board77

Cerin wrote:

Maybe the old banana example will help. If you eat a banana, that's part of a biological design for nourishing your body (and also includes the pleasure and satisfaction we experience when eating). If you stick the banana in your ear because you enjoy sticking bananas in your ear, that isn't part of a biological design for nourishing your body, though it may give you some sort of physical or emotional pleasure nonetheless. Perhaps you would also consider that the fulfillment of a biological design, but I am differentiating between the two. The difference is plain to me, though perhaps I am failing to articulate it, or perhaps you don't see the difference as significant?

A perfect analogy to demonstrate why I find your stance on this so perplexing. If a person is no longer able to chew or swallow because of some disability and are therefore inable to gain nourishment from that act. Yet by your argument, this person is still capable of eating because they still somehow manage to represent the vitally important design of eating as intended by nature. Despite being unable to insert food into their mouth for the purpose of nourishing their body, they can still eat because they have the mouth for which nature intended eating to be done.

Um, yeah. I hope that sounded as absurd to you as it did to me. What you're saying is that straight people who can't or don't "chew or swallow" (ie. have sex capable of producing children) are still capable of "eating" (ie. getting married) because nature intended them to be able to. The analogy gets bizarre in the same way your definition of marriage does where it's not the ability to have children that lets you get married, its some symbolic biological design that lets you get married. That's like saying it's not chewing and swallowing a banana that lets you eat it, its having the symbolic biological design of a mouth that lets you eat a banana.

Ugh, I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Confused? So am I.

As much as I understand your point Cerin, I think you are finding significance where there is none like this:

Quote:

this phenomenon is especially significant within the context of a loving, committed union

Sexual intercourse and even more so, babies, are not a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is almost miraculous. A phenomenon denotes something that does not happen often. Calling the creation of life, or babies, a phenomenon within the context of marriage seems to take the position that babies are difficult to create and within marriage possibly even more difficult which is why the act and equipment of both should be so celebrated. The creation of life isn't something rare or new to us or any creature on the planet. This is where I am having trouble with why human creation needs to be held so sacred.

As to the banana analogy, I need to think some more...even though it is a ridiculous sounding analogy.

Edited to add: Cerin, one of the quotes you quoted was mine. I just screwed up my previous posts formatting so it looked like I was quoting someone else.

yovargas wrote:

If a person is no longer able to chew or swallow because of some disability ...

... it means they aren't able to eat. It doesn't change the fact that their body was designed to be able to eat (take nourishment). It is in the nature of things, that if this person's body was functioning properly, they would be able to participate in the vital activity we call eating.

Quote:

Yet by your argument, this person is still capable of eating because they still somehow manage to represent the vitally important design of eating as intended by nature.

No, of course I wouldn't argue that this person is still capable of eating. Does that diminish the vitally important design of eating as intended by nature? No, I would say it accentuates it, since it is of grave consequence to their well being that the person can no longer eat.

Quote:

What you're saying is that straight people who can't or don't "chew or swallow" (ie. have sex capable of producing children) are still capable of "eating" (ie. getting married) because nature intended them to be able to.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I believe your second parenthetical is incorrect in the parallel you are drawing. The "eating" is sexual intercourse (within a committed relationship), not "getting married." Even if a heterosexual couple cannot have sex capable of producing children, nevertheless they embody in their union the design for procreation (i.e., the male/female union is the reproductive model). The union that represents this design (joining of persons of opposite sex) is what we call "marriage."

I am talking about the nature of things, not about practical results. Your person who can't chew or swallow would be able to eat if something wasn't malfunctioning, the same for married couples unable to produce children; something is malfunctioning. A gay couple who can't produce children are not malfunctioning. A gay couple cannot produce children, period, they do not represent a reproductive model. It is not in the nature of things that a man and a man (any two men) can produce offspring together.

Quote:

The analogy gets bizarre in the same way your definition of marriage does where it's not the ability to have children that lets you get married, its some symbolic biological design that lets you get married.

It's not a symbolic biological design that lets you "get married." The traditional meaning of the word "marriage" has included the concept of this biological design. My viewpoint is that that aspect of the meaning of the word is important enough, that this type of union warrants a word in the language to designate it. If "marriage" is redefined to describe the committed union between persons of same sex, there will no longer be a word in the language that specifically designates a committed union between persons of opposite sex (with its significant practical and/or symbolic implications).

