"I have been requested to write something about Marriage and the Modern Mind. It would perhaps be more appropriate to write about Marriage and the Modern Absence of Mind." (G.K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)
"...while I have known thousands of people arguing about marriage, sometimes furiously against it, sometime rather feebly in favor of it, I have never known any one of the disputants to begin by defining what marriage is." (G. K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)
An incomplete definition is really no definition at all. A definition is intended to clarify, while an incomplete definition causes confusion. To be complete, a definition must cover every essential aspect of the thing being defined. If, for example, one were to try to define "man" (in the sense of homo sapiens, not in the sense of "male") as a being with a rational soul, such an incomplete definition would do little to illuminate the nature of man. After all, angels are rational. Aliens, if they exist, may very well have rational souls. Some even hold that animals have rational souls. Or again, if one defined "man" as a creature with a body, the same confusion persists. Perhaps man is a mere animal, even a fish or a possum. Accidental details are irrelevant; it is of no concern if a man has black hair, or a birthmark. Only the essentials must be covered, but all of them must be covered, or the attempt at definition has failed.
In the first of this series of posts on homosexuality and gay marriage I proposed that most of the arguments commonly used to support gay marriage were emotional rather than logical. Later I listed a number of popular canards, dealing with issues such as homophobia, the narrow-mindedness of the religious right, bigotry, and the like. All of these were examples of arguments or persuasions that missed the central issue. Once again, the central issue may be stated as follows: "What is marriage, and within the framework of the proper definition of that word, can homosexual unions accurately be described as marriages? And, furthermore, if they cannot be so described, what is likely to be the resulting effect upon society if we redefine the word marriage to include such unions?"
While I am inclined to agree with the second quote from Mr. Chesterton at the beginning of this post, I will also say that there are times in this present debate when attempts at defining marriage are made. They are not always explicitly stated, more often they are held subconsciously and expressed as a vague assumption. However, I believe that even these rare attempts at defining marriage are incomplete, as I will attempt to demonstrate today, and therefore they result in grave confusion and error. For those who become rather understandably impatient with certain philosophers and theologians throughout history who have been willing to write lengthy books or wage bitter wars over the proper definition of some esoteric word or phrase, the present topic affords us with an excellent example of the immense importance of a correct definition. An apparently slight difference in the definition of the simple word "marriage" can lead to almost diametrically opposed concepts of society, politics, and family. I, for one, find that to be something important enough to argue about.
What, then, is marriage?
Since a definition must not only be accurate in each of its aspects, but must also be complete, I would like to begin by determining what marriage is not. Each of the following items are not necessarily wrong--they are generally all part of marriage--but not one of them taken by itself can constitute an accurate definition of marriage. It will then become imperative to determine if all them taken together are sufficient to create that definition.
Love, commitment, and sex. These are, in most people's minds, the essential aspects of a complete definition of marriage. Of course, it is quite clear that not any one of these three aspects is sufficient for that task, taken on its own. Love and commitment are both ideas that may exist completely apart from marriage, and both may be entirely platonic. Friends, roommates, family members, and business partners may all practice and experience varying degrees of love and commitment, but in ways that clearly have nothing to do with any definition of marriage.
Is sex then the answer? Again, taken on its own, sex is also a clearly insufficient definition, or else every sexual act would constitute a marriage. And why, with any of three ideas, is it necessary to assume that only two person be involved? After all, cannot love, sex, and commitment occur in polygamous relations as well, provided all parties involved are satisfied with the arrangement? Certainly the advocates of polygamy would argue that they can
If the correct definition of marriage is none of these three aspects taken individually, perhaps it is all three of them taken in conjunction. Perhaps marriage can be described as a loving, committed relationship between two persons who are sexually attracted to one another. However, a little analysis will demonstrate that even this definition falls apart under closer scrutiny. After all, love can die without the marriage being dissolved. Sex can also come to an end. Age, disease, impotency, and physical handicap can all render a marriage devoid of sexual relationship. Nonetheless, no one would imagine that these situation make the marriage nonexistent. And even infidelity, which is a grievous offense against commitment, does not in itself dissolve the marriage. In our present culture, an act of infidelity allows to injured party to pursue a legal means of dissolution, but no one would consider that an act of infidelity automatically transforms a marriage into a non-marriage. After all, countless couples work through infidelity, finding forgiveness and healing, without ever for a moment considering themselves unmarried. Even if answers could be found to all these objection, none of this explains the legal and political interest in marriage. If marriage were nothing more than a public promise to faithfully love someone "until death do us part", why the tax breaks, why the social benefits, why the legal complexities and political machinations? Does it really make sense that the government would be so deeply interested in supporting and benefiting two person who merely intend to have sex together for a rather long time?
