Traditional Marriage: Addendum

Perhaps one of the most biting criticisms wielded by the pro-gay "marriage" folks toward the traditional marriage institution (or as I like to call it, "reality") is the damage that "straights" have done to traditional marriage.  Serial divorce, contraception, IVF, etc have warped society's view of marriage.  Thus it is hypocritical of advocates of traditional marriage to exclude gays when the rest of the definition has been violated.

I wholehearted agree with this criticism.  I feel that the advocates of marriage have already compromised the core of marriage by accepting things like contraception and no-fault divorce.  The surrender of these aspects of marriage make the exclusion of gay partnerships look like an arbitrary ban.  Had our society been living marriage as it had been intended gay "marriage" would look a lot more ridiculous.  


This is yet another reason why the fight for marriage is considered "the bad war."  Whatever the intellectual reasons for the traditional view of marriage (and they are sound) are compromised by the day to day life of your average American Christian.  Our lives have undermined the actual meaning of marriage, and as a result we have lost the fortitude to make the argument.


In order to reestablish the legal foundation of marriage we need to live out the truth of marriage in our daily lives.  We need to reclaim the permanence of the union and the life giving potential that makes marriage the foundation unit of a society.  How can we expect the proponents of gay "marriage" to believe our view of marriage if we do not live it out ourselves?  


This does not mean however that the gay advocates have the upper hand in this.  The fact that marriage is damaged in our society does not justify making things worse.  As C. S. Lewis states:

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

 But for Christians we have to take a hard long look at our own lives.  The sanctity of marriage is something that cannot be taken for granted.  And the gay "marriage" debate is but one of the many ills that plagues our society as a result of our infidelity toward nature and the fundamental concepts of the human person.  We cannot blame the gay "marriage" advocates for taking our errors to their logical conclusion.

Traditional Marriage: The relationship between morality and law

After a long absence we return to the subject of traditional marriage and in particular, the nature of the relationship between law and morality.

Up to this point we have covered the distinction between being and action, the male/female distinction, the purpose of sexual relations, the nature of marriage, and the nature of the family.  But now we have a question.  If we were to grant all of the premises found in the links above, why is it the case that the law cannot allow for same-sex "marriages?"

We have discussed to some degree the relationship between morality and law.  In short, the law is the encoding of a moral viewpoint such that is enforced on the population as a whole.  Because of this, the laws of a society need to correspond to the reality of nature and morality.  Thus if the state were to recognize gay "marriage", this creates a number of issues.

The first is one of principle.  By recognizing gay "marriage", the state is attempting to redefine reality to suit political preferences.  Granting the principles laid out, gay "marriage" simply doesn't exist.  It is akin to putting unicorns on the endangered species list or legislating the value of pi to 3.  Thus for the state to recognize gay "marriage" is essentially the attempt of the state to redefine reality.  And when a state attempts to redefine reality, you have a tyranny.

The second is that by taking a stance in favor of gay marriage we are already trying to coerce the view that gay "marriage" is in fact good.  The trend has been that when gay "marriage" is recognized, opposing views are met with an attempt to be forced out of the public square.  Thus there is a legitimate fear that such a radical departure from reason by legislating a view that does not conform to the truth will have a devastating effect on society as a whole.

Finally (and most importantly) there are the children of such a "marriage."  Given how the gay relationship is fundamentally at odds with the nature of marriage and the family, children are ultimately harmed by the deprivation of their natural parents and the presentation of a marriage that is fundamentally at odds with reality.  This is a form of abuse, and should be discouraged by society, not enshrined in law.

There is also the issue of the erosion of marriage as a legal institution.  But this is a discussion for another post as the attempt to legalize gay "marriage" is but one step in a long process that has been occurring for the past 40+ years.

Traditional Marriage: The nature and purpose of marriage

In the previous posts we have looked at the different aspects of marriage via the perspective of the differences between the sexes, sexual relations, and the nature of the family. From here a definition of marriage that is both coherent and consistent can be reached.

The definition of marriage is characterized as a natural institution that is formed by the pairing of a man and woman for the primary purpose of creating and raising children.  This relationship is permanent until the death of one of the spouses.  

As we have seen the nature of a paring of a man and woman is fundamentally different that of a pairing of same-sex partners.  By the nature of what a man is and what a woman is there is a distinct difference in an opposite-sex pair, both in terms of the partners themselves but also the unique nature of the relationship that exists between a man and woman vs. same-sex partners.

Adding to this is the nature of sexual relations, which their primary purpose is for the generation of children.  Without the complementary nature of the man and woman sexual relations lack their primary purpose.  Because of this any sexual relations become sterile, and hinder the actual function of the relations.

Finally the nature of the family naturally entails a male-female pairing as the natural method by which a family is created.  Left to their natural end a male-female paring with sexual relations leads to children.  This unit becomes a family. 

The facts about marriage naturally lead us to an obvious conclusion, that the nature of marriage naturally precludes a same-sex paring.  In other words, a same-sex marriage is a non-existent entity.  Thus to say that advocates are denying the "rights" of same-sex pairings is do declare that same-sex pairs have a right to something that doesn't exist.  But this is absurd.  