Quote:

That's like saying it's not chewing and swallowing a banana that lets you eat it, its having the symbolic biological design of a mouth that lets you eat a banana.

No. Chewing and swallowing a banana IS what lets you eat (participate in the biological design for nourishing your body). If you are unable to eat, it doesn't mean you weren't designed to be able to chew and swallow; it means something is wrong with the mechanism.

Sexual intercourse is what lets a man and a woman participate in the biological design for procreation (we call the committed union that embodies this design, "marriage"). If they are unable to procreate, it doesn't mean they weren't designed for procreation, it means something is wrong with the mechanism.

A man and a man are not able to participate together in the biological design for procreating, they are not designed to experience this kind of union. It is not because something is wrong with the mechanism, it is because the mechanism isn't present in the gay couple model.

I believe the design for procreation in the context of a committed relationship is significant enough that that kind of union warrants a word to specifically designate it.

Quote:

Ugh, I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Confused? So am I.

Well, I still know what I'm saying, and I'm not confused, but I'm sorry to have confused you. (You did practically and with foreknowledge dare me to enter the conversation, so I refuse to shoulder all of the blame for your current suffering.)

:):)

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

A phenomenon is something that is almost miraculous.

No, I don't think that's correct. The first meaning listed in my dictionary is, "an observable fact or event : an item of experience or reality." I'm simply saying that the opposite sex aspect of marriage is significant enough that that concept should continue to be a part of the meaning of the word.

Quote:

A phenomenon denotes something that does not happen often.

No, not necessarily.

Quote:

Calling the creation of life, or babies, a phenomenon within the context of marriage seems to take the position that babies are difficult to create

No, I do not believe it does.

Quote:

and within marriage possibly even more difficult which is why the act and equipment of both should be so celebrated.

I don't believe I've alluded here to the concept of difficulty. I'm talking about significance. I think there is at least enough significance, that the concept should have a word to describe it.

Quote:

The creation of life isn't something rare or new to us or any creature on the planet.

It is rare and new to the couple who have just welcomed their child into the world.

Quote:

This is where I am having trouble with why human creation needs to be held so sacred.

Well, that's another discussion, I guess. I'm not arguing for anything to be held sacred, just that the model for the creation of life within a committed relationship be held significant enough to merit a word that describes it (no more sacred than apples, or cockroaches, or chopped liver, or any of the other myriads of things and concepts worthy of note, for which we designate words so that we can communicate about them).

Quote:

Cerin, one of the quotes you quoted was mine. I just screwed up my previous posts formatting so it looked like I was quoting someone else.

Thanks. I must have missed that remark the first time around (or didn't remember it).

My sincere apologies if I'm causing anyone undue aggravation.

Cerin wrote:

(You did practically and with foreknowledge dare me to enter the conversation, so I refuse to shoulder all of the blame for your current suffering.)

Who said I'm suffering? This is fun!

Why must a particular configuration of relationship be defined by a unique word because it includes the possibility of something that the people in the relationship may not plan to do, wish to do, or even be capable of doing?

As a woman I certainly don't care to be defined by my biological capability to bear children. Though I've done so, and very gladly, it was a personal choice, not my "destiny" or the reason I exist. Why should a couple be defined in that way?

Cerin said, [quote]I'm not arguing for anything to be held sacred, just that the model for the creation of life within a committed relationship be held significant enough to merit a word that describes it.[/unquote]

Isn't the thing you're describing called "reproduction" or -- not lovely, I know, but it is a term one hears -- "procreative sex"?

What percentage of even a young, fertile, heterosexual couple's time is spent engaged in procreative sex? Far, far, far, far less than 1%. The main aspect of most long-term relationships is not sex. I would rather not be boiled down to it.

Marriage for me is about a long-term commitment to somebody. Through thick and thin. Sex is secondary. Tertiary. Less-than-tertiary. Whether that sex is procreative or not does not interest me, nor does it seem to be my business, really.