What then is marriage?
I would propose a fourth essential aspect to marriage, and that is family. I say essential, although it is clear that many valid marriages do not result in children. To explain what I mean, allow me to argue backwards, in a sense, in order to arrive finally at our point of departure.
Now it is self-evident that the continued existence of the human species can only be assured by means of procreation. We are not immortal, so it is necessary that our numbers be constantly replenished by new generations. In a word, it is imperative that our species give birth to children. Since we have not yet determined the success or possibility of human cloning, the birth of children is presently our only recourse to replenishing the population. This much is clear and certain.
Secondly, there is only one way (barring the miraculous) in which a child can be formed, and that is through the fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. This, too, is undeniable. Now, there are only two ways in which this fertilization can occur: sexual intercourse and artificial fertilization. Artificial fertilization has its own moral and psychological problems, which will be examined in a forthcoming post, and is far the less common, or natural, of the two options. By and large the standard mean for fertilization is that of sexual intercourse. Physiologically and biologically, procreative sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman. Barring artificial insemination (again, more on that soon), two men or two women are absolutely incapable of producing children.
This producing of children is a thing of unspeakable wonder and majesty, with which we modern people have grown too accustomed, even bored or frustrated. There is something that longs to create (Catholics might call it the Imago Dei) written into the very fabric of the human person. Yet, try as we might, it is here alone, in the act of conception, that we get to be almost as gods, and work with God Himself in the creation of something entirely new-- a human person, endowed with freedom and a soul. No other natural human act of creation comes close to rising to such a level.
Bearing children is not only a wonderful thing, but (as stated above) it is also essential to the survival of our species. Thus it has both a personal and a general aspect. But it has a sociopolitical aspect as well. Reproduction is also essential to the State. Any country which slips too far or too long below the replacement rate (excepting the possibility of a great influx of immigrants), is destined for internal and external weakness, and eventual collapse. The State has a reason to be concerned with the continuation of procreation (though modern states primarily seem to be concerned with halting procreation). But this concern focuses not only on quantity, but quality as well. It is not enough to have large numbers of children, the State also hopes that the majority of such children are well-raised, intelligent, successful, and otherwise destined to be good citizens. It is for this reason that the State interests itself with the environment in which these children will be raised.
It is here that the cultural and societal importance of marriage becomes more evident. Children could be produced by any teenage couple copulating in the back seat of a car, or any one night stand in a Motel 6. However, such an arrangement is far less than ideal. Children have certain needs, physically and psychologically, that must be met for their good and the good of society. It has long been evident to countless generations and cultures, even our own to some extent, that these need are best met through the institution of marriage. There are three principal reasons for this.
1. Every child is to some extent the biological product of its mother and father. Not only its actual life, but its genetic code, and aspects of its personality, are taken from both of its parents. Scientifically we may consider X and Y chromosomes, sexually we recognize that every child takes from both the feminine and the masculine. Not only is that its origin, but the child will eventually enter society, a society comprised of males and females, and will find it important to be able to participate with both sexes. For this reason, a child needs both a male and a female influence in its raising, from its earliest years. And since its genetic make-up, and much of its personality is taken from its biological parents, a child also ideally needs to be raised by its biological parents. Normatively speaking, provided that they are reasonably decent people and good parents, a child is best raised by its immediate blood relatives. There are countless scholarly studies and statistics that have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that children raised by two parents generally suffer far less from psychological illness, drug use, etc., than those raised by single parents. There is also sufficient evidence that these two parents should represent each gender-- one male, one female. Ideally, it is obvious that, generally speaking, a child should be raised by its biological parents. I recognize that this is not always possible, and that there are always exceptions to such rules, but we will examine that in a moment.
