Making what I'll refer to as the "modified pro-procreation" case against same-sex marriage, Prof. Lee's philosophical and mental gymnastics are impressive. Calling marriage an "irreducible human good," which is "intrinsically linked to procreation," he comes across as sometimes conflating heterosexual intercourse with marriage itself. Surprisingly, said intercourse doesn't need to be successful in the baby-making department. As long as the intercourse is vaginal, and 'twixt a man and a woman, it's all good. Although he doesn't say one way or the other, I think we can safely assume that experimentation with toys and different positions is also all good.
Before my readers accuse me of creating a straw man argument, allow me to explain and elucidate, using Prof. Lee's own words. Let's begin with his assumptions, definitions, and basic arguments:
He sees marriage as being fundamentally a three-part arrangement, defining it clearly as follows:
"The traditional view of marriage is: the union of a man and a woman, who have consented to share their lives, on the bodily (sexual), emotional, and spiritual levels, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together."Acknowledging that there may be some disagreement, even among its proponents, on the definition of traditional "marriage," he sticks to his guns on this bodily-spiritual-emotional trinity, by saying that marriage is a "distinct type of community" with attributes not available to others:
"Alliances to raise children also are not necessarily marriages: a group of celibate religious women running an orphanage, for example, are not married."I'm pretty sure everyone would agree on that, even given the fact that he deliberately avoids the use of the word "nun" because the idea of a Bride of Christ marrying a cadre of other Brides of Christ would be the most ridiculous scenario--can you imagine a polygamous orphanage/convent where all the kids suddenly had to switch from calling the women Sister to Mom? Anyway, back to Prof. Lee's distinctions:
"...plainly, same-sex sexual relationships are a different kind of relationship: they cannot become biologically one, nor is their relationship of the kind that would find its fruition in conceiving, bearing, and raising children together."Please keep in mind that he's said that marriage is "intrinsically linked to procreation" as we watch him draw the line at heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and only there. He specifically avoids tying heterosexual intercourse, in and of itself, to child rearing in the context of the "bodily" third of his trinity. Marriage, although "intrinsically linked" to procreation, is "not a mere means to an extrinsic end" of childbirth, but is a special state through which "men and women are fulfilled." Read the following and see if you also see a logical breakdown here:
"[M]arriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together."Did you catch it? Here it is again, with emphasis added:
"[M]arriage is the kind of union whose fruition is procreation. It is the kind of union that would be fulfilled by having and raising children together; the union of the spouses is embodied, prolonged, and enriched by enlarging into family. Still, marriage is not a mere means in relation to procreation, but a sharing of lives (bodily, emotionally, and spiritually) that is good in itself—and so a man and a woman who have consented to such a multi-leveled union are genuinely married, and have an intrinsically fulfilling marital union, even if it turns out they cannot procreate together."
This is whence my "modified pro-procreation" label originates: Prof. Lee is evidently arguing that straight marriage derives its "intrinsic" value from vaginal intercourse, and the fact that such intercourse might not be able to result in pregnancy, childbirth, and a family is no impediment to its importance to society. The state, he argues, has the right (and even the obligation) to promote and protect straight "marriage" because it is the ideal setting in which men and women can flourish and be fulfilled.
So... even if the "bodily" third can't produce children and a family, the fact that it is a vaginal "bodily" third is the key issue here for Prof. Lee. He acknowledges the existence of the "pro-procreation" argument, a reasonable objection which basically says that if marriage was all about having children, and therefore must be restricted to opposite-sex couples, why should the infertile, elderly, or those who don't want children at all be treated any differently than same-sex couples? To put it another way, because there is a population of people that meets all the requirements of traditional "marriage" save the ability to have children of their own, why should they be treated any differently under law than another population of people whose only difference is that their genitals match?
Typical (and reasonable) responses to the "pro-procreation" argument include questions of fertility, adoption, age, or divorce:
- If a couple is infertile, there are a variety of ways (IVF, surrogate mothers) through which they can still conceive children; unfortunately for traditional "marriage" defenders, the same science applies to same-sex couples. Infertility, while extremely difficult to deal with, doesn't have to be an impediment to having children.
- A couple can adopt more or less as many children as they wish, within certain guidelines; the same guidelines apply, in most states, to same-sex couples. I should also point out that single-parent adoption is legally possible, though less frequent. Marital status, therefore, is usually no impediment to having children.
- If a couple is just too old biologically to have their own children, they could also use surrogates or adoption as a means of creating a family, should they choose to have one. Age, therefore, is no impediment to adopting children and having a family of one's own.
- Divorcees with children often find themselves remarrying and bringing their children with them, if the children are still living at home; the same would apply to same-sex divorcees who already have children by whatever means.
Scenario one: in theory and in law, an infertile (or post-menopausal) twice-divorced heterosexual woman could marry a man with multiple children from multiple previous marriages. The couple could also adopt if they wished, while at the same time arranging for an IVF via a surrogate mother for another baby. This couple would presumably have a deep emotional connection, and could be as "spiritual" as they saw fit to be.
Scenario two: in theory and in law, an infertile (or post-menopausal) twice-divorced bisexual woman could, in certain states, marry a woman with multiple children from multiple previous marriages. The couple could also adopt if they wished, while at the same time arranging for an IVF via a surrogate mother for another baby. This couple would presumably have a deep emotional connection, and could be as "spiritual" as they saw fit to be.
Thus, these women would be doing exactly the same things. The one and only difference, apart from their spouse's gender, would be the sorts of sexual relations they would be having with him or her.
Given that society already allows all these things to happen--though not in all states and certainly not without substantial hassle--our esteemed Prof. Lee still holds to the idea that Tab P in Slot V is the ideal foundation not just of "marriage," but also of people's emotional fulfillment.
Professor Patrick Lee of Franciscan University of Stuebenville, when we machete our way through the undergrowth of your arguments, the fact that a given couple has matching genitals does not make it impossible for them to emotionally fulfill one another; further, a given couple's spirituality is a deeply personal matter for them which is no business of the state's either in terms of reinforcement or restriction; lastly, the fact that you admit that procreation, in and of itself, does not a "true marriage" make, is proof positive that it is irrational to presume that any sexual activities a given couple wishes to engage in have anything, anything to do with the strength, dignity, or social "fitness" of their marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment