Third, there is no general right to marry the person you love…

And there never has been.

Because marriage involves not one person, but two. And the “general right to marry” has always (whether or not “the person you love”) required the agreement of that second person. It is this second person permission that excludes pedophilia.

Marriage to a child has historically been limited by that child’s right to self determination – and still is. In many states, marriage before the child’s age of majority requires a parent’s permission. And it was not uncommon in feudal times for nobility to barter a child’s marriage at a very young age – even if they did often not formalize or consummate the marriage until sexual maturity.

A child cannot marry for many of the same reasons that they cannot work and cannot be held to a legal contract of any kind. Not only because it’s creepy, but because a child is incapable of making rational decisions. And our current society has determined that when it comes to child sexuality and marriage, even parents cannot be trusted to act in their child’s best interest.

Robert George would exclude gay people from marriage for the same reason. Because he believes that he knows what is best for us. His temptation to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia is not only to scare the masses, but because he sees us a moral children, incapable of knowing or doing what is best for us.

this right here invalidates his WHOLE argument because 1: it doesnt matter how many or what kind of degrees you have if religion of any kind is preventing you from exploring the science of anything then it’s not science and thus not pure. 2: science is not about whether a group of people who happen to fund your studies agrees with what you find to be factual or not it reveals the universe AS IT IS and no philosophy or religion can deny the facts of the universe as it is right there in plain sight.

Ansd you could substitute “two men” or “two women” just about everywhere in this statement, and it would be EQUALLY true.

And even the “procreation’ part of it is still applicable, since not all heteros can or want to procreate, but they still wish to provide families for children.

I have friends that have adopted, have their own children from previous hetero relationships, and who areu sing surrogates– all options availabvle ot heteros.

It sounds like all of geotrge’s arguments ultimately boil down to “Penis and vagina are better becuase they just are.”

Not bigotry is hate, fear, ignorance, or superstition. a good deal of it is based upon nothing more than a firm belief in an otherwise wholly imaginary superiority.

I think “adults” but I suspect you’re in a better position to judge which than me.

In footnote 16,p. 255, George attempts (minimally) to answer my argument, by referring the reader to his book, “Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics”. On first reflection, I don’t think he is going to square that circle, though. The more he relies on a bodily-organ telos defined in relation to procreation, the more marital-sex looks ‘instrumental’.

Bits of his book are available online.

They are fascinating, insofar as they reveal just how much of a put-up job the Harvard article is, in its omissions, shadings, and so forth (where ‘so forth’ might be found in the posts about miscegenation, for starters…).

Anyway, check out what he was writing four or five years ago (published in 2007), for an audience less hoodwinkable:

There are three main views of marriage. First, some thinkers have held that marriage is an institution which is defined by its instrumental relation to procreation.[note St Augustine, _De Bono Coniugali_] On this view, marriage is essentially a contractual union, and its extrinsic purpose is the conceiving and rearing of children. Proponents of this view usually hold that marriage should also, ideally, involve a friendship between the husband and wife. Marital union involves an agreement concerning acts of sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse within marriage is conceived not only as serving procreation, but also, secondarily, as symbolizing the marital friendship. Still, the relationship between husband and wife is conceived as _in itself_ nonbodily, and sexual intercourse is viewed as extrinsic (and extrinsic means) to procreation (or, failing that, to marital friendship).

A second view, certainly more popular these days, is that marriage is essentially a friendship, procreation is an extrinsic addition to that relationship, and sexual acts are extrinsic symbols or expressions of love or of the couple’s personal communion. On this view, there is no _intrinsic_ or _essential_ relationship between marriage and procreation. A couple may wish to have children, and having children may even be viewed as contributing to their marital relationship. But procreation is not viewed as intrinsically linked with marriage. As a consequence, on this view there is no reason why “marriage” should refer only to man-woman relationships, or, to express the same point differently, why (if this view is consistently worked out, which is not always the case) there is any morally significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

The third view of marriage, the traditional view, is the one we propose. On this view, marriage is the community formed by a man and a woman who publicly consent to share their whole lives, in a type of relationship oriented toward begetting, nurturing, and educating of children together. This community is naturally oriented to procreation, and is naturally fulfilled by it, though it also is good in itself and not a mere means to procreation.
…both desirable and inevitable that children will come to be. …what must society and those in society who engage in sexual acts do in order to be fair to the children who will come to through sexual acts?