2. Personal Attention. A married couple also represents the ideal model for raising children, because of love and personal attention. For all of their many benefits, schools, day cares, and government institutions can never provide the detailed, loving, personal attention that every child really needs for healthy maturation. Rarely can workers in should fields, no matter how kind and loving they may be, ever equal the love that biological parents feel for the child that sprang from their very bodies. It is one of the great errors of our modern cultures that the raising of children has been so institutionalized. In business, in government, in every other field, we recognize that the more important a subject is the greater the need for a small, specialized organization to treat it becomes. And since the raising of children is of far greater importance, is it not self-evident that that small, attentive, healthy, personal, organic unit called the family is best fitted to raise a child?
3. Commitment. Not only do children need parents and family, but they also need fidelity. Not only do their parents need to demonstrate faithfulness toward their children, but also towards each other. Every child learns by example, and the closest example that he/she has is the example of his/her immediate family, especially those often inadequate role models call Mommy and Daddy. Fidelity between the spouses is thus essential to healthy development of a child. Statistical evidence for this abounds as well. Children from divorced families are significantly more likely to experience divorce, separation, or commitment issues in their own adult lives. Psychological issues become more prevalent here, too. Again, there are exception here as well, but generally speaking a child needs a marriage, even more than a marriage needs a child.
Let us pause to recapitulate.
The raising of children should ideally be managed by two parents. These parents should be one male and one female. Again, ideally, they should be the child's biological parents. And these parents should live in a committed, faithful relationship. I am quite sure that all this sounds like an institution with which we are all familiar, an institution called marriage.
And so, starting from the beginning again, where have we gotten? The birth of children is essential to the survival of the human species. It is also essential to the health, structure, and continuance of society. Children are biologically derived from the sexual intercourse of a man and a woman. The ideal environment for their raising is in the family of their biological parents. Since the biological parents must be male and female, it becomes evident that marriage, with its societal and cultural implications, must automatically be heterosexual.
We could stop here, but there are too many objection, too many questions, too much ground left uncovered.
First of all, let us remember that the State supports marriage in a positive way, but it does not guard it in a negative way. Let me explain. It will no doubt be argued that not every heterosexual marriage leads to children, whether due to choice or nature. To those persons who, like myself, prefer the idea of a small and limited government, it will be clear that it is not up to the State to ask every couple whether they intend to have children (nor is it possible, the couple has only to lie), nor may she interfere medically and determine a couple unfit for marriage due to impotency, age, etc. Such a negative approach would be unbearably totalitarian and repugnant to the modern mind. However, the State blesses and benefits marriage in a positive way, thus recognizing it as the ideal way of producing children, and thus acknowledging it as the core of the family, as family is the core of society. Thus marriage is honored for what it alone (in a natural sense) can produce and provide, not that it always does produce and provide in every situation. Yet no other natural institution can provide what marriage does. Marriages which, whether through nature or choice, do not detract from that fact, since they are accidental to the state of heterosexual marriage, not intrinsic to it. But barrenness is intrinsic to homosexual unions. There is no natural means of child production in gay partnerships. Children can only be procured by means of adoption or artificial insemination, and, as was made clear above, neither of these are ideal circumstances. This unnaturalness of child-bearing and child-raising is essential to gay unions, not accidental.
Let me be quite clear: the matter of children and family is the reason why the state supports (or, as in Communist Russia, opposes) the institution of marriage. For good or evil, her interest in marriage is for that reason, and that alone. The State does not bless a couple for having sex. She does not offer them benefits for liking one another. She is not deeply concerned about the welfare of the nation if two people choose to live together. No, she is concerned with the family, the producer of future generations, and the upholder of the structure of society. In such a definition, only heterosexual couples may be considered for marriage. Gay unions or partnerships are just that, unions and partnerships. We cannot legalize gay marriage, because gay marriage does not exist. It is not a thing. It has no definition. It is not an illegal marriage, it is simply not a marriage at all, whatever the law may say.
