Same-sex Marriage

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

Comments

[Crystal]

Thank you for this Greg. This is the logical argument that I've needed. Just to say that it is "wrong" isn't enough in our relativistic society. If we base marriage on fainess alone, then it would not be "fair" to say that homosexuals can marry but brothers and sisters cannot, etc. It seems the logical downward spiral to the end of marriage.

[Joe Bruce]

Thank you for this much-needed information! Homosexualizing marriage is a proposal that many people find very difficult to oppose without being characterized as "mean". Yet it is not really a complicated issue. Thank you so much for your help and i hope you don't mind I plug a website which I think is excellent and has done much good work to protect marriage. They also have some very good, succinct flyers that have tips on how to effectively speak to the issue of marriage:

NationForMarriage.org
http://www.nationformarriage.org/

[brgulker]

I see two holes ... can anyone help me fill them?

First,

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal...

No one is arguing that all emotional or sexual combinations are equal. People are arguing that monogamous, committed relationships could be considered equal as long as they are between consenting adults.

In other words, I think this might be an argument against a straw man. The argument is not that all sexual relationships are equal; the argument is that two consenting adults should be able to marry each other if they want to.

Second, I think that the "convention" argument has history in its favor, doesn't it? Marriage has been a fluid concept across time and culture. Even our own Christian history contains celebrations of polygamy, polyamory, arranged/non-consensual marriages. Over time, even the Jewish/Christian concept of marriage has developed.

In other words, what is the "objective standard" that Greg from? From where is it derived? I know that there are certain biblical texts that seem to affirm 1 man + 1 woman, but there are other texts that affirm the alternatives I mentioned above.

Again, these aren't antagonistic comments but honest questions. Every time I hear the conservative argument, I'm left wondering how these two holes are filled, and I'm sure someone has an answer (?).

[David Hawkins]

brgulker,

>>"In other words, I think this might be an argument against a straw man. The argument is not that all sexual relationships are equal; the argument is that two consenting adults should be able to marry each other if they want to."

Why do you limit it at two?
That's not fair.

What if these two consenting adults are brother and sister?
Father and daughter?
Aunt and nephew?
Mother and son? ...ad nauseum?

You're okay with that?

Should the only two prerequisites be 1. consent" and 2. over the age of 18?

>>"but there are other texts that affirm the alternatives I mentioned above."

Do you have any criteria for weighing the merits of these texts?

How do these other arangements outside the "objective standard" hold up in a culture? Which ones are thriving?

[MijkV]

Brgulker,

Marriage-as-mere-convention and marriage-as-a-single-objective-standard are not the only two options. You're right to note that marriage has been defined differently across various times and cultures, but to call this a "fluid concept" is an overstatement.

Yes, there has been flexibility in the concept, but that flexibility can only happen within the objective predetermined trajectory set out by our biological nature. The moment our concept of marriage falls outside of that trajectory, it becomes something completely different. Call them civil unions maybe?

So how has biology predetermined the trajectory within which we may define marriage? It is in the fact that humans may only procreate via the union of one man and one woman. Forming an institution around this biological fact is one of the most important things we could do as a society, as it ensures that our society (and humanity) will have a future.

I've probably posted this link a million times on this blog, but here is Margaret Somerville's "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage", published out of McGill University (Montreal) for a committee considering the same-sex marriage issue in Canada. As as ethicist, Margaret Somerville is an advocate for gay-rights, but she is also an honest intellectual, hence her position on same-sex marriage.

Mijk V.

[Kim]

Mijk V. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? I only ask because I've heard this case made before by people who don't and I've wondered how biology can be used to defend marriage, but then is balked when facing the theory of evolution. I'm just curious so I thought I'd ask where you stand?

[Kim]

David - Are you seriously comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and incestuous parents?? People keep making the case against same sex marriage in the same way, "well first the gays and then perverts" It's highly offensive. I know plenty of gay people who would NEVER harm or condone harming a child. Since when do adults and children get lumped into the same category as if equals anyway. Would you react with the same horror if you saw a man strike another man as you would if it were a woman or child? No. Both you may not agree with because they are both wrong, however they are still different. Homosexuals are not equal to a pedophile and even hinting at such is disgraceful. Further, do some research, statistically the highest number of pedophiles are STRAIGHT white men.

