the world was once “AOK” with same sex “marriage”. Yet you close your eyes to what is plain and compelling - the yawning gap between opposite sex and same sex unions, and the overwhelming sweep of historical & geographical precedent.

The (secular) State values the potential that opposite sex unions - as a class - offer. It does not cancel the marriages of those whose children have grown up and/or are now barren; there is nothing to be served by doing that. It does not prevent same sex couples living together till death; there is nothing to be gained by doing that. It recognises the union of barren opposite sex couples because their union models the types of unions that the society depends on. Your idea that my argument would necessitate the State only recognising a union if that instance could produce children, and terminating those once the couple becomes barren, is nonsense and discriminates simply for want of age, or health. The State exercises discrimination where it is just and sensible to do so eg. the State makes family assistance payments to couples with children, and not those without.

There seem to be two issues to consider: (1) Should the State recognise by way of marriage, same sex unions? It is evident to me that the answer is no - for the simple, unemotional and just (secular) reason that two same sex persons do not represent the type of union that the State values for society’s benefit, and which the State has an interest in encouraging.

(2) The 2nd issue is: Should the State recognise, by some other means, a Same Sex Union? On this score, I am somewhat more neutral, but struggle to understand what it is that needs to be recognised. Is it the fact that “affection” exists between the parties, as another poster suggested? That’s nice, but does the State need to take note of this? If the parties to the union wish to secure particular legal outcomes, then that ought to be possible by an appropriate means - a contract would seem to be sufficient, though States have also approached that objective via “Civil Unions”.

Beyond my comments under (2) above, I am yet to hear a persuasive argument explaining the merits of same sex unions and the motivation a State ought to have to recognise it, let alone to think of them as the “same” as Marriage. More typically, the argument used is this fallacious idea that arbitrary couples have a “right” to civil marriage, because opposite sex couples are granted it. I take the view that the State gets to confer this recognition, upon that class of unions it, acting justly, values, and none other. ]

I agree with your last sentence quoted above.

 

[Rau]

…Actually having vaginal sex is not a requirement for civil marriage. It’s perfectly legal to marry but never have any sex (like Joseph and Mary).

And yet, the class of unions where that is possible, **is rather special ** (for society) isn’t it?

 

[GraceSofia]

Two Roman emperors (Nero and Elagabalus) were married to spouses of the same-sex, and some Native American tribes recognized same-sex marriage. So your assertion is false.

Nero? Known for his perversion, cruelty and insanity. He also had himself declared the winner of Olympic games, but that doesn’t mean he really won them. Roman society mocked his pseudo marriage.

He also set human beings on fire to use them as lamps. The fact that an emperor did it does not mean that the wider society accepted that as an alternative light source.

We are not concerned with aberrations of a few but with what has been accepted as normal in society throughout history. There were incestuous royal marriages in ancient Egypt but nobody (yet) has tried to say that proves that incestous marriage was a societal norm.

Heterosexual unions are the foundation of the society. That a particular person may have passed an age where they are no longer fertile is not fatal from the State’s perspective because the union remains of the type which is significant for the State.

I wonder too whether the institutions you refer to were actually the same as the peoples at that time viewed Marriage to be. I think the point is that the overwhelming sweep of history, has considered marriage as a recognition of opposite sex unions, because such unions,as a class, are of societal significance. Note that no individual union is of much significance to society, but the heterosexual class is.

Yes. This is the point.