With the nature of marriage defined properly there is still the issue of law.  Even if it is the case that same-sex marriage doesn't actually exist, what is the harm of creating a "legal fiction" to make those who would dispute this happy?  This we will cover next...

Traditional Marriage: The nature of the family

In our previous post on marriage we discussed the nature of the sexual relations and how this relates to the question of traditional marriage.  In this post we will discuss the nature of the family and how this affects the human condition, including marriage.

Modern notions of the family treat it as a very abstract concept.  So much so that seemingly any configuration of partners and children constitutes a "family" if the participants label it as such.  It has gotten to the point where the "family" is such an amorphous concept that it is almost devoid of any real meaning.  I basically assume that it means a generic collection of individuals (children and adults) who share affection for each other and mutual dependence.

A definition of family that actually has some meaning is the one provided by Natural Law.  In this case, family is defined as the biological relationships between parents and children, siblings, and extended relatives.  The biological aspect of family is a real one, and it directly impacts the nature of relations between people.

This is most obvious in how nature brings a new human into the world.  The child is provided with a mother and a father.  Because of this, the natural tendency for a new human to be born with a mother and a father is a "natural right."  If the child is deprived of this natural right through circumstance (the accidental death of the parents) or through unnatural means (such as homosexual adoption/IVF) is to create a sub-optimal situation.

This is illustrated by an obvious fact.  Medical history.  Regardless of configuration of the "family" as defined by moderns, biological reality intrudes when dealing with medical issues.  The medical history of the child is not imparted by the non-biological parents.  Genetics is a constant reminder of the actual origins of the child.

But this goes beyond genetics.  The child often enough has a desire to know where they are from biologically.  This is true for adopted children, IVF children (those who are conceived via IVF but the father remains unknown), etc.

This is not in any way to denigrate the heroic parents of adopted children.  Such kindness and generosity is welcome and needed in a fallen world. That they do the best they can regardless of biological ties should be praised.

But this does not change the biological reality of the family.  The biological ties are real.  They are natural.  And barring some unintended consequences, the ideal for the child is to be raised by the biological parents.  Anything less is, no matter how well intended, is "less than" the natural reality.

Traditional Marriage: The nature and purpose of sexual relations

Perhaps the most contentious part of the tradition marriage fight is viewpoint of the nature and purpose of sexual relations.  No aspect of this debate is more fraught with disagreement (and vehemently so) than the views regarding sexual relations between persons.

First we must be clear what we mean "nature" and "purpose."  Roughly speaking, "nature" is defined as what a thing "is."  The components of a particular entity or the properties of such.  "Purpose" refers to the targeted goal of an entity.  This can also be understood as "what a thing tends towards" or "function" and is a property of an entity.

The contemporary view of sexual relations (in particular the organs for such relations) are primarily for pleasure and recreation, with varying effects of generating feelings of closeness and mutual affection.  Procreation, the generation of a new human being is at best something to control and at worst an unwanted byproduct of such relations.

The implications for same-sex relationships are obvious.  If sexual relations are simply for pleasure and possible mutual affection, then the same should readily be available to same-sex pairings.  Indeed, it seems not only silly but wrong to deny that such pairing are just another form of sexual relationship.

Contra such erroneous ideas is the "Natural Law" view of sexual relations.  By nature, the purpose of sexual relations is procreation.  That is the primary purpose.  It is the natural end of such relations.  The primary purpose of half of our physiology is intended for (or tends toward) reproduction.  As such to attempt to sever the relationship between sexual relations and reproduction is to do violence to the very nature of sexual relations, by frustrating the very purpose of those relations.

A secondary, though still very important, purpose is the drawing together of the couple.  The nature of sexual relations naturally draws the couple together.  It is a part of the nature of such relations as procreation, and to separate this from the acts also does violence to sexual relations.

I will only treat one objection in this post as it is the one I often come in most contact with either explicitly or implicitly.  Some would argue that the development of the euphemistically named "reproductive technologies" has rendered the natural law understanding of sexual relations obsolete.  By preventing the conception of a new human being we have redefined what sexual relations are.

My counter to this is that one does not change the nature of a thing simply by frustrating the intended purpose of the thing.  If I were to stick a cork in the barrel of a gun I have not changed the nature of the gun.  All I have done is simply impeded the bullet firing out of the barrel.  The gun is still a gun, and the purpose of the gun (to fire a bullet out of the barrel) is still its purpose.

Because of this we now begin to see that in order to use sexual relations properly we must be mindful of this understanding of sexual relations.  And that by the nature of sexual relations same-sex pairings are excluded by nature.  To do otherwise is to do violence to the nature of sexual relations and by extension to ourselves by attempting to frustrate the natural end of such relations.  The long and sad history of sexual relations in the modern era, with single women who become pregnant, abortion, and the proliferation of STDs is but one aspect of this tragic new understanding.

Traditional Marriage: The nature of the male/female distinction

One of the underpinning philosophical assumptions underneath the gay "marriage" framework is the interchangeability of the sexes.  That is, an advocate of gay "marriage" argues that the relationship between two partners of the same sex is the same as the relationship between two partners of the opposite sex.