What then is marriage? Marriage is the seed of the family, its beginning and its home. It is, ideally, the only truly safe and healthy place for family. It is here that children are brought forth biologically in accordance with nature, and in an environment of love and fidelity. It is here that they are raised by their biological parents. It is here that populations are replenished. It is here that civilization is nurtured, and cultured preserved. It is here that our future is established.
We live in a pluralistic society. In such a society, homosexual relationships are not condemned, per se. Those of us who object to homosexuality on moral grounds must retain the right to speak out on this subject, to demonstrate our concern for the souls of those who are homosexual. But such a pluralistic society does not create laws to forbid the practice of homosexuality between two consenting adults. They may love one another. They may be committed to one another. They may have sexual relationships with one another. But however much we may tolerate such unions, whatever we may call such unions, let us not call them marriage, for this they can never be.
I, for one, think that definitions are important. And when we redefine marriage, we redefine the foundation of our society. And when we strike the foundation, the structure crumbles.
Take heed.
What, then, is marriage?
Since a definition must not only be accurate in each of its aspects, but must also be complete, I would like to begin by determining what marriage is not. Each of the following items are not necessarily wrong--they are generally all part of marriage--but not one of them taken by itself can constitute an accurate definition of marriage. It will then become imperative to determine if all them taken together are sufficient to create that definition.
Love, commitment, and sex. These are, in most people's minds, the essential aspects of a complete definition of marriage. Of course, it is quite clear that not any one of these three aspects is sufficient for that task, taken on its own. Love and commitment are both ideas that may exist completely apart from marriage, and both may be entirely platonic. Friends, roommates, family members, and business partners may all practice and experience varying degrees of love and commitment, but in ways that clearly have nothing to do with any definition of marriage.
Is sex then the answer? Again, taken on its own, sex is also a clearly insufficient definition, or else every sexual act would constitute a marriage. And why, with any of three ideas, is it necessary to assume that only two person be involved? After all, cannot love, sex, and commitment occur in polygamous relations as well, provided all parties involved are satisfied with the arrangement? Certainly the advocates of polygamy would argue that they can
If the correct definition of marriage is none of these three aspects taken individually, perhaps it is all three of them taken in conjunction. Perhaps marriage can be described as a loving, committed relationship between two persons who are sexually attracted to one another. However, a little analysis will demonstrate that even this definition falls apart under closer scrutiny. After all, love can die without the marriage being dissolved. Sex can also come to an end. Age, disease, impotency, and physical handicap can all render a marriage devoid of sexual relationship. Nonetheless, no one would imagine that these situation make the marriage nonexistent. And even infidelity, which is a grievous offense against commitment, does not in itself dissolve the marriage. In our present culture, an act of infidelity allows to injured party to pursue a legal means of dissolution, but no one would consider that an act of infidelity automatically transforms a marriage into a non-marriage. After all, countless couples work through infidelity, finding forgiveness and healing, without ever for a moment considering themselves unmarried. Even if answers could be found to all these objection, none of this explains the legal and political interest in marriage. If marriage were nothing more than a public promise to faithfully love someone "until death do us part", why the tax breaks, why the social benefits, why the legal complexities and political machinations? Does it really make sense that the government would be so deeply interested in supporting and benefiting two person who merely intend to have sex together for a rather long time?
What then is marriage?
I would propose a fourth essential aspect to marriage, and that is family. I say essential, although it is clear that many valid marriages do not result in children. To explain what I mean, allow me to argue backwards, in a sense, in order to arrive finally at our point of departure.
Now it is self-evident that the continued existence of the human species can only be assured by means of procreation. We are not immortal, so it is necessary that our numbers be constantly replenished by new generations. In a word, it is imperative that our species give birth to children. Since we have not yet determined the success or possibility of human cloning, the birth of children is presently our only recourse to replenishing the population. This much is clear and certain.