The answer is that those couples who perform sexual acts should first form a community that will be dedicated to the raising and educating of children and who might come to be. State-run organizations, business enterprises, even communes… are not the groups most suitable for the raising and educating of children… Even though this or that particular marriage may not result in children, marriage is the _sort_ of relationship _that would be fulfilled by_ bearing and raising children together. This openness to procreation…distinguishes…

Moreover, sexual acts have a tendency, in most people at least, to create strong feeling of bonding and an expectation of a deeper, noninstrumental relationship.l And the desire to have children is often, and naturally, an outgrowth of a romantic love between and [sic] a man and a woman. When a man and a woman love each other, they naturally tend to desire to form a life together, and (often) to have children together. Thus, marriage is the society whose distinctive purpose is the provision of a stable and protective environment not only for the bearing and raising of children but also for romantic love, a love that is itself intrinsically linked to bearing and raising children. Rightly understood, marriage has a twofold end – one end with two aspects, the marital communion itself and procreation.

There are other kinds of gems, as well.

For instance, he says outright that infertile couples are

Incest and multiple marriages, would have an infinity attached because one can have a variety of different relatives and Polygamous or poly amorous situations are not always of choice for the initial or other spouses.

Marriage as defined at THIS point in our society require ONE who is the PRIMARY person with all the responsibilities and custody of the other. The contract, so to speak, is that such custody and responsibility is enforced BY the state.
Primacy and consent are THE most influential factors for marriage that streamline the process for the state and the individuals involved.

Where there is no rationalization or fairness where gay couples are concerned, is that a hetero person can marry another APPROPRIATE to their shared and mutual orientation.
A gay person should be able to have the SAME option. To marry someone else who is also gay.

But George’s point assumes that marriage requires a moral test of love to be valid, and that gay relationships have NO validity in this regard as if gay people have no such feelings for each other.
As pointed out, a pair of strangers can marry as long as they are op sex.
The ONLY requirement a gay couple WOULDN’T want to meet and can’t.
Otherwise the other requirements and standards ARE met by gay couples as are the situations within those relationships the state can’t monitor or qualify anyway.

And there IS the reality of the inter sexed or transgendered. When gender IS taken from the requirement, what’s more appropriate to the issue, rather than incest or polygamy, is the option for those with ambiguous gender to be able to participate in marriage as well.
Solving another PROBLEM that comes up in court too, on the validity of marriages performed before or after a person transitioned.

you can’t marry a cihld not only because a child cannot give consent to a ocntract, but becuase hte proper way to estalbisdh a legal relationship with a child is ADOPTION, not marriage.

You cannot marry your father, mother, sister, or brother because they
ALREADY have legal relationships with you. If you are not married, those legal relationships take precedence. They will inherit your stuff or make medical decisions for you.

If you are married, the spousal relationship takes precedence, though as we saw in the Terry Schiavo case, relatives can try to assert relational supremacy, and a few republicans bent upon re-deifining marriage can try to make it difficult for you.

In any case, George’s arguments about friendships are hollow, because any man and woman who are legally eligible to do so can get married to each other, whether they met five minutes ago, are just good friends, a gay man and woman, ever intend to have sex or procreate.

Amicus said “…align the responsibilities of parents toward each other and toward ‘the common good’ (among other things, no doubt). Again, notice I deliberately said nothing about children or procreation.”.

But you did say something about children and procreation. When you refer to parents you are indirectly refering to children and procreation.