This stems in a lot of ways I think from the radical feminist notions of interchangeability of the sexes.  It is proposed that men and women are no different in qualities that matter.  A woman is just as good and capable as a man at everything.  The biological differences are a triviality of nature and nothing more.

The implication then is that the if the sexes are interchangeable, then the pairing of a man with a woman has no distinction from paring a man with a man (or a woman with a woman for completeness sake).  Thus if there is no "real" distinction between a man and a woman, a man or a woman can fill any role, including that of a spouse, despite the sex of the other partner.

Contra this erroneous notion is the view of natural law and of traditional morality.  What natural law states is that man and woman are different "ontologically."  The distinction is not just at a surface level but goes to the very core of one's being.  Men and women are different beings in that regard.

Now both men and women share the nature of being human.  This means that both have equal dignity as befitting the human.  But male and female are also complimentary.  We are different.  We have different views, traits, and skills that compliment one another.  This is due to the complimentary differences between the sexes, both bring strengths and weaknesses to the table.  And in that complimentary nature we find the full meaning of the human being.

This complimentary aspect is no more pronounced in the area of reproduction.  Both sexes have half of the functions necessary for reproduction.  Apart they are incomplete.  But together they form a whole system that ultimately results in a new human being.

Now an objection might be raised that the point of reproduction is challenged by modern technology.  While a full refutation is beyond the scope of this post let us say that from a purely natural point this complimentary nature of the sexes is unique.  Two men do not form a whole reproductive unit.  Neither do two women.  Even when modern technology is thrown into the mix this brute biological fact is still in play.

While in and of itself important this point of the male/female distinction is not sufficient to demonstrate the limited nature of marriage.  But it does show what marriage advocates assume when they say there is a unique aspect of male/female complimentary that same sex relationships cannot fulfill.  This is important when we come to understand the nature of marriage.

Traditional Marriage: The relationship between being and actions

The first point is in some respects the most important from at the very least in the public relations department.  The first thing we must distinguish is the distinction between being and action.

It is a modern fallacy that the inclination toward homosexuality, or stated another way, the attraction of a person of a sex to be attracted to another member of the same sex, as validation of the homosexual act.  That is, by the fact an individual is attracted to another person of the same sex the homosexual actions are morally sound.

Logically speaking there is nothing to connect the ideas between an inclination and the moral soundness of that inclination.  That one may be inclined to kill another simply for fun does not indicate the moral soundness of the action to kill someone for fun (or even the moral soundness of the inclination itself).

By the same idea the inclination toward a particular action does not in and of itself indicate the moral soundness of the inclination.  There are a variety of inclinations that are by nature harmful, such as alcoholism, that those afflicted with this inclination still struggle with on a daily basis, with full knowledge that the inclination itself is morally unsound.

The Catholic Church expresses this distinction in her teachings:

2537Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2538 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 We as human beings are inclined to do things that are by nature harmful to us at times.  In that respect the inclination toward homosexual attraction is similar to the inclination to have relations with someone that is not a spouse.  That the inclination exists does not make the action morally sound.

At the same time the person is not defined by either the actions or the inclinations.  The fact that an action or inclination is not morally sound does not take away from the dignity of the person under the inclination.  The dignity of the human being is intact, regardless of the inclinations or even the actions.

The fight for traditional marraige: The bad war

Timothy Dalrymple writes how the pro-life fight is analogous to WWII while the fight for traditional marriage is like Vietnam.  I think at the very least one who stands for traditional marriage gets far more heat nowadays than those who stand for the unborn. 

It is true that it is far easier to argue about abortion because the dimensions of the argument are much smaller.  There is at the end of the day only one point in contention.  Is the fetus a human being?  Both sides agree (mostly) that murder is wrong in all circumstances.  Also agreed upon is that humans have these things called "rights" and foremost is the right not to be killed.

Gay "marriage" is a far trickier debate to get into for a number of reasons.  Marriage itself and how one conceives it tells a lot about the arguer's world viewpoint.  Major assumptions are made and the moral and philosophical frameworks that support the arguments are often unstated and misunderstood by both sides.  To argue about gay "marriage" is more often than not a futile enterprise unless both sides work to define the frameworks from which the views come from.

Major points must be discussed including but not limited to:

• The relationship between being and actions
• The nature of the male/female distinction
• The nature and purpose of sexual relations
• The nature of the family
• The nature of marriage itself
• The relationship between morality and law

Without even this basic discussion arguments for/against same sex "marriage" goes off the rails in a hurry.  Both sides misunderstand each other and in our polarized culture assume the worst of motives.  The problem ultimately lies in the fact that the frameworks between the arguers are vastly different and as such they talk past each other.

Over the next few posts of so I will sketch out the various points above and how they pertain to gay "marriage".  It is vital that these points are discussed if any understanding between the two (multi) sides can be met.

But the above shows why the fight for actual marriage against the fiction of gay "marriage" is so difficult.  It is far tougher to argue with an opponent when the frameworks the two sides operate from differ vastly.

• Addendum: The damage that marriage has endured so far