[MijkV]

Kim,

I think the theory has explanatory power in some respects and is completely inadequate in others. I'm definitely not a philosophical naturalist.

That being said, I don't see how the above argument (in and of itself) would be any different if it were made by a creationist or an evolutionist. Personally, I would guess that Somerville (I was paraphrasing her argument) probably subscribes to the theory of evolution--but that fact is not widely known for good reason--it's not relevant to her opinion.

Regards,
Mijk V.

[Kim]

Mijk V, I wasn't referring to anything Somerville may believe. I questioned it because you said

"So how has biology predetermined the trajectory within which we may define marriage? It is in the fact that humans may only procreate via the union of one man and one woman. Forming an institution around this biological fact is one of the most important things we could do as a society, as it ensures that our society (and humanity) will have a future."

So I was wondering about your views the case being made using biology.

Bottom line is if you're opposed, your opposed. I respect the fact you have a right to an opinion. I just like to figure out how people think and come to their conclusions. I don't just take an argument at face value, I like to know the inner workings behind the point that is being expressed.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Brgulker

"In other words, what is the "objective standard" that Greg from? "

Biology dictates the standard. Without the standard, there would be no human biology. To fight against the biology that ensures the survival of your own species, is insane.

It is like saying that the throbbing of your heart is annoying you so, you will rip it out of your chest because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

When society gives people too many choices, it leads them to the wrong conclusion that every choice is fine. This is the result of an affluent society that has been deprived of the lessons learned through hardships.

[David Hawkins]

Hi Kim,

Whoa, Kim. Hold your horses there...um, could you read my post again. I made no such comparisons and never mentioned children (or pedophilia.) The question was about fairness and two consenting adults wanting to marry. Just because you saw the word nephew, daughter, or son...why would you assume they are underaged children? That's kinda narrow-minded, Kim. (A daughter, son, or nephew can be a consenting adult.)

If you are okay with homosexual marriage because it is the "fair" thing to allow, then you, I suppose would be alright with a homosexual 62 year-old man marrying his consenting year-old son or daughter as long as both of the adults consented? (That is actually a question for "brgulker.")

You said:

"...statistically the highest number of pedophiles are STRAIGHT white men."

Do you really consider pedophilia a "straight" proclivity??

(Wow, and you jump to accuse me of lumping homosexuals and incestuous pedophiles together with homosexuals before considering a son or daughter can actually be over 18 yrs?)

If a person is a pedophile, then they're certainly not straight.

That particular proclivity is definitely "bent" too...as any other deviant sexual act, be it bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, et al.

Do you support same-sex marriage, Kim?

[Dennis]

Kim, I am pretty sure that David is referring to ADULT children and their close relatives. Your assumption that the incestuous relationships described by David involve minor children may very well be wrong. I have seen this presumption in other blogs as well. I ask you to reconsider in light of that.

[Kim]

Louis,

"When society gives people too many choices, it leads them to the wrong conclusion that every choice is fine. This is the result of an affluent society that has been deprived of the lessons learned through hardships"

Are you serious? Our society is Affluent on TV, but take a ride through places like Camden or Compton and then talk to me about people not learning lessons through hardship because they live in an affluent society.

The problem isn't too many choices dulling our senses to right and wrong. I have choices to make everyday. I choose to do the right thing. It's free will; crazy little thing God gave us humans. I am considered the working poor and on the whole I am confident in saying I'm a moral person. I'm not perfect. I wouldn't insult my maker by pretending to be, but as many choices as I have I don't think that all options are okay. I may think gay people getting married is fine, but if my neighbor tried marrying his daughter I would clearly see that as being wrong.

[David Hawkins]

Hi Kim,

>>"I may think gay people getting married is fine, but if my neighbor tried marrying his daughter I would clearly see that as being wrong."

How do you "clearly see?"

What makes it clear to you that incest would be wrong?

...yet if I said I "clearly see" same-sex marriage is wrong, would it be clear to you too? How can one be okay and the other be "clearly" wrong?

[MijkV]

Hi Kim,

I should have been more explicit. The reason I linked Somerville's argument is because I was paraphrasing one of her strongest points. My argument is actually a portion of her argument. I'm not really that smart to come up with something like that on my own.