I feel that my own "marriage" (heterosexual) is actually harmed and cheapened by the state's RELUCTANCE to permit equally committed and loving homosexual couples to marry. It reduces MY "marriage" -- which is based on love and commitment -- to somebody's hairsplitting definition involving procreative sex. I will rejoice when gay people are finally treated like full-fledged equals in this area.

yovargas wrote:

Who said I'm suffering? This is fun!

Oh, ok then.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Why must a particular configuration of relationship be defined by a unique word because it includes the possibility of something that the people in the relationship may not plan to do, wish to do, or even be capable of doing?

I think sexual intercourse is one of the things that defines the marriage relationship (whether or not a couple desires or is able to have children). We don't call a marriage "consummated" if a couple has not engaged in intercourse. I might even go so far as to say that a marriage that was never consummated might be regarded as dysfunctional or unusual. Perhaps a poll would be in order (How many married (heterosexual) couples here have never engaged in sexual intercourse?)? I would be surprised if the number was very high.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong, and there is a high percentage of committed couples (gay and straight) whose relationship is entirely platonic?

Quote:

As a woman I certainly don't care to be defined by my biological capability to bear children.

Nevertheless, that is one aspect of what it means to be a woman, that we are the child-bearing gender. That is part of the reality we deal with, in whatever ways we choose.

Quote:

Though I've done so, and very gladly, it was a personal choice, not my "destiny" or the reason I exist.

It need not be your destiny, or the reason you exist, in order to be considered a noteworthy aspect of your life.

Quote:

Why should a couple be defined in that way?

Because the opposite-sex aspect of marriage -- and the resulting phenomenon of children being produced in the context of a committed union -- has traditionally been regarded as significant to society. I suppose, should the day come, when a greater part of our society views this aspect of marriage as unimportant, then the concept of calling gay unions "marriage" will gain wider acceptance.


Hi, Teremia.

Cerin, I'm sorry I was unclear in my post--I was of course discussing procreation, not intercourse. Many heterosexual couples can't or don't choose to procreate. And even those who do spend a relatively short period of the marriage working on it (other than those rare couples who use no contraception and leave the number of their children in the hands of God).

The production of children is also increasingly being separated from marriage--a high percentage of children are now born outside of "committed unions." Do we need to reserve a word for children born within such unions because they are a fulfillment of divine design, or can we call them all children?

Cerin wrote:

Perhaps a poll would be in order (How many married (heterosexual) couples here have never engaged in sexual intercourse?)? I would be surprised if the number was very high.

Of course, you could ask the same question to unmarried couples and I wouldn't expect the results to be that much higher.

Prim makes a good point. There's already a word for what you're talking about: procreation. No matter what happens to the idea of marriage, the concept of procreation will always be alive and well. Which makes your attachment to keeping that meaning in the word "marriage" even more baffling to me.

Thank you Prim and Teremia. Your comments are very helpful here, especially Prim’s, being from a self described “church lady”.

I’d like to ask Cerin where she gets this definition of hers, that marriage is a union that “embodies a biological design for reproduction”. I’ve looked in several dictionaries and found no reference at all to reproduction. I have heard people mention reproduction (but only when the subject of same sex marriage comes up), but honestly, I have never in my life heard such a definition as yours, and growing up as a preacher’s son, I heard a lot about marriage - what it is, what it means, why it’s important. Is there some historical documentation that supports your definition? Some etymological background? Is this simply your own personal opinion, or do you believe that it is the commonly held understanding of the word (which doesn’t seem to be the case here, but hey, we’re all just a bunch of pinko lefties, right?)?

I’m not trying to belittle your beliefs Cerin, I know that you are very passionate about them. My reason for asking is because I think it is important to understand where the backlash against same sex marriage and civil unions comes from. I just don’t think it comes from a concern for the meaning of a word. I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, from my own personal experience, that it comes from deep-seated hatred for gays, from the belief that homosexuality is immoral and abhorrent and a threat to society. The only evidence you have given to suggest otherwise is the change in public opinion after the Massachusetts court ruling - public support for civil unions decreased after gay marriage was upheld by the court. I think other explanations for this can be found. I think some people were willing to concede to civil unions as a way of keeping homosexuals “separate”. Once they perceived a threat to “their territory” they went on the offensive. I just don’t think it has anything to do with the word.

