The Natural Basis of Marriage

The next question people ask is: "OK, so why is your definition the correct one? Can you give me a basis for it that doesn't rely on what your magical sky-god wrote in the holy book?"

To which every supporter of the natural-conjugal view should be able to say: “OK.”

Let us reason together:

Every human civilization – even those which had no problem with homosexual relationship - has made most (but not necessarily all) of the following observations:

• Men and women are anatomically designed for one another in a way that is oriented toward the continuation of the human race – namely procreation. 

• Men and women are conceived at a 1:1 ratio.  Thus, it is best if people take one spouse – which reduces the competition for mates.   

• A long term partnership is for best raising children because members of the human species take a very long time to mature into self-sufficiency.  

• Humans have the impulse to pass along their genes to future generations and to ensure the continuation of those genes by caring for our children.  Parents have the natural right  and moral responsibility to raise and care for their children.

• On the flipside, children have an innate desire to know where they came from.  The bond between a child and his/her biological parents is a huge part of a child’s self-identity.  A child has the natural right  to his/her mother and father.

• Lastly, the presence of a mother and father enables children to experience the psychology and physiology of the two genders and learn how they complement one another.  

Those observations lead to a natural institution which is a union between man and woman, oriented toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.  And since it enshrines the rights and duties of parents to their children and vice-versa, it is under the purview of the State to protect and uphold it – but not redefine it. 

The average defender of the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage usually can’t rattle this off.  For most, it is good enough to use the definition given by a noted first-century Jewish carpenter. 

Advocates of changing marriage see this and think they’ve proven there is no rational basis for “traditional” marriage.  They are incorrect, of course.  All that proves is that most people are not trained in natural philosophy.

But if a person wanted, he could appeal to any number pre-Christian, and non-Christian philisophers who make the same observations.  Something is not necessarily a uniquely Christian doctrine because Christians believe it. If that were the case, we couldn't legislate murder and theft laws because these things are found in the 10 Commandments.

But what about infertile couples?:

The most common philosophical objection to the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage is to point to the example of infertile couples.  “If marriage is all about babies,” the person says, “how can you justify infertile couples getting married?”

Well, most couples who suffer from impaired fertility only find out their condition after a year of fruitlessly trying to conceive a baby.  Even if there was a philosophical problem with calling such unions a "marriage", the practical impossibility of testing for fertility prior to the wedding makes it unrealistic to achieve that sort of perfect real-world consistency which is being called for. 

That said, there isn’t a philosophical problem anyway.

When confronting the "infertile couples" objection, one has to keep in mind the distinction between what something is and what it does.  For instance, a hammer and a wrench are two different things. But if they are both sitting on a shelf, they are DOING the same thing.  However, only a fool would say they are the same thing while sitting on the shelf.  Thus we see that what defines something is not whether it is currently accomplishing something, but what its nature is.

The nature of a marriage is: "A lifelong union between man and woman oriented toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring." Whether or not a particular instance of marriage successfully accomplishes those ends doesn't change the nature of what it is.  In the case of couples struggling with infertility, the bond they form still has the nature of a marriage - even if accomplishing the ends of marriage isn't foreseen.

Let me illustrate that further by returning to the tricycle analogy.   Even if you found a tricycle which had flat tires, dented wheels, and bent handle bars you would still recognize it as a tricycle.  The fact that it cannot fulfill its intended purpose (transportation) does not mean it is the same thing as something which isn't oriented toward transpostation at all... an umbrella, for instance..  At that certainly would not justify saying umbrellas and tricycles are the same thing.

The Pre-Flight Checklist

To return to another point mentioned above, it would rather hypocritical to deride defenders of natural-conjugal marriage for not knowing all the philosophical underpinnings of their position.  The proponents of changing marriage are often more clueless about theirs.

In order to support the gender-neutral redefinition of marriage, you must – on some level – support the following premises:

• Biology doesn’t confer any natural rights or obligations – either of parents to their children, or of children to their parents.

• Gender is a social construct, not a biological reality.  Men and women do not perform any roles that could not be accomplished just as well by the other gender. 

• Motherhood and fatherhood are cultural fabrications which are interchangeable or unnecessary.  Children do not need a mother and father.

• Marriage is NOT a natural institution which connects mating pairs of the human species to one another and their offspring, but a civil contract which the State may redefine or even abolish. 

• Any belief which runs contrary to any of the above is a form of bigotry which the State may justly act against.

Of course, most supporters of redefining marriage don’t check off each of these points before supporting the cause.  Their prime motivation is usually simple:  “I want my gay friends to feel happy and welcomed in our society.” 

Well who can’t sympathize with that? 

All or Nothing?

Most of us feel a tension between upholding the truth about marriage and making accommodations for those in same-sex relationships.  However, the way the debate has been framed, you either support redefining the foundational structure of human society or you “hate gays”. 

Nonsense.  There has been room for compromise all along.  But at the same time we recognize that you can only go so far in one direction before you start causing unintended harm.  As I noted in the first entry of this series, our previous attempts at changing marriage have left behind plenty of victims. 

Changing the definition of marriage to gender-neutrality will be a more profound change than all the others.   It will take those 5 bullet points from above and give them the force of law.

What could be the harm of that?

Well… that brings us to the present day.

[BACK]