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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
:):)