Aside from this, I'm concerned by the way you are equivocating "opinion" with "argument." Indeed, we should not blindly accept opinions as truth, but should seek to understand the reasons behind certain opinions. If those reasons are good, they should form some sort of coherent argument. This argument should be taken at face value.

To continue looking for deeper reasons why someone might construct that argument in the first place is not wise. Philosophers call this mistake the 'genetic fallacy.' The reasons you seem to be searching for are irrelevant to the question at hand.

[David Hawkins]

Type-o correction for 12:32PM post, 2nd paragraph:

Should read "his consenting 32 year-old son or daughter."

Sorry.

[WisdomLover]

"Homosexuals are not equal to a pedophile and even hinting at such is disgraceful. Further, do some research, statistically the highest number of pedophiles are STRAIGHT white men." -Kim

The following probabilities are quite different:

1. The probability that you are homosexual given that you are a pedophile.

2. The probability that you are a pedophile given that you are homosexual.

The comment above bears on the first number.

The first number is pretty low. But that's hardly surprising. The highest number of men are heterosexual. Of course the highest number of pedophile men would be heterosexual. It would be surprising if that weren't so.

The second number is the one everyone is really interested in, since it says whether being homosexual is a 'risk' factor, and if so, how big the risk is. The second number can be quite high even though the first number is low.

It is possible to calculate the second number from the first number given that you know the probability that any given man (hetero or homo) is a pedophile, and you know the probability that any given man is homosexual.

For example, if 4 out of 5 pedophiles are heterosexual, and 1 in 10 men are homosexual, and 1 in 100 men are pedophiles, then the probability that a man is a pedophile is 1 percent, but the probability that he is a pedophile given that he is homosexual is twice that: 2 percent. While the probability that he is a pedophile given that he is heterosexual is about 0.89 percent.

[Ken]

I've written extensively about this issue, being helped greatly by Greg Koukl's statements on the issue. (Click on my name.) Thanks for another great, compact statement.

One need not be a theist or claim any belief in the supernatural or traditional religion, nor disapprove of homosexual behavior... to believe that the state has an interest in licensing bride+groom pairings that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations.

However, it is legitimate for a voter to vote based on their beliefs, even if those beliefs are based on the Bible or church teaching. That should go without saying. After all, don't the people who vote in favor of "neutering" marriage vote according to their own beliefs?

[Agilius]

In order for gay marriage to be feasible, the gay community has to deny such a thing as gender identity.

The reason is because if there is such a thing as gender identity, then the gay desire amounts to little more than personal preference, and thus they are not a "special class" of humans to which the idea of discrimination can apply.

If there is no such thing as gender identity, then they must take the position that anyone who only has a desire for the opposite sex is being discriminating in the sense they need it to mean. Which leaves them in the precarious position of having to claim that heterosexuality is wrong. A lot of people don't make this connection.

Also, if there's no such thing as gender identity, does this mean that homosexuality is discriminating in the same way, since there is a preference for one gender?

But my favorite argument against gay marriage is that women are notorious for wanting to go out with the "bad boy", which, while misguided, is proof positive that it's not just straight men who have a problem with gay men - women have an innate expectation that a man is going to behave in a uniquely masculine way.

So all the straight women who gay men claim as their friends, comprise a vast and militant social argument against homosexuality as normative (and, by extension, gay marriage), but gay men seem to have no problem with their straight female friends believing the same thing as straight males.

[Agilius]

Also, in that heterosexual men have a gender-specific sense of identity, they have a very real sense that homosexuality, and, by extension, homosexual marriage, is an assault on that identity.

Because, if it's OK for homosexuals to consider themselves married, then how is my gender-specific sense of identity grounded?

Both sides claim that their sense of identity is being assaulted; So let's not claim that only one side is being discriminated against. The real question centers around gender-identity, whether there is such a thing or not.

I will go ahead and say that homosexuality makes sense within the heterosexual paradigm, but not the other way around.

And when we say that heterosexuality is a choice, which it is, we mean it the same way we mean that not chopping off our own arm is a choice; Sure we could all do it, but it makes absolutely no sense to do so. It makes sense to be heterosexual, which is why heterosexuals choose to be that way - both psychologically and physiologically.

[David Hawkins]

Agilius,

Nice articulation.

Here is another quandary for me, maybe for others, too...