By the way, as far as Merriam Webster’s concerned, you’ve already lost the fight:

Quote:

Main Entry: mar·riage 1.
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Hey, tinwe: good post.

tinwe_linto wrote:

I’d like to ask Cerin where she gets this definition of hers, that marriage is a union that “embodies a biological design for reproduction”.

Hi, tinwe. It's right there in that first meaning in the definition you provided:

Quote:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex

Those words describe a union that embodies a biological design for reproduction, wouldn't you agree? I mean, that's what the word "sex" refers to -- the reproductive mechanism. Specifying "to a person of opposite sex," includes the idea of a reproductive model, whereas if you remove that component from the definition

Quote:

the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

you are left with what most people in this thread are advocating as a definition of "marriage."

Quote:

Is this simply your own personal opinion, or do you believe that it is the commonly held understanding of the word

I believe the commonly held understanding of the word includes the idea of a union between persons of opposite sex (sex referring to the reproductive process, and a union of opposite sexes being a reproductive model).

Or put another way, I believe the commonly held understanding of the word includes the idea of a physical union as well as a contractual one, that physical union being sexual (intimacy involving the reproductive organs).

Quote:

I think it is important to understand where the backlash against same sex marriage and civil unions comes from. I just don’t think it comes from a concern for the meaning of a word.

No, but a concern for the concept represented by the word, which concept is extremely important to many people. A man and a woman are configured to fit together in a way that two persons of same sex are not. People recognize this, they consider it important, and they aren't going to stand for being told that the difference (between these types of unions) doesn't exist, or isn't important.

Quote:

I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, from my own personal experience, that it comes from deep-seated hatred for gays, from the belief that homosexuality is immoral and abhorrent and a threat to society.

I'm not denying there are many people such as you describe. Consider, however, the difference in the reaction toward "civil unions" and "gay marriage." The backlash didn't occur until the Massachusetts decision concerning gay "marriage." There was not a similar strong reaction against civil unions. Pres. Bush, John Kerry, John Edwards, many politicians take the stance -- which I believe is the stance of the majority of Americans -- that they support the idea of civil unions, but are against calling them marriage.

I'm not trying to convince you, but I feel very certain that this opposition to gay "marriage" (not referring to the people in the group you described) has to do with people not being willing to call two different things by the same name, when they know very well that in one important (to them) distinction, they are not the same.

Quote:

I think some people were willing to concede to civil unions as a way of keeping homosexuals “separate”. Once they perceived a threat to “their territory” they went on the offensive. I just don’t think it has anything to do with the word.

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote:

By the way, as far as Merriam Webster’s concerned, you’ve already lost the fight:

Yes, and I fear gay couples may lose the fight for actual legal protections and privileges, because of the insistence on calling gay unions "marriage." I don't know how much comfort the symbolic victory will be in that case. Personally, I would have recommended going at it the other way: first secure legal protections for gay unions, then address the issue of "marriage." That way gay couples could be visiting each other in hospitals, making life and death decisions, etc. while working on the "marriage" issue.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Many heterosexual couples can't or don't choose to procreate.

Yes, as I've pointed out before, I'm talking about the nature of things, not about whether individual couples are able to or choose to procreate.

Quote:

The production of children is also increasingly being separated from marriage--a high percentage of children are now born outside of "committed unions." Do we need to reserve a word for children born within such unions because they are a fulfillment of divine design, or can we call them all children?

All children are a fulfillment of a design (a biological design).

We are talking about committed unions. Not all committed unions embody the design that produces children. This is the distinction I (and I believe many others) would like preserved by keeping the word "marriage" to describe the particular type of committed union that does embody that design (whether or not children actually result from the union).

yovargas wrote:

Prim makes a good point. There's already a word for what you're talking about: procreation.

No, we are talking about committed unions, and what the committed union is called that embodies the design for procreation, and what the committed union should be called that does not embody that design.

Quote:

No matter what happens to the idea of marriage, the concept of procreation will always be alive and well. Which makes your attachment to keeping that meaning in the word "marriage" even more baffling to me.

The concept of procreation within the context of a loving committed union is very important to many people. Many people believe that the interests of society and children are best served when children are born into loving, committed unions, rather than otherwise. Therefore, they wish to acknowledge that concept by retaining a word to describe that type of union.