Secondly, there is only one way (barring the miraculous) in which a child can be formed, and that is through the fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. This, too, is undeniable. Now, there are only two ways in which this fertilization can occur: sexual intercourse and artificial fertilization. Artificial fertilization has its own moral and psychological problems, which will be examined in a forthcoming post, and is far the less common, or natural, of the two options. By and large the standard mean for fertilization is that of sexual intercourse. Physiologically and biologically, procreative sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman. Barring artificial insemination (again, more on that soon), two men or two women are absolutely incapable of producing children.
This producing of children is a thing of unspeakable wonder and majesty, with which we modern people have grown too accustomed, even bored or frustrated. There is something that longs to create (Catholics might call it the Imago Dei) written into the very fabric of the human person. Yet, try as we might, it is here alone, in the act of conception, that we get to be almost as gods, and work with God Himself in the creation of something entirely new-- a human person, endowed with freedom and a soul. No other natural human act of creation comes close to rising to such a level.
Bearing children is not only a wonderful thing, but (as stated above) it is also essential to the survival of our species. Thus it has both a personal and a general aspect. But it has a sociopolitical aspect as well. Reproduction is also essential to the State. Any country which slips too far or too long below the replacement rate (excepting the possibility of a great influx of immigrants), is destined for internal and external weakness, and eventual collapse. The State has a reason to be concerned with the continuation of procreation (though modern states primarily seem to be concerned with halting procreation). But this concern focuses not only on quantity, but quality as well. It is not enough to have large numbers of children, the State also hopes that the majority of such children are well-raised, intelligent, successful, and otherwise destined to be good citizens. It is for this reason that the State interests itself with the environment in which these children will be raised.
It is here that the cultural and societal importance of marriage becomes more evident. Children could be produced by any teenage couple copulating in the back seat of a car, or any one night stand in a Motel 6. However, such an arrangement is far less than ideal. Children have certain needs, physically and psychologically, that must be met for their good and the good of society. It has long been evident to countless generations and cultures, even our own to some extent, that these need are best met through the institution of marriage. There are three principal reasons for this.
1. Every child is to some extent the biological product of its mother and father. Not only its actual life, but its genetic code, and aspects of its personality, are taken from both of its parents. Scientifically we may consider X and Y chromosomes, sexually we recognize that every child takes from both the feminine and the masculine. Not only is that its origin, but the child will eventually enter society, a society comprised of males and females, and will find it important to be able to participate with both sexes. For this reason, a child needs both a male and a female influence in its raising, from its earliest years. And since its genetic make-up, and much of its personality is taken from its biological parents, a child also ideally needs to be raised by its biological parents. Normatively speaking, provided that they are reasonably decent people and good parents, a child is best raised by its immediate blood relatives. There are countless scholarly studies and statistics that have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that children raised by two parents generally suffer far less from psychological illness, drug use, etc., than those raised by single parents. There is also sufficient evidence that these two parents should represent each gender-- one male, one female. Ideally, it is obvious that, generally speaking, a child should be raised by its biological parents. I recognize that this is not always possible, and that there are always exceptions to such rules, but we will examine that in a moment.
2. Personal Attention. A married couple also represents the ideal model for raising children, because of love and personal attention. For all of their many benefits, schools, day cares, and government institutions can never provide the detailed, loving, personal attention that every child really needs for healthy maturation. Rarely can workers in should fields, no matter how kind and loving they may be, ever equal the love that biological parents feel for the child that sprang from their very bodies. It is one of the great errors of our modern cultures that the raising of children has been so institutionalized. In business, in government, in every other field, we recognize that the more important a subject is the greater the need for a small, specialized organization to treat it becomes. And since the raising of children is of far greater importance, is it not self-evident that that small, attentive, healthy, personal, organic unit called the family is best fitted to raise a child?
