I’ve just got round to reading the much talked about “What is Marriage?” by Girgis, George and Anderson. In it they put forward a non-religious argument for marriage being only between a man and a woman…..
Because bodies are integral parts of the personal reality of human beings, only coitus can truly unite persons organically and, thus, maritally. Hence, although the state can grant members of any household certain legal incidents, and should not prevent any from making certain private legal arrangements, it cannot give same”sex unions what is truly distinctive of marriage””i.e., it cannot make them actually comprehensive, oriented by nature to children, or bound by the moral norms specific to marriage. At most the state can call such unions marital, but this would not”” because, in moral truth, it cannot””make them so; and it would, to society’s detriment, obscure people’s understanding about what truly marital unions do involve. In this sense, it is not the state that keeps marriage from certain people, but their circumstances that unfortunately keep certain people from marriage (or at least make marrying much harder). This is so, not only for those with exclusively homosexual attractions, but also for people who cannot marry because of, for example, prior and pressing family obligations incompatible with marriage’s comprehensiveness and orientation to children, inability to find a mate, or any other cause.
Those who face such difficulties should in no way be marginalized or otherwise mistreated, and they deserve our support in the face of what are often considerable burdens. But none of this establishes the first mistaken assumption, that fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release””an idea that devalues many people’s way of life. What we wish for people unable to marry because of a lack of any attraction to a member of the opposite sex is the same as what we wish for people who can not marry for any other reason: rich and fulfilling lives. In the splendor of human variety, these can take infinitely many forms. In any of them, energy that would otherwise go into marriage is channeled toward ennobling endeavors: deeper devotion to family or nation, service, adventure, art, or a thousand other things.
But most relevantly, this energy could be harnessed for deep friendship. Belief in the second hidden assumption, that meaningful intimacy is not possible without sex, may impoverish the friendships in which single people could find fulfillment….
I would “read it all,” but the link takes me around in circles. The article seems to begin well.
Pax,
C
Yeah, it’s too bad. In reference to another discussion, I am really interested to see what he has to say about intimacy and the importance of intimate friendships for singles. This is an important beginning and understanding if the vocation of singlehood is ever to be truly valued in the Church.
Just one of my own personal missions … 😉
The paper by Girgis, George and Anderson is very good. It is published in the Winter 2011 edition of Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, but is also available on SSRN. This link is http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155. The link is not a direct one to the paper but is to a page from which the paper can be downloaded.
Some comments on the paper and responses to the comments are linked on NRO Bench Memos at http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/256184/marriage-debate-update-matthew-j-franck.
Peter Ould’s full post is [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/02/19/what-is-marriage/]here[/url], but the bulk of it is selected excerpts from the paper Mike Watson linked to.