:):)

Cerin wrote:

The concept of procreation within the context of a loving committed union is very important to many people. Many people believe that the interests of society and children are best served when children are born into loving, committed unions, rather than otherwise. Therefore, they wish to acknowledge that concept by retaining a word to describe that type of union.

Is the important part that children are born into loving, committed unions? Or is it most important that they are raised by loving, committed families?

As has been pointed out frequently, there are many, many heterosexual couples, whether married or not, who are neither loving nor committed, who are in fact viciously abusive to their children. Other children lose their loving, committed parents to illness, violence or disaster. Still others are born to mothers who feel that the most loving thing they can do for their infants is to find a loving family who will care for them and love them.

I stand in deepest awe of anyone who has such abundance of love that they accept a stranger's child as their own. If such a family consists of two men, is that really such a fundamental difference?

Turning the question around, it is likely that very soon the medical science will be able to take genetic material from a woman's egg and fertilize another egg with it, enabling two women to have a child. If that happens, and these children are born to loving, committed lesbian couples, will the procreation objection become invalid then?

Quote:

No, we are talking about committed unions, and what the committed union is called that embodies the design for procreation, and what the committed union should be called that does not embody that design.

I'm sorry to say this, but regardless of all the arguments you have put forth, I do not think you've shown that this is the essense of marriage, just that this is your opinion that you seem to think the majority of Americans hold as well. This horse has taken quite a beating. And I have yet to see any substantial proof that this belief is held by the majority of Americans aside from you stating that you believe it so.

Quote:

The concept of procreation within the context of a loving committed union is very important to many people. Many people believe that the interests of society and children are best served when children are born into loving, committed unions, rather than otherwise. Therefore, they wish to acknowledge that concept by retaining a word to describe that type of union.

Is this true? Do most people really believe this? I wonder. Then I guess in 11 states they were only trying to protect society and their children when they legally defined marriage. Excuse me while I kiss this pipe dream.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Main Entry: sex
Pronunciation: 'seks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 : GENITALIA

While you are right about what "sex" means in regards to the first definition of marriage, what do we say of the second. The second uses "sex" as well, but there is no indictation that marriage must embody the potential for life, just that it does. Granted dictionaries are far from gospel on the essense of words, but they are handy.

I concede my usage of phenomenon after consulting the dictionary.

Hi Cerin,
I've got to admire your fighting out this fight - it's one of you against so many That said, I have to throw another question your way...

It is very possible that technology at some point in the future will afford same-sex couples the opportunity to have biological children of their own. Granted, in the case of homosexual male couples, a surrogate might likely be involved, but in the case of a lesbian female couple, one of the mothers could carry the child - and in both cases, under this hypothetical, the queer union could then result in biological children.

Of course, I have to concede that these children would not be conceived the "old-fashioned way" - that there would not be a sex --> children correlation, which seems to be of significant importance to you.

Yet, if such a thing becomes medically possible, we will then have:
(1) Loving, caring committed couple who are sexually intimate (or not, I have nothing against asexuals )
(2) Their biological children, produced as a result of the couple's union

To what extent would this situation undermine the procreation argument? It seems fault to conclude that unions should be called by different names solely based on the techniques used to bear the couple's biological children. Certainly, heterosexual couples who have conceived using in vitro, AI, or similar techniques would be most disturbed to have their unions diminished to something other than marriage as a result of this logic. I am not sure that design would be relevant to them. Nor do I think they would be ok with accepting a different word for their relationship on the grounds their union was fundamentally different because they could not use the "natural" means of conception. [I feel that your response to this will be that they would still have been capable of the "natural" means were it not for a defect, a biological flaw - that their union is of the sort that is capable of such "natural" means. But, this seems to be splitting hairs when we are talking about loving couples and their biological children on all fronts.]

EDIT D'oh, I see that Frelga mentioned the same thing! But, I wrote it out slightly differently, so I won't waste the post. Darn it.

- TP

Not to add to a crowd against one person, but I always seem to have something to say on this topic, since I tend to agree with tinwe that the objection to using the word marriage has nothing to do with people caring that much about words (I've never seen this kind of backlash against people using the wrong word for something myself--where was this passion when people started using "disrespected" as a verb?) but because "civil unions" at least makes it "less than what I can have."

