The meta homework I put above is proving fruitful. Here’s more, from today, relevant to this post’s discussion.

Meta marriage homework 2:

Is the ‘special link’ to children better understood as an hedonic link? Look at the words that George uses to describe sex and children and the words/descriptions that we would normally use that he ignores: “free and loving expression”, “sharing one’s body”, “made even richer”, “enriched”, “fulfilled”.

All of our laws are based on our man-made legal system and our Constitution. The Supreme Court does not refer to the Bible for legal guidance (hopefully). As a reminder, we started our own country to escape theocratic rule.

You wrote, “When it comes to homosexuality which has provided it’s own evidence of cognitive and emotional impairment particularly in the illogical and psychotic social climbing demand to recognize a ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex.”

So in other words, it’s an emotional impairment to demand to be treated equally in society? I could use your same argument to support slavery: Those uppity black people with their illogical and psychotic impairment and psychotic social climbing are demanding us to recognize that ‘black people’ are equal to ‘white people’. The nerve of some people! — Today, society demonizes people because of their sexual orientation. Fifty years ago, they demonized black people (for different reasons).Then these same people are taken aback when these ostracized people don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens. I would think promoting the social structure of marriage (monogamous long-term relationships) would benefit society, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. All the more reason for secular marriage to be sanctioned by our government.

You wrote, “Marriage is predicated on a complimentary union of archetypal polar opposites. This admits the potential for procreation which is not to be dismissed as an unnecessary element of a marriage. There is no union to which the state or any man can be said to have the luxury of investing as we do as a society recognizing a marriage, where that union is unproductive and un-conducive.”

So basically you’re saying that only couples with different sex organs should have the right to marry; even if those couples never have children. This position is completely arbitrary. A couple that is infertile, or a couple that is elderly, or a couple that decides to never have children are ALSO “unproductive and un-conducive” when it comes to procreation. But because they are heterosexual they get a “free pass” to get married. Having different sex organs seems to be the ONLY criteria for getting a marriage license. Case in point: A gay man and a lesbian woman could go down to the city courthouse right now and get married. The state and the government couldn’t care less if they love each other, or even if they’re heterosexual. As long as they have the correct sex organs, they’re good to go!

I find it galling that Tiger Woods can sleep around with a dozen women while he’s still married. Get a divorce, and still have the right to get married again. The same goes for Rush Limbaugh (Newt Gingrich, John McCain, et al). All of them have been married more than once. (four-times, three-times, twice) Some have cheated on their wives. Yet they have the audacity to make moral claims about the sanctity of marriage. It is the height of hypocrisy. They are the poster boys for heterosexism in society.

So it’s an emotional impairment to demand to be treated equally in society? I could use their same argument to support slavery. Those uppity black people with their illogical and psychotic impairment and psychotic social climbing demand to recognize that ‘black people’ are equal to ‘white people’. The nerve!

With some real gems:

When it comes to homosexuality which has provided it’s own evidence of cognitive and emotional impairment particularly in the illogical and psychotic social climbing demand to recognize a ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex.

If you look at the facts, homosexual male couples have the highest rate of promescuity and infidelity to their “partners.” To grant the privileged term of “marriage” to this unstable pairing would be foolish, and certainly would fall short of the definition of marriage. The homosexual relationship serves no public purpose, i.e. bringing forth new citizens in a stable environment.

One sees the same rejoinders over and over again.

I applaud Rob’s effort to go line-by-line. It might result in a really well thought-out ‘talking points memo’, which, in turn, could really serve to move the debate forward in a way that harmonized and crystallizes the case.

This is very helpful, because one can see that so many (including Chief Justices?) are prone to be swayed by prejudices, rather than discernment, even still.

A nongay couple gets married. They decide to have children, with the intent that they will abuse them, in whatever way you imagine, including the most severe. It also happens that they will unintentionally abuse them, physically and emotionally.

What are the implications of this for the ‘natural law’ view of marriage and/or George’s Harvard-enunciated view above, including the “link” with children and norms?

Does GGA consider this? Why or why not?