In the homosexual identity, if the attraction is men toward men, why is it so commonplace for homosexual men to take on the personna and personality of femininity in terms of mannerisms and speech? Seems if they were trying to attract men who like men, they'd behave as men.

Same for lesbians...why is it so commonplace for many women who like women and, therefore, wish to attract the attention of other women who like women...to dress themselves in more masculine attire, and change their appearance, cut their hair ultra short, and alter their demeanor is such a way as to appear more masculine? "I am a woman who likes women, I want to attract a woman who likes women...so I'll present myself as manly."

This is not the behavior of some homosexuals, but it is very prevalent nonetheless.

It seems to me (and this is just one guy talkin')...this particular behavioral elective in terms of "presentation" runs counter to the purported identity and objective.

Perhaps someone has some insight?

[Agilius]

David Hawkins,

So true. It's like they know that their target is naturally attracted to the opposite gender.

[Johnnie]

The economic grounds for marriage is to protect the interest of the father in the child, that is, an assurance that the child that he is devoting resources to care for is actually his. In a homosexual union, there is no fatherhood to protect, so the economic grounds cannot be extended to homosexual unions.

[Dave Morono]

Here in Murica, unless it is spelled out clearly, the federal government has no jurisdiction over such matters. It is a State issue. If the State doesn't spell it out legally, then it is a personal issue. That would mean that any flaky church could perform the homo marriage and it should be legal, unless ruled illegal by the State.

10th Amendment

[Louis Kuhelj]

Kim

" I may think gay people getting married is fine,"

What do you mean by it being fine? Are you saying that it is good in itself regardless of what we think it is? Are you talking about goodness or are you talking about your opinion?

[Kevin]

People make this grand argument that marriage is so sacred. Yet close to half get divorced and don't even try and work it out. Let them be happy. Let them express their love for one another. It's a genetic thing to be homosexual no one wakes up thinking "I think I'm going to be gay today". Let them have their lifelong happiness. Maybe they can make it last without adding to our divorce numbers.

[Scott]

It is interesting to see the contrast between homosexuals' view of marriage in England and in the U.S.
In England, marriage is a religious institution, not a civil institution. It is managed by the Anglican Church (which really doesn't have any separation of church and state, but that is another argument for another time).

Homosexuals see no interest in getting married because they see marriage as a religious institution. This according to John Barrowman, the outspoken gay actor who plays Captain Jack Harkness on Torchwood and Doctor Who TV shows. His comment, quoted on Wikipedia, is "Barrowman explains: "Why would I want a 'marriage' from a belief system that hates me?"

[Agilius]

Kevin,

Your point bears on the sanctity of marriage, not the definition of marriage which is the point of the original post.

[travis]

Why do we care about the government's opinion on anything?

[hughie]

I would like to make a comment here and it is not based upon fairness or a point of view or injustice but based upon how God views it. Paul under the direction of the Holy Spirit warns. "Don't you know that the unrighteous shall not inherit,will have no part in it, the kingdom of God. Be not decieved, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. etc shal nt inherit the kingdom of God.(1Corinthians 6v9-10) Remember Sodom and Gomorah. It is a Q of heaven or hell.

[Scott]

Earlier posts mentioned "what if it is more than two people?" etc.
The bigamists living in rural Utah/Arizona are watching this debate play out nationally because it sets precedent that they should be able to have the right to consenting unions of their choosing as well. The fabric of society could be strained by the whole thing.

[Steve Walker]

I used the basic premise of this arguement for today's Sunday School Jr High class (The entire year has been just apologetic issues), and it took a while to get them to wrap their arms around everything you were trying to say here, but after an hour, every one of them got it, and understood it. Excellent thought provoking subject.

[PP]

"If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention. We can define it how we want."

I'd like to hear the argument for these assertions. I'm surprised that someone with philosophical training would make such claims.

[brgulker]

Mijk V.

Marriage-as-mere-convention and marriage-as-a-single-objective-standard are not the only two options. You're right to note that marriage has been defined differently across various times and cultures, but to call this a "fluid concept" is an overstatement.

Let's just use the bible as a case study, read from cover to cover. From beginning to end, is marriage clearly and consistently defined as a monogamous relationship between one and only one man and one and only one woman?

