Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And again. Read the document. Or I guess you can continue to speculate about what straw man would be easiest to argue against if that makes you feel better. Seems like a poor way to decide what position to take on an issue though.
Or you could copy and paste the relevant section. That would take you, what, 30 seconds?
It would take you all of 30 seconds too, right? But ok. Don't say I didn't warn you:
Quote:
D. If Not Sameâ€Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?
Revisionists often challenge proponents of the conjugal view
of marriage to offer a principled argument for recognizing the
unions of presumptively infertile couples that does not equally
justify the recognition of sameâ€sex partnerships. But this chalâ€
lenge is easily met.
1. Still Real Marriages
To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live
out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt
for, procreation and childâ€rearing.53 Since any true and honorâ€
able harmony between two people has value in itself (not
merely as a means), each such comprehensive union of two
people—each permanent, exclusive commitment sealed by orâ€
ganic bodily union—certainly does as well.
Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether
or not it causes conception.54 The nature of the spouses’ action
now cannot depend on what happens hours later independâ€
ently of their control—whether a sperm cell in fact penetrates
an ovum. And because the union in question is an organic bodâ€
ily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological facâ€
tors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have
children or believe that they cannot. Whatever their thoughts
or goals, whether a couple achieves bodily union depends on
facts about what is happening between their bodies.55
It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite orâ€
ganically through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual
body’s process of nourishment. Different parts of that procâ€
ess—salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestiâ€
nal absorption of nutrients—are each in their own way
oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But
our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action reâ€
main oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if
on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb
nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat.56
Similarly, the behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do
not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if nonâ€behavioral
factors in the process—for example, low sperm count or ovarian
problems—prevent conception from occurring, even if the
spouses expect this beforehand. As we have argued,57 bodies
coordinating toward a single biological function for which each
alone is not sufficient are rightly said to form an organic union.
Thus, infertility is no impediment to bodily union and thereâ€
fore (as our law has always recognized) no impediment to marâ€
riage. This is because in truth marriage is not a mere means,
even to the great good of procreation.58 It is an end in itself,
worthwhile for its own sake. So it can exist apart from children,
and the state can recognize it in such cases without distorting the
moral truth about marriage.
Of course, a true friendship of two men or two women is also
valuable in itself. But lacking the capacity for organic bodily unâ€
ion, it cannot be valuable specifically as a marriage: it cannot be
the comprehensive union59 on which aptness for procreation60
and distinctively marital norms61 depend. That is why only a
man and a woman can form a marriage—a union whose norms
and obligations are decisively shaped by its essential dynamism
toward children. For that dynamism comes not from the actual
or expected presence of children, which some sameâ€sex partners
and even cohabiting brothers could have, and some oppositeâ€sex
couples lack, but from the way that marriage is sealed or conâ€
summated:62 in coitus, which is organic bodily union.
2. Still in the Public Interest
Someone might grant the principled point that infertility is
not an impediment to marriage, and still wonder what pubâ€
lic benefit a marriage that cannot produce children would
have. Why, in other words, should we legally recognize an
infertile marriage?
Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile
end up having children, who would be served by their parents’
healthy marriage; and in any case, the effort to determine fertilâ€
ity would require unjust invasions of privacy. This is a concern
presumably shared by revisionists, who would not, for examâ€
ple, require interviews for ascertaining partners’ level of affecâ€
tion before granting them a marriage license.
More generally, even an obviously infertile couple—no less
than childless newlyweds or parents of grown children—can live
out the features and norms of real marriage and thereby contribâ€
ute to a healthy marriage culture. They can set a good example for
others and help to teach the next generation what marriage is and
is not. And as we have argued63 and will argue,64 everyone beneâ€
fits from a healthy marriage culture.
What is more, any marriage law at all communicates some
message about what marriage is as a moral reality. The state has
an obligation to get that message right, for the sake of people who
might enter the institution, for their children, and for the commuâ€
nity as a whole. To recognize only fertile marriages is to suggest
that marriage is merely a means to procreation and childâ€
rearing—and not what it truly is, namely, a good in itself.65 It may
also violate the principle of equality to which revisionists appeal,66
because infertile and fertile couples alike can form unions of the
same basic kind: real marriages. In the absence of strong reasons
for it, this kind of differential treatment would be unfair.
Finally, although a legal scheme that honored the conjugal conâ€
ception of marriage, as our law has long done, would not restrict
the incidents of marriage to spouses who happen to have chilâ€
dren, its success would tend to limit children to families led by
legally married spouses. After all, the more effectively the law
teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to
enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people
form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents.
Death and tragedy make the gap impossible to close completely,
but a healthier marriage culture would make it shrink. Thus, enâ€
shrining the moral truth of marriage in law is crucial for securing
the great social benefits served by real marriage.
I fully expect a chorus of TL;DR now. Of course, you also have to have read some of the earlier sections where they explain some of the concepts they reference here (like the whole biological aspect of two humans becoming one, which is actually a pretty interesting take on things).
You really should just read the freaking document in its entirety if you actually want to understand the ideas behind it. Reading one section would be like reading one chapter in a book and trying to understand the whole thing. But hey! You asked.
Edited, May 5th 2015 2:38pm by gbaji