1. Our moral intuition is such that marriage is somehow linked with children.
2. Our legal tradition informs us that it is coitus, not children, at the center of the civil contract of marriage.
3. We assert that we can uncover the nature our moral intuitions about the linkage with children (and, thereby, rationalize them) by proposing that coitus is related to procreation and procreation is related to children, so marriage is “specially” related to children.
4. Infertile couples are on the procreative “team”, gay couples are not.

I have to shorthand the reply, because … a lot of personal reasons, direct and indirect. So,

1. We might have the intuition that marriage is intertwined with children. However, we might also have intuitions that children are intertwined with “civil union”, right? Indeed, our strongest intuitions about marriage may be between those who are married and those who are not.
2a. More than “coitus” has been involved in the historical understanding of marriage (including polygamy and interracial ‘bonding’ and even, say, such practices as prima nocta). To exclude other historical aspects that also might inform an intuition is biased, even if one admits an exhaustive list of all the “traditions” associated with marriage would be hard to list. To so pare historical reading just one perhaps doesn’t render the argument inconsistent, but it makes it weak, even if the literary effect is to make it look strong.

2b. Moral intuitions drawn or based on tradition alone are not sufficient at law (unless one argues just to confirm the biases of the Justices…).

3. We can put the locus of this intuitive “linkage” in other concepts. The desire to have children could be in ‘the great mystery of being human’, for instance, or other concepts of social responsibility, or even as a non-essential aspect of ‘sexual drive’.

What’s more, there clearly are those who have the desire for children (and can legitimately formulate the intent to) who are not married or who may need reproductive assistance technologies. Put another way, how does the persistence of gay people (and infertile couples) who desire to raise kids and the observation that non-married couples can and do responsibly raise kids inform our judgement about the link of marriage to children?

Finally, to anticipate objection(s), we can similarly locate the desire to have your own biological children in factors other than PIV.

4. Our moral intuition about infertile couples is not served by creating “a team that cannot win football games”. While it is true that “children change everything”, we don’t nevertheless think of infertile couples as “non-winners”, do we?

The difference between an all-infertile football team and an all gay rubgy team is hardly explanatory. Infertile couples cannot have the intent to ‘naturally procreate’ (via PIV). They might be “playing”, but without the intent to “win” can we really say they are a “football team”? To postulate a ‘natural intent’ that inheres in bodily organs (like “instinct”?) and is more determinative, from a moral perspective, than the ostensive intent doesn’t look Aristotelean to me. Am I wrong?

Finally, ‘sex changes everything’. Gays are clearly engaged in more than coordinating to friendship. In fact, it’s so different, it is plain to anyone who takes the time for discernment that it is as fundamental a sexual expression for them as do non-gay couples have, with what is ‘natural’ for them. (And no, we don’t have to permit everything, if we concur that observation, even from a fundamental, not normative, perspective.)

I’m glad Rob noted “most people”. George could use more precise/technical terminology, even in a Harvard journal. As it is, it does look like the well known “appeal to prejudice”.

I very much like Rob’s section on the converse and the logical slippage.

Long comment (sorry) to follow…

“He treats that belief as if it were a mere prejudice, as though it is motivated by a desire to cause harm to people,” George told CNA Feb. 24. “Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a legitimate moral belief that has informed our law throughout history.”
——
Moral belief? So, in other words, George believes that homosexuality is immoral. That is a religious opinion, not fact. Our country is not a theocracy, nor is marriage solely a religious institution. Non-religious straight couples get married in our country every single day. The state grants churches the ability to dispense marriage licenses; and church weddings are completely optional. City courthouses perform secular marriages to religious and non-religious couples. To disregard these facts is extremely disingenuous. George’s utopian idea of marriage is hardly a universal concept. Women are now treated as equals in the relationship, and no-fault divorce is commonplace. Historically, these concepts have never existed.

As for the 31 states that have banned same-sex marriage? Over a century ago, 31 states had bans on interracial marriage. 72% of the public were in favor of those bans. The Supreme Court ruled those bans unconstitutional. By doing so, they disregarded the “will of the people”. Unfortunately for people like George, history doesn’t seem to teach them anything.