My answer is obviously, No. The bible itself testifies to the fluidity of how marriage has been understood, and the bible tells the story of basically one story (with peripheral commentary on other ancient cultures).

It's not an overstatement to say that the concept of marriage has been a fluid one throughout human history. The degree of variance is debatable - maybe that's what you meant?

It is in the fact that humans may only procreate via the union of one man and one woman. Forming an institution around this biological fact is one of the most important things we could do as a society, as it ensures that our society (and humanity) will have a future...

I think this is a non sequitur. Sex between a man and a woman has the potential to produce offspring; therefore, monogamous marriages (I think that's a fair summation?).

I understand that this is what has happened historically in many cultures throughout history, but is it the only and necessary biological conclusion?

Thanks for that link. I'm going to print and review later.

Also, it seems strange to ground an argument against same sex marriage in biology, if you ask me, because the biological evidence that we currently have leads us to believe that same sex attraction is strongly linked to genetics.

Further, homosexual sex may not give homo sapiens a competitive evolutionary advantage, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Louis Kuhelj

Biology dictates the standard. Without the standard, there would be no human biology. To fight against the biology that ensures the survival of your own species, is insane.

I think my above comments apply here. If your argument against same sex marriage is grounded in biology, then how do you address the biological connection with same sex attraction?

I don't think it's fair to use biology when it seems to fit your cause and ignore it when/if it doesn't.

As to your hardships question, I have no idea what you mean.

David HawkinsIf you are okay with homosexual marriage because it is the "fair" thing to allow, then you, I suppose would be alright with a homosexual 62 year-old man marrying his consenting year-old son or daughter as long as both of the adults consented?

This kind of derailing and misrepresentation happens so often in this debate, and it's incredibly unfortunate.

First, no one here has presented any pro-same sex marriage arguments. Some have given their opinions that it's "fine" by them in passing comments. I haven't said anything for or against but have merely asked questions (and now responded to some comments).

Second, no one has made a pro-incest or pro-pedophile argument. You're the one who has repeatedly introduced them. They're inflammatory, and they don't contribute anything meaningful.

Third, the "slippery slope" argument is what you're sloppily trying to employ, but you haven't offered a shred of evidence as to why there is a slope in the first place or why it's necessarily slippery. In other words, please prove that legalizing monogamous same-sex unions would lead to all the other "perversions" that you claim it will. If you can't, then perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Fourth, do you think divorce is a sin? If so, are you opposed to making it illegal? If so, why? If not, why not?

Fifth, divorce poses a much larger threat to the "sanctity of marriage," no matter how one defines that term, than broadening the definition of marriage does. In other words, divorce does much more to erode the foundation of society (i.e., families).

Yet, higher divorce rates are not causally related to any of the other things that you have mentioned. In other words, increased divorce rates to not cause incest, pedophelia, etc., etc.

Why is it that divorce doesn't cause any of these things but same sex marriage would?

Sixth, please consider how comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality comes across to a gay person. It's grossly insulting and completely unrepresentative of how gay people actually live.

If a person is a pedophile, then they're certainly not straight.

What follows this comment here is right up there with some of the most hateful, misrepresentative language I've ever heard used against homosexual people. In fact, I'd call it sinful (i.e., bearing false witness).

Further, it's interesting that you left pre-marital heterosexual sex off your list, isn't it?

Finally, pedophilia isn't a homo- vs. hetero- argument. Do a quick bit of research, and you'll find that to be an accurate statement.

But even if there were a correlation, that's all it would be. You'd still have to make a case for causality, which I don't think is feasible.

In the homosexual identity, if the attraction is men toward men, why is it so commonplace for homosexual men to take on the personna and personality of femininity in terms of mannerisms and speech?

I suspect that you personally know very few homosexual people. Am I wrong or correct on that one?

This is not the behavior of some homosexuals, but it is very prevalent nonetheless.

How do you know this? What is the evidence that supports your claim?

WisdomLover

For example, if 4 out of 5 pedophiles are heterosexual, and 1 in 10 men are homosexual, and 1 in 100 men are pedophiles, then the probability that a man is a pedophile is 1 percent, but the probability that he is a pedophile given that he is homosexual is twice that: 2 percent. While the probability that he is a pedophile given that he is heterosexual is about 0.89 percent.