So just to these two points:

Quote:

think sexual intercourse is one of the things that defines the marriage relationship (whether or not a couple desires or is able to have children). We don't call a marriage "consummated" if a couple has not engaged in intercourse. I might even go so far as to say that a marriage that was never consummated might be regarded as dysfunctional or unusual. Perhaps a poll would be in order (How many married (heterosexual) couples here have never engaged in sexual intercourse?)? I would be surprised if the number was very high.

Someone might call that marriage dysfunctional or unusual, but those kinds of marriages certainly exist that have never been consummated for whatever reason. They've even been known to go on for years and be satisfying for everyone involved. It's generally considered to be the couples' business what they do sexually; you could both put it in your vows to have nothing but oral sex and still be married.

Even if marriage did come down to what 'nature intended' (and I don't think nature intends anything as it isn't able to plan or think), then why draw an arbitrary line between couples who can't have children together because they are both the same sex and couples who can't have children together because they have some other biological problem? Why wouldn't we say that nature didn't intend for these people to have children, since they were born without the capability? Or a woman who's too old to have children--obviously nature didn't intend for her to have children either, but she can still get married. Or what about a post-op transexual? Are they a woman or still a man because nature intended it?

-m

Cerin,

I can't remember if I've asked this hypothetical before, but what would you call the legal union of two persons born without sexual organs? Would it necessarily be a civil union only, or would the definition of marriage you are referring to allow such a union to be considered a marriage?

What are the ramifications either way?

Frelga wrote:

Is the important part that children are born into loving, committed unions? Or is it most important that they are raised by loving, committed families?

I would say, it is important that children are born into loving, committed unions. If a child does not have the good fortune to be born into a loving, committed union, then it is important that the child be raised by a loving, committed family.

We don't (I think for the most part, in these enlightened times) pretend that adopted children are birth children. In fact, based on the histories people shared in two threads concerning adoption here on the board, it seems to be extremely important for their happiness that adopted children know from an early age that they are adopted, so that they can come to terms with the fact of their separation from their birth mother or parents (if that becomes an issue later in life).

Quote:

I stand in deepest awe of anyone who has such abundance of love that they accept a stranger's child as their own. If such a family consists of two men, is that really such a fundamental difference?

I think this veers off into some other issues. I haven't suggested that there is some kind of qualitative difference between different types of families.

Quote:

Turning the question around, it is likely that very soon the medical science will be able to take genetic material from a woman's egg and fertilize another egg with it, enabling two women to have a child. If that happens, and these children are born to loving, committed lesbian couples, will the procreation objection become invalid then?

Scientific advancement will not change the fact that a man and a woman were by nature (if you will) designed to fit together in the biological design for procreation, whereas two men or two women are not. The traditional understanding of the word "marriage" recognizes this fact (important to many), and I think this distinction should continue to be recognized in the language, regardless of whether scientific advancement enables two women to artificially produce offspring.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

And I have yet to see any substantial proof that this belief is held by the majority of Americans aside from you stating that you believe it so.

I guess we can watch the progress of the marriage-defining referendums, and reaction to the court battles seeking to validate gay "marriage." Other than that, I have no proof to offer at the moment.

tolkienpurist wrote:

It seems fault to conclude that unions should be called by different names solely based on the techniques used to bear the couple's biological children.

Hi, tolkienpurist.

As I've tried to explain, it is not a matter of techniques, but of the nature of things. There is an essential reality here, that a man and a woman are designed so as to make a whole out of which life is created. It seems fitting to me that the type of committed union that embodies this reality, should have a word to describe it. It would seem truly bizarre to me, if it did not. I believe language should reflect the nature of things.

Quote:

Certainly, heterosexual couples who have conceived using in vitro, AI, or similar techniques would be most disturbed to have their unions diminished to something other than marriage as a result of this logic.

That is not the logic I've been presenting. Every heterosexual couple, regardless of their ability or desire to produce children, embodies in their union, the concept of two parts fitting together in a design to create life. There is no diminishment of unions on the basis of techniques or results. The underlying nature of a thing is not altered by superficial peculiarities.

