McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, Robert George, et al have written what is arguably one of the best defenses for the traditional understanding of marriage available in print. Titled “What is Marriage?”, this paper was first published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and later expanded into a book by the same title.[1]
I’ve often said the reason support for same-sex marriage has grown so fast in the West is because our culture has long forgotten what marriage is. George et al understand that when it comes to the marriage debate, everything hinges on the question, What is marriage? Does marriage have a fixed nature independent of cultural norms, or is it a mere social construction that can be whatever society wishes it to be? The authors rightly begin their paper by defining and contrasting these two perspectives (what they call the “conjugal view” and “revisionist view”):
Conjugal View: Marriage is the comprehensive union of a man and woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other. The marital union is consummated and renewed by conjugal acts. These acts are naturally oriented toward procreation, and thus the marital relationship is the kind of relationship that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.. This natural orientation toward children contributes to the distinctive structure of marriage, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.
Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people of any sex who commit to loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. The marital union is one involving hearts and minds, and enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.
George et al argue that only the conjugal view of marriage can explain our intuitions that marriage involves sex, children, permanence, and fidelity. Furthermore, only the conjugal view of marriage is rooted in the public good. The revisionist view – given its exclusive focus on personal affirmation and self-fulfillment rather than children – will ultimately damage the long-term health of society.
What Makes a Marriage a “Marriage”?
What is marriage? Most will agree that marriage involves three core elements: (1) a comprehensive union; (2) a unique link to children; (3) norms of permanence and exclusivity. While most revisionists wish to dispense with the second element, few would dispute the remaining two.
Comprehensive Union
While there are many important and/or intimate human relationships (filial, familial, business, etc.), a marital relationship is unique among human relationships because it is comprehensive in scope, involving every aspect of a couple’s being. A marital relationship not only involves the sharing of one’s life, emotions, will, and resources with another individual, but also the sharing of one’s body via the conjugal act (what George et al call an “organic bodily union”). Any relationship that lacks organic bodily union is not comprehensive, and thus not marital in nature.
Why should we think organic bodily union is essential to a marital relationship? Imagine if two people committed to marriage on the basis of their shared love for tennis rather than on a sexually exclusive relationship. Would that make their relationship a marriage? No. It would be indistinguishable in form and structure from a friendship between roommates.
While most people will agree that sexual interaction is essential to a marital relationship, the conjugal view of marriage makes the additional claim that sexual intercourse is necessary to establish a marital relationship. Other sexual acts – such as fondling, oral sex, and anal sex – may form a bodily union, but not an organic bodily union. George et al explain the distinction in detail:
[F]or two individuals to unite organically, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole. That sort of union is impossible in relation to functions such as digestion and circulation, for which the human individual is by nature sufficient. But individual adults are naturally incomplete with respect to one biological function: sexual reproduction. In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one — they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together — in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.
Two people of the same sex cannot achieve organic bodily union because they do not share any bodily functions that require a coordination of their bodies. If they cannot achieve organic bodily union, and yet organic bodily union is required of a comprehensive union, which, in turn, is an essential element of a marital relationship, then it follows that the same-sex relationships are not, and can never be a marital relationship.
Revisionists could simply deny that marital relationships require organic bodily union, but then they must tell us why sexual interaction is required at all. Why can’t the non-sexual relationship of two roommates be considered marriage? What about best friends? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to prevent them from exercising their right to marriage on the grounds that their relationship is neither romantic nor sexual? If so, then the fact that two people of the same sex are having a sexual relationship should not privilege their relationship above anyone else’s.
We might even ask why three romantically involved individuals cannot enter into a joint marry (polyamory). Why should they be prohibited from exercising their marital rights just because there is a third person involved in the sexual relationship? On the revisionist definition of marriage, there is no principled reason to forbid this, but on the conjugal view there is: two — and only two — people of the opposite sex create an organic, bodily union. No additional partners are needed. Furthermore, children can only have two biological parents, so it makes sense to limit marriage to two people of the opposite sex.
argue that sexual intercourse is necessary for an organic bodily union because our reproductive organs are the only organs we possess that naturally require the aid of another human being to fulfill their intended purpose. All other bodily organs and systems, such as digestion and circulation, can fulfill their natural function wholly on their own. Only in the case of sexual reproduction must two persons be “coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole,” and thus sexual intercourse is required for a comprehensive, bodily, organic union of persons. .
Unique Link to Children
The marital relationship is naturally oriented toward children. This follows from the organic bodily union between spouses since children are the telos of the human reproductive system. There is a deep connection between children and the way marriages are created and renewed: sexual union. Indeed, apart from children, there would be no reason for governments to involve themselves with the regulation of marriage:
A thought experiment might crystallize our central argument. Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self-sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no. And our view explains why not. If human beings reproduced asexually, then organic bodily union—and thus comprehensive interpersonal union—would be impossible, no kind of union would have any special relationship to bearing and rearing children, and the norms that these two realities require would be at best optional features of any relationship. Thus, the essential features of marriage would be missing; there would be no human need that only marriage could fill.
