Replying to Stephen 168 Post 243
Is a same sex union marriage?
It is if society says it is.
Objection 1. It seems it is marriage. For marriage is between two people in love.
Objection 2. Further, sterile unions of opposite sexes are called marriage.
Objection 3. Further marriage is a civil right to marry whoever one chooses.
On the contrary; marriage is a union of male and female for the purpose of raising the children they create.
Clearly, in the eyes of many (as you have noted, sterile couples and homosexual couples) it can have other purposes.
By its design a same sex union is not capable of creating children, so the union will never have children to raise. Therefore, same sex unions are not marriage.
I answer that, The two most basic needs of all living beings are nutrition and reproduction.
Human beings have other needs, including a sense of purpose and the ability to love and be loved. The problem with this argument is that it assumes human beings are mere animals.
We can reason from nature the telos of sex is the act of producing offspring. Men have reproductive organs and women have complimentary reproductive organs. The first purpose of these organs is to reproduce. We would not need these organs to perform any of their other function; which makes these other functions secondary.
If the sole telos of sex were production of offspring were, according to natural law, the production of offspring, then even fertile heterosexual couples would not be moved to it during periods of female infertility.
The institution of marriage is a product of the natural law.
No, sex is the product of natural law; marriage is a creation of society.
Only human beings can produce more children than a mother is able to rear.
Plenty of animal babies die for want of sufficient support.
Non-human babies are almost full grown before their mother could possible produce another baby. A human baby is born extremely under developed. Even in the most primitive societies a human would reach the age of fourteen before they could truly care for themselves. In those fourteen years, a mother could have 13 more children. Non-human females are moving around quit well, as are the new babies, within minutes of birth. A human mother is almost helpless for a week or two after child birth. She needs help.
Our society thinks it indecent to require new mothers to resume ordinary duties, but we are the exception according to history.
Children also have a human right to their father and mother to teach them the skills required to take care of themselves.
Teaching is not a gender-specific skill. By the use of language, a human trait, youngsters may be taught necessary survival skills by either gender.
By observing nature we can reason the purpose of marriage. Just as the telos of the eye is to see, the telos of marriage is to create and raise children.
Nice try at the application of classic logic, but as you can see, the premises are full of errors.
Reply to Objection 1. There are many forms of love—between fathers and sons, brothers and sisters and the best of friends—that are unquestionably deep, and none of them are diminished by the fact that it is not formally expressed by a sexual union. Therefore marriage is more than people in love.
And marriages can be loveless.
Reply to Objection 2. Sex is not merely an expression of love or of the commitment of two human beings to one another. It is also a reproductive act. Therefore, the complementarity of the male and female reproductive organs are required for marriage just as an eye is required for sight. Sadly some people are born blind, but this does not mean their eyes are not for seeing. We can not claim that fingers are eyes because they see as well as a blind eye. Because some people are born sterile, it does not void their marriage; a blind eye is still an eye. Therefore, a sterile complementary union is still marriage.
If someone feels loved, are we incorrect to call the action causing that feeling “loving” regardless of the physical equipment?
Reply to Objection 3. Civil rights are rights owned and given by the government. Marriage is a human right to be able to reproduce with whoever you choose.
Government restricts that “right” (see your notations below).
It has been owned by mankind from the beginning (depends on what you mean by beginning) and has been regulated by custom/government as to age, close relatives, and number.
Polygamy is well attested in the Bible and is still practiced legally in some places today.
These regulations are designed to give the best chance for the creation and raising of healthy children. No one has ever been allowed to marry whoever and how many they choose.
For government to restrict the rights of individuals there must be a reason that demonstrably is based on some harm to society or members thereof.
Continued…