3. Commitment. Not only do children need parents and family, but they also need fidelity. Not only do their parents need to demonstrate faithfulness toward their children, but also towards each other. Every child learns by example, and the closest example that he/she has is the example of his/her immediate family, especially those often inadequate role models call Mommy and Daddy. Fidelity between the spouses is thus essential to healthy development of a child. Statistical evidence for this abounds as well. Children from divorced families are significantly more likely to experience divorce, separation, or commitment issues in their own adult lives. Psychological issues become more prevalent here, too. Again, there are exception here as well, but generally speaking a child needs a marriage, even more than a marriage needs a child.
Let us pause to recapitulate.
The raising of children should ideally be managed by two parents. These parents should be one male and one female. Again, ideally, they should be the child's biological parents. And these parents should live in a committed, faithful relationship. I am quite sure that all this sounds like an institution with which we are all familiar, an institution called marriage.
And so, starting from the beginning again, where have we gotten? The birth of children is essential to the survival of the human species. It is also essential to the health, structure, and continuance of society. Children are biologically derived from the sexual intercourse of a man and a woman. The ideal environment for their raising is in the family of their biological parents. Since the biological parents must be male and female, it becomes evident that marriage, with its societal and cultural implications, must automatically be heterosexual.
We could stop here, but there are too many objection, too many questions, too much ground left uncovered.
First of all, let us remember that the State supports marriage in a positive way, but it does not guard it in a negative way. Let me explain. It will no doubt be argued that not every heterosexual marriage leads to children, whether due to choice or nature. To those persons who, like myself, prefer the idea of a small and limited government, it will be clear that it is not up to the State to ask every couple whether they intend to have children (nor is it possible, the couple has only to lie), nor may she interfere medically and determine a couple unfit for marriage due to impotency, age, etc. Such a negative approach would be unbearably totalitarian and repugnant to the modern mind. However, the State blesses and benefits marriage in a positive way, thus recognizing it as the ideal way of producing children, and thus acknowledging it as the core of the family, as family is the core of society. Thus marriage is honored for what it alone (in a natural sense) can produce and provide, not that it always does produce and provide in every situation. Yet no other natural institution can provide what marriage does. Marriages which, whether through nature or choice, do not detract from that fact, since they are accidental to the state of heterosexual marriage, not intrinsic to it. But barrenness is intrinsic to homosexual unions. There is no natural means of child production in gay partnerships. Children can only be procured by means of adoption or artificial insemination, and, as was made clear above, neither of these are ideal circumstances. This unnaturalness of child-bearing and child-raising is essential to gay unions, not accidental.
Let me be quite clear: the matter of children and family is the reason why the state supports (or, as in Communist Russia, opposes) the institution of marriage. For good or evil, her interest in marriage is for that reason, and that alone. The State does not bless a couple for having sex. She does not offer them benefits for liking one another. She is not deeply concerned about the welfare of the nation if two people choose to live together. No, she is concerned with the family, the producer of future generations, and the upholder of the structure of society. In such a definition, only heterosexual couples may be considered for marriage. Gay unions or partnerships are just that, unions and partnerships. We cannot legalize gay marriage, because gay marriage does not exist. It is not a thing. It has no definition. It is not an illegal marriage, it is simply not a marriage at all, whatever the law may say.
What then is marriage? Marriage is the seed of the family, its beginning and its home. It is, ideally, the only truly safe and healthy place for family. It is here that children are brought forth biologically in accordance with nature, and in an environment of love and fidelity. It is here that they are raised by their biological parents. It is here that populations are replenished. It is here that civilization is nurtured, and cultured preserved. It is here that our future is established.
We live in a pluralistic society. In such a society, homosexual relationships are not condemned, per se. Those of us who object to homosexuality on moral grounds must retain the right to speak out on this subject, to demonstrate our concern for the souls of those who are homosexual. But such a pluralistic society does not create laws to forbid the practice of homosexuality between two consenting adults. They may love one another. They may be committed to one another. They may have sexual relationships with one another. But however much we may tolerate such unions, whatever we may call such unions, let us not call them marriage, for this they can never be.
I, for one, think that definitions are important. And when we redefine marriage, we redefine the foundation of our society. And when we strike the foundation, the structure crumbles.
Take heed.
No comments:
Post a Comment