I think marriage or civil union is fine for the small, unconventional minority. But the marriage the author describes must be the norm - it is a cornerstone of civilization.
It seems we have the Objectivist version of Alan Keyes. :) However even Alan caved on being able to force his religious, repressive definition of marriage on the general population. The government should have no role in marriage, and private parties (like churches) should be able to use whatever definition they like within their own private, legal practices. So if Catholics want to exclude non-heterosexuals from their marriages that’s their prerogative, however the non-heterosexuals can just go to some other, friendly group to get married.
Hi Dr. Thompson, thank you for another though-provoking essay in this series.
You make the case that postmodern marriage rebells against the traditional religious definition by destroying the whole concept. You also make the case that marriage is more than the recognition of a romantic relationship between two adults. It is a metaphysical union of two individuals into a new family unit, the only kind of unit that can naturally produce children, and thereby earns its social status and legal protection.
It seems that the Catholic idea of marriage is the one that best matches what you describe here - lifelong, exclusive, and "open to children," whether or not children are actually conceived.
But the Catholics have found it necessary to reject birth control in order to preserve marriage; do you also think that birth control undermines the metaphysical reality of marriage? Have we tamed nature to such an extent that what was once a universal metaphysical fact is simply no longer as relevant as it once was?
If so, then, in a time when children can be "unnaturally" produced or prevented, why shouldn't any combination of adults form a permanent legal and economic unit for raising them? If the root of the problem solved by marriage is stability for raising children (and protection for women who have no choice about bearing children or raising them once they are born), couldn't we solve it by making such unions more difficult to dissolve?
The only line of reasoning I know that could counter that argument is that adoption, surrogacy, and the absence of a parent of both sexes are so damaging to children that it is a violation of their rights to knowingly produce them outside of a heterosexual marriage. You could say the same for divorce - that it does such damage that it must be restricted in protection of the child.
But we've now had three generations of children who have grown up since the sexual revolution, and while some do report psychological pain from divorce and parental separation, it does not seem to be at a level that prevents them from growing into functional adults with productive lives. I don't think you could define "harm to a child" at any lower of a level than that without getting entangled in the regulation of all kinds of other parental decisions.
So maybe the preservation of marriage into a future of reproductive technology means there is a special category for the creation of families as being by definition open to the conception and raising of children, and unions of any combination that are not open to producing or raising children are not "really" married. Of course that would put heterosexual couples at a disadvantage, if they restrict themselves to natural conception and do not conceive.
Apologies for my rambling thoughts. The question of marriage in an individualistic and technological society is a very interesting and timely question. We don't want to dissolve into tyranny and we don't want to regress back to religious mysticism; we want to build a way forward that is rooted in reason and reality. I look forward to your next instalment in the series!
I think marriage or civil union is fine for the small, unconventional minority. But the marriage the author describes must be the norm - it is a cornerstone of civilization.
Good piece.
Well done, Brad. If you think that there is no misery like an unhappy marriage just wait till you get to the divorce!
It seems we have the Objectivist version of Alan Keyes. :) However even Alan caved on being able to force his religious, repressive definition of marriage on the general population. The government should have no role in marriage, and private parties (like churches) should be able to use whatever definition they like within their own private, legal practices. So if Catholics want to exclude non-heterosexuals from their marriages that’s their prerogative, however the non-heterosexuals can just go to some other, friendly group to get married.
Bravo
Metaphysical marriage is required for the very survival of the species. Declining fertility rates are a symptom of postmodern marriage.
And it's all John Roberts fault...
Hi Dr. Thompson, thank you for another though-provoking essay in this series.
You make the case that postmodern marriage rebells against the traditional religious definition by destroying the whole concept. You also make the case that marriage is more than the recognition of a romantic relationship between two adults. It is a metaphysical union of two individuals into a new family unit, the only kind of unit that can naturally produce children, and thereby earns its social status and legal protection.
It seems that the Catholic idea of marriage is the one that best matches what you describe here - lifelong, exclusive, and "open to children," whether or not children are actually conceived.
But the Catholics have found it necessary to reject birth control in order to preserve marriage; do you also think that birth control undermines the metaphysical reality of marriage? Have we tamed nature to such an extent that what was once a universal metaphysical fact is simply no longer as relevant as it once was?
If so, then, in a time when children can be "unnaturally" produced or prevented, why shouldn't any combination of adults form a permanent legal and economic unit for raising them? If the root of the problem solved by marriage is stability for raising children (and protection for women who have no choice about bearing children or raising them once they are born), couldn't we solve it by making such unions more difficult to dissolve?
The only line of reasoning I know that could counter that argument is that adoption, surrogacy, and the absence of a parent of both sexes are so damaging to children that it is a violation of their rights to knowingly produce them outside of a heterosexual marriage. You could say the same for divorce - that it does such damage that it must be restricted in protection of the child.
But we've now had three generations of children who have grown up since the sexual revolution, and while some do report psychological pain from divorce and parental separation, it does not seem to be at a level that prevents them from growing into functional adults with productive lives. I don't think you could define "harm to a child" at any lower of a level than that without getting entangled in the regulation of all kinds of other parental decisions.
So maybe the preservation of marriage into a future of reproductive technology means there is a special category for the creation of families as being by definition open to the conception and raising of children, and unions of any combination that are not open to producing or raising children are not "really" married. Of course that would put heterosexual couples at a disadvantage, if they restrict themselves to natural conception and do not conceive.
Apologies for my rambling thoughts. The question of marriage in an individualistic and technological society is a very interesting and timely question. We don't want to dissolve into tyranny and we don't want to regress back to religious mysticism; we want to build a way forward that is rooted in reason and reality. I look forward to your next instalment in the series!
I blame Constantine. The Christians made a devil's bargain when they hitched their faith to the Empire. Now we reap.