This is terribly misleading. You've just implied that a homosexual person is more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual man, and you've got some fancy math to prove your point. But in fact, you've done nothing of the sort.

The way to answer the question that has been raised is not to abstract probabilities but to actually study human populations closely. Only then would you have reliable correlations, and then, you'd only have correlations, not causes.

Johnnie

The economic grounds for marriage is to protect the interest of the father in the child, that is, an assurance that the child that he is devoting resources to care for is actually his. In a homosexual union, there is no fatherhood to protect, so the economic grounds cannot be extended to homosexual unions.

What about barren heterosexual unions (one of my best friends and his wife are)? Or couples that don't currently have any plans to have children (one of my best friends and his wife are another example here)?

If you're consistent with your logic, then we shouldn't be "married" either.

My personal opinion

Separate the legal and the religious. That has to be the first step. Clergy should not be instruments of the state, period. Church history isn't clear on a lot of things, but I think it's resoundingly clear on that.

[Amy]

>>From beginning to end, is marriage clearly and consistently defined as a monogamous relationship between one and only one man and one and only one woman?

Actually, this only occurred to me recently, but a marriage was always between one man and one woman in the Bible, it's just that some men had more than one marriage. Think about it--if a man married two women, the women were not married to each other as well as the man. It wasn't one big marriage, it was two marriages. Two unions between one man and one woman. Society has answered the question of how many women a man could marry differently, but even back then, each marriage was between two people only.

As far as I know, there's no new term of familial relationship (a word like sister-in-law that expresses a new relationship) to describe the relationship between the two wives of one man, and that seems to indicate, as well, that the marriage to the other wife is a separate marriage that doesn't change the familial relationship between the two women.

[Agilius]

Nice

[Agilius]

>> "If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention. We can define it how we want."
>>
>> I'd like to hear the argument for these assertions. I'm surprised that someone with philosophical training would make such claims.

In order to disagree with the assertion, you'd have to say that even if the terms "marriage" and "families" didn't mean anything specific, that they couldn't ever describe certain kinds of relationships.

But that's a contradiction. If the terms don't mean anything specific, then there is no basis for excluding from its definition any and all kinds of relationships.

And that's the slippery slope we're all talking about. If the definition of "marriage" and "families" [or at least the notions being describes by these terms] can be changed by public opinion, then all it would take is public opinion to redefine them to entail those notions with which you are taking issue, in their usage to make our point.

[Johnnie]

Brgulker:

My logic remains unrefuted. A man who chooses not to have children still has the right not to be parasitized. A man who is barren still has the right not to be parasitized. A man who marries a woman who is barren (and conceals the fact) has the right to annul the marriage (I think at least that is true under Catholic church doctrine).

[Johnnie]

Brgulker:

I ran out of time on my last post so I will round out my argument for the wife. If the wife chooses not to have children she has the right to not have her husband's attention devoted to a child he begets outside the marriage. Likewise if she is barren.

[brgulker]

Amy,

As far as I know, there's no new term of familial relationship (a word like sister-in-law that expresses a new relationship) to describe the relationship between the two wives of one man, and that seems to indicate, as well, that the marriage to the other wife is a separate marriage that doesn't change the familial relationship between the two women.

I think you're making a mistake, here. I'll offer Things Fall Apart as an example that demonstrates something to the contrary.

It's been several years since I've read this piece, but IIRC, while there is no new "term" for the relationship between the different wives of one husband (I don't know if there's a Hebrew word in the OT either), there absolutely is a familial relationship among these women. They don't understand the marriage as a type of group marriage; however, one woman's children mingle with another as siblings (which indicates a familial bond among the children in spite of different mothers), each woman has different and distinct responsibilities within the family (e.g., different women cook meals for all the children, women, and husband on separate night), and so on.

So although I think you're partially right -- polygamy in the OT isn't group marriage -- each new marriage intimately affects the other, because the group functions as one large unit, as a family.

Now the bible doesn't tell us a lot about what the relationships between the wives of polygamous marriages looked like, but I don't think it would be an unfair extrapolation to think that a tribal, nomadic Hebrew people might share something in common with tribal people in Africa.

That said, the bible does tell us a lot about how the siblings of polygamous marriages interacted, and everyone that I can think of off the top of my head looks a lot like a large family unit, in spite of the women being married only to the man and not each other.