Quote:

I feel that your response to this will be that they would still have been capable of the "natural" means were it not for a defect, a biological flaw - that their union is of the sort that is capable of such "natural" means. But, this seems to be splitting hairs

This is the crux of the matter, then. What is splitting hairs to you, is fundamental to me. I am concerned with the nature of things. I think language should reflect the nature of things.

A committed union between two persons is something we esteem as significant and valuable. A committed union between two persons of opposite sex has an added significance and value, in that a man and a woman fit together in completion of a biological design to create life. I believe the language should reflect that reality, by reserving a word to describe that kind of union. I absolutely cannot fathom why it would not.


Hi, Magpie! You changed your name ... do you prefer that we call you Sister Magpie, or is Magpie ok?

Quote:

then why draw an arbitrary line between couples who can't have children together because they are both the same sex and couples who can't have children together because they have some other biological problem?

The line is not arbitrary. As I've repeatedly attempted to explain, it is about the nature of things, what I call (for lack of better expression) design. In the case of couples who can't have children together because they are both of the same sex, it isn't a matter of there being a biological problem with either individual. It is in the very nature of their biology, in the nature of the model they represent as a couple, that it does not embody the design for creating life. This is the reverse of the situation wherein a heterosexual couple, who are by nature designed to be able to experience a physical union that completes a biological design, are unable to have children because of some problem that interferes in the process. The superficial result may be the same, but I am concerned with the underlying or fundamental reality, which is what I believe language should reflect.

Quote:

Why wouldn't we say that nature didn't intend for these people to have children, since they were born without the capability?

We could say that, as long as we clarify what we are meaning by our use of the word "nature."

In your example, the couple can't have children because there is some biological problem, that is, something isn't working the way it is supposed to work. Your suggested meaning (nature didn't intend), if I understand you correctly, is that whatever the situation is, is what nature intended.

My use of the phrase "the nature of things" is intended to say, the way things are designed to function, absent some anomaly or problem interfering in that function. So we are actually using the word to convey opposite meanings.

We can deduce that things were designed (it is in their nature) to function in a certain way, by observing how they do function absent any problem or interference. For example, one could say that people are designed to be able to chew and swallow food; someone who can't chew and swallow food isn't able to do what a human being is designed to be able to do in order to nourish their body. I do not view this situation (not being able to swallow and chew) to be what "nature intended." I view it is a malfunctioning of, or interference in what nature intended.

Two men functioning perfectly cannot create life together, because they aren't designed to be able to do so. Life in human beings comes out of a joining of opposite sexes, not of same sexes.

Quote:

Or a woman who's too old to have children--obviously nature didn't intend for her to have children either, but she can still get married.

Yes, a woman past child-bearing age can still enter into a committed union with a man, and she is still configured to fit together physically with him in completion of a biological design. The design remains, the fundamental nature of things, remains.

Quote:

Or what about a post-op transexual? Are they a woman or still a man because nature intended it?

Again you are using the phrase "nature intended" to convey an opposite meaning to the "nature" phrasology I am using. I would say this person is by nature the person they recognized themselves inwardly to be, which is why they took steps to correct a wrong gender manifestation. The physical problem prevented them from biologically experiencing their true nature; the physical problem is not the thing "nature intended."

Wolfgangbos wrote:

I can't remember if I've asked this hypothetical before, but what would you call the legal union of two persons born without sexual organs? Would it necessarily be a civil union only, or would the definition of marriage you are referring to allow such a union to be considered a marriage?

What are the ramifications either way?

Are there persons born without sexual organs? I know there are persons born with both sets of sexual organs, or with the wrong set of sexual organs developed(?), but with none? I don't really know what to say about it. If it is purely hypothetical, that is, if it is not something that occurs, then I don't quite see the value in considering it.

:):)

Cerin wrote:

Are there persons born without sexual organs? I know there are persons born with both sets of sexual organs, or with the wrong set of sexual organs developed(?), but with none? I don't really know what to say about it. If it is purely hypothetical, that is, if it is not something that occurs, then I don't quite see the value in considering it.

Although I haven't taken the time to research whether or not people can be born without sexual organs, people are born without body parts all the time (arms, legs, ears, feet, etc...).

And the value in considering it, if it never occurs that is, would be alleviating my curiosity about your position.