 |
Related TIME article:
SHOULD ANNULMENTS BE SO EASY?
to conclude ... that ... marriage is therefore sufficiently ambiguous as to allow ... two persons of the same sex requires a huge leap of logic--if it involves any logic at all. |
"Marriage seems to represent nothing more or less than a formal social recognition of the irrefutable biological fact that, among sexual organisms, the only way for a species to propagate itself is by procreation requiring the physiology and anatomy of one male and one female." |
| "Regardless of the name society may attribute it, a relationship between two persons of the same sex can no more be marriage than a square can be round, than a circle can be square, than two plus two can equal five." |
| If society is to grant the recognition of "marriage" to homosexuals simply because they demand it, then why not to those participating in incestuous relationships, to pedophiles, to necrophiles, and the like? |
"Marriage," defined —Dr. Michael T. Napierkowski, MD
First, I'll grant that--to my knowledge--the Bible provides no explicit, exclusive definition of marriage as the union of only one man and only one woman. But, as Neil provided, numerous references strongly suggest that this is the arrangement God ordained, especially according to Christ's teaching.
In addition, there can be no question that the Church Fathers recognized heterosexual monogamy as the only acceptable and recognized definition of marriage. You may not find their opinions persuasive, but I do. And if you choose to accuse me of failing to answer the challenge by relying on references other than biblical, please explain to me why you find biblical references so important and binding, when you make no apologies for disregarding the numerous biblical proscriptions against homosexual acts. Obviously, for you, the Bible is not the final word on such matters. Perhaps, for the purposes of this debate, it should not be. Perhaps we should argue this issue on its merits and reject relying on proofs found elsewhere.
This is why I find it so discouraging and misleading that you have chosen, in effect, to change the subject and to abandon the question of whether two persons of the same sex should be allowed to be, or can even rightly be described as being, married, regardless of the cultural or temporal or legal setting. Instead, you have insisted that the issue at hand regards whether any definition of marriage other than that commonly accepted in modern American society (a recognized relationship between one man and one woman) has ever been recognized in the Judeo- Christian tradition.
There can be no answer but that the ancient Hebrews did practice polygamy. I cannot even argue that this was not the culturally preferred arrangement. But to conclude from the fact that polygamy occurred among our religious ancestors that the biblical definition of marriage is therefore sufficiently ambiguous as to allow or even to implicitly condone marriage between two persons of the same sex requires a huge leap of logic--if it involves any logic at all.
Furthermore, polygamy is nevertheless not the issue here, though you insist that it must be. The etymology of the word "polygamy" helps explain why. Broken down into its root words, "poly" (Greek, much or many) and "gamos" (Greek, marriage), the word can be seen to mean "many marriages," implying that it refers to the practice of one person being involved in several marriages, and not many people being involved in one marriage, as you suggest. This is a very big point, and not just a matter of semantics, because it explains that the moral question of polygamy regards whether one person can be involved in several marriages concurrently and not whether a given marriage can involve numerous members.
We know that even in societies which allow polygamy, marriage involves only one man and one woman because, as can be easily gleaned from biblical passages referring to the subject, the marriage each wife has to the one man confers no special relationship among the women. Thus, each is married separately to the same man, but they are not in any way married to each other and thus cannot be said to be involved in one marriage involving several people.
So, the fundamental, historically established, exclusive definition of marriage is that of a relationship between one man and one woman, even in societies which allow a given individual to be involved in multiple marriages concurrently. So, polygamy is not the issue here, and I am still waiting for an biblical example of a marriage involving anything other than one man and one woman.
Whether two persons of the same sex should be allowed the nominal recognition of marriage involves two critical questions. The first, more timely, but ultimately less relevant question regards the provision of such privileges (not rights, since our nation's law does not explicitly confer to anyone a "right" to marriage) according to legal precedents and principles. The second, more esoteric, but far more important question regards whether it is philosophically possible for two persons of the same sex to be married to one another, regardless of the legal recognition of the arrangement. In short, this second question addresses the definition of marriage on a philosophical and theological level, with an understanding of the origins and purpose of the institution of marriage itself.