In sum: In my view, the OT clearly condones polygamy. I agree that it is only heterosexual polygamy, but it's still polygamy. In some places, sexual conquest outside of marriage appears to be celebrated (I'm thinking specifically of Solomon here). In the NT, polygamy is rejected in favor of monogamous marriage (one and only one man and one and only one woman), and all sex outside of marriage -- not just sex with another man's wife -- seems to be considered fornication.

I am assuming that when Greg speaks of a "teleological purpose" for marriage, he would also implicitly be saying that we can derive that purpose from the bible -- correct?

IMO, you can't make that claim without explaining in detail which picture of marriage in the bible is the "right" one. Because at face value -- and especially to secular people who don't understand the implicit hermeneutics that all Christians bring to the text -- it is not at all obvious what the "teleogoical purpose" of marriage might be, from where it is derived, and how it is derived from that source of knowledge.

[brgulker]

Johnnie,

Thanks for the follow-up responses, but I'm not tracking with you.

In your first post, you appeared to be arguing that the economic grounds for marriage are the father's financial responsibilities to the offspring. Because gay marriages by default cannot produce children, there are no economic grounds for marriage.

Is that what you're saying?

In the next two of your comments, I'm afraid I'm not understand what you're trying to say.

[Johnnie]

brgulker:

To expand the first post (remember, we are using the viewpoint of an economist). The transactions costs in ascertaining the fatherhood of a child are high. Marriage (and the vow of fidelity that flows from it) reduces the likelihood that the child would have genes from another man who gets his child raised at the husband's expense.

In the reply post, "parasitized" means that the husband loses resources of the wife that would be devoted to a child that does not carry his genes.

I hope this clears things up for you.

[Amy]

>>They don't understand the marriage as a type of group marriage

That is the point. If it's not a group marriage, then each marriage is between one man and one woman.

>>however, one woman's children mingle with another as siblings (which indicates a familial bond among the children in spite of different mothers),

This is because they are siblings--well, half siblings. They have the same father.

>>each new marriage intimately affects the other, because the group functions as one large unit

Of course they affect each other since they often (but not always) live together, but that doesn't change the fact that each marriage is one man and one woman. Polygamy is multiple marriages, not just one.

[PP]

Mr. Koukl's dubious assertions:

"If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention. We can define it how we want."

Agilius' defense:

In order to disagree with the assertion, you'd have to say that even if the terms "marriage" and "families" didn't mean anything specific, that they couldn't ever describe certain kinds of relationships."

Why would I have to say that?

[Agilius]

>> Why would I have to say that?

Because the assertion is, basically, "no inherent meaning" equals "matter of convention".

If you believe this assertion to be untrue, then you are saying that "no inherent meaning" does not equal "matter of convention".

Again, though, this is a contradiction.

[PP]

Agilius, how do you move from "there is no natural teleology to marriage and families" to there is "no inherent meaning"?

Secondly, how do you move from "there's no inherent meaning" to "we can define it how we want"?

[Agilius]

I would be happy to explain this again; Perhaps this time, however, you would allow me to walk you through the logic one step at a time? That way, when all is said and done, all I will have to do is repeat the logic back to you in your own words.

Do you know what is meant by "natural teleology"?

[PP]

Agilius, you may assume my familiarity with all the terms used so far (but please give warning if you are imputing to the terms any idiosyncratic meaning). You're welcome to proceed without delay.

[Agilius]

PP,

My previous answer assumed your familiarity with all the terms, and yet I was asked the same question in a different way.

Since I believe to answer your latest questions would be an exercise in redundancy, I am instead employing a method which ensures that you will not end up asking me the same question, ad nauseam.

To this end, it will be necessary for me to obtain from you your understanding of certain terms, in your own words.

By doing this, if you then have any further misunderstandings, I will be in a position to ask you what it is that you meant when you said you understood a particular term to mean a particular thing.

Could you explain for me your understanding of the term "natural teleology"?

[PP]

Agilius, "natural teleology" refers to the designs or functions of the natural world, or to the natural designs/functions/goals of a thing. Thus, if we someone refers to the natural teleology of mammalian breasts, we might correctly take them to be referring to milk producing and offspring nurturing function of those breasts.

Please proceed with your explanation, for it's beginning to seem that you are simply stalling.