Marriage seems to represent nothing more or less than a formal social recognition of the irrefutable biological fact that, among sexual organisms, the only way for a species to propagate itself is by procreation requiring the physiology and anatomy of one male and one female. Among sexual animals, no progeny is ever created by anything other than one gamete provided by one male and one gamete provided by one female. Different species carry embryos, care for neonates, and raise young progeny differently, and among various species the initial sexual relationship between the procreative pair of male and female is developed and maintained to various degrees. Obviously, among black widow spiders, the "marriage" lasts only as long as copulation, and among felines polygamy is common. Among higher primates, however, life- long monogamy in which the male assists in child-rearing is the rule, and there are biological explanations for this behavior.
Humans, of course, need not model their behavior and social institutions after those of gorillas, but neither can they boast of an exception to the biological fact that procreation depends always on one male and one female. So, from early times, the special bond between the procreative pair was recognized and formalized by invention of an institution which became known as "marriage."
Gradually, certain rules, meanings, and expectations of behavior were added to the formal recognition of this fundamental relationship. Marriage, in effect, was not always about love, life-long commitment, sexual gratification, or happiness. At its root was an acknowledgement of the importance of that single male-female relationship which allows the species, or the clan, or the nation to survive.
With increasing scientific knowledge, humans have become able to alter the requirements of procreation. Sex without babies and babies without sex are now commonplace. With increasing social and religious organization, humans have become able to further formalize and abstract the institution of marriage.
Conventional wisdom now attributes most or all of the significance of the marital relationship to emotional and sexual unity, disregarding the fundamental biological basis of the marital arrangement, namely the evolutionary necessity of sexual reproduction.
Recognizing the intricate balance of sexual relationships, procreation, and social order, the Catholic Church has long opposed sex without marriage and marriage without sex. It has likewise opposed sex without procreation and procreation without sex. Any of the previous anomalies, the Church teaches, not only threatens an individual's dignity but also can destabilize the institution of marriage, so critical to society's well-being. It is true that many married couples cannot procreate. However, this is the result of individual physiologic accident, not disordered relationship opposed to biological realities.
While marriage carries with it the promise of selfless love and intimate cooperation and the fulfillment of lifelong friendship, its origin lies in the biological facts that: 1) Humans are sexual beings; 2) Humans are sexual beings (on a biological level) exclusively for the purpose of procreation.
This does not mean that marriage cannot entail many additional, ethereal gifts, but it does mean that marriage is meant to involve and include participation in God's creation by the sexual union of one man and one woman leading to the birth of children.
Because of this, the marriage means, by definition, a relationship including only one man and only one woman. By definition, a square has four equal sides at right angles to one another. Regardless of the name society may attribute it, a relationship between two persons of the same sex can no more be marriage than a square can be round, than a circle can be square, than two plus two can equal five.
Such reasoning may seem especially dependent on the biological reason for the development of genitalia, to the neglect of the spiritual gifts of marriage. It may seem dependent on a certain religious point of view. Perhaps it is. But it provides a definition of marriage where one is sorely needed. In pressing for the recognition of homosexual relationships as marriage, the proponents of the idea rarely present a definition of the institution which is not obviously vulnerable to other abuses.
If the biological sense of the origin of marriage is ignored, and marriage is thought to represent nothing more than the commitment of persons who share love and mutual sexual gratification, then suddenly marriage has become open to the petitions of any number of sexual arrangements. If society is to grant the recognition of "marriage" to homosexuals simply because they demand it, then why not to those participating in incestuous relationships, to pedophiles, to necrophiles, and the like?
Love among consenting individuals cannot be the only standard for the application of the title "marriage," or else everyone can claim it on some basis. And if anyone can claim to be married to someone or something, then marriage as a distinct social institution is bankrupt. Why not abolish it altogether?
See also
Homosexual Marriage- The Marginalization of Women and the Family,
L.M. Farrell, Ph. D.