What about same-sex couples who are raising children together? Does this justify opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? No. A commitment to raise children together, by itself, does not make a relationship of the marital kind. Two brothers who commit to raising their deceased sister’s child together do not thereby acquire a marital relationship.
What about childless opposite-sex couples? Is their relationship a marital relationship? Yes. Our social and legal traditions have always recognized a couple as married prior to the birth of their first child. A childless couple is still married in virtue of their comprehensive union and mutual commitment to permanence and exclusivity. The kind of relationship and union they enjoy is naturally oriented toward procreation, and thus is a genuine marriage even if they cannot, or choose not to have children. This is analogous to a sports team. The structure of the team is such that it is naturally oriented toward winning, and yet it may fail to win any games. While the team would fail to reach its telos, it does not cease to be a team.
Permanence and Exclusivity
The conjugal view of marriage makes sense of our intuition that the marriage ideal entails permanence and sexual fidelity. Organic bodily union makes sense of the permanence of marriage since it involves a coordination of our reproductive system into a single whole. Just as we remain joined to the rest of our bodily systems for the duration of our life, we are to remain with our marital partner for the duration of our life. Relationships that lack such bodily union have no rational basis for permanence and sexual fidelity.
Objections
Here’s how the authors answer key objections to the conjugal view of marriage:
How will same-sex marriage affect you?
What’s the harm in giving legal recognition to same-sex relationships? The same question could be asked of the same-sex marriage advocate regarding polygamous marriage, or any other alternative form of marriage.
Enshrining the revisionist idea of marriage into law by legalizing same-sex marriage would send a message to society that marriage is not about children, but about adult emotional fulfillment. If emotional fulfillment is the basis of marriage, then marital instability will increase because emotional unions are easily worn down. After all, what reason is there for people to stay together when their emotional connection is severed? It would be more like a friendship that runs its course and ends.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will also obscure opposite-sex parenting as the ideal form of parenting, having erased it entirely from our legal framework. We know kids do best when raised by their biological parents, so enshrining the revisionist view of marriage into law would have the effect of causing a greater number of children to be raised in less-than-optimal family structures, increasing social disorder in the process.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will also affect moral and religious liberty. If we enshrine the revisionist view of marriage into law, the state would be explicitly affirming same-sex and opposite-sex relationships to be equal. How would the state view those who do not see these relationships as equal, then? They would be viewed as bigots, and may suffer legal consequences for acting on their moral and religious point of view (for example, a photographer can be sued for discrimination for refusing to photograph a gay wedding on the grounds that s/he believes homosexuality is immoral).
Is it unjust for the government not to recognize same-sex relationships as marriage?
No. The government should only recognize real marriages as marriages. The government does not exist to affirm every kind of sexual relationship that the participants would like to be socially affirmed. The government should not call certain kinds of relationships “marriage” that are not real marriages, simply because some people are psychologically incapable of (or have no desire to) engaging in a real marital relationship. While this psychological inability is no fault of their own, this is no more reason for the government to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships than it is to redefine marriage to include single persons to accommodate those who have not been able to find a marital partner despite their desire and best efforts to do so. It would actually be unjust to extend marital benefits to those whose relationships are not of the marital kind.
Isn’t denying same-sex couples the right to marry similar to miscegenation laws?
No. The purpose of miscegenation laws was to promote white supremacy. The problem was not that people did not think interracial relationships could form marriages, but that they did not want such marriages to be formed even when they were possible. Unlike race, sex is a relevant factor to marriage.
It’s unjust to prohibit people from marrying the person they love
There is no general right to marry the person you love. There is only a right not to be prevented from participating in a genuine marital relationship when such a relationship is possible and desired.
The conjugal understanding of marriage is based solely on religious beliefs, and thus it should not be privileged in a secular society
This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is, by nature, apt for procreation and child-rearing, this merely demonstrates that the conjugal view of marriage is so basic to human society and flourishing that every major religion has felt the need to incorporate it into their religious traditions. It is the demands of our common human nature that have shaped (however imperfectly) all religious traditions to recognize this natural institution.
While I have tried my best, my attempt to summarize the argument of this paper does not do it justice. I highly recommend you read it yourself.
[1]Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 34, number 1, 2011: 245-287, 286-7.
February 24, 2012 at 11:39 am
Sanchez Juan…
[…]The Best Argument I’ve Read for Traditional Marriage, and against Same-Sex Marriage « Theo-sophical Ruminations[…]…
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 9:07 am
Reblogged this on asktheBigot and commented:
The questions of “What is Marriage” is essential to this discussion. This is the most accurate and fair definition of the two views of marriage currently being debated within our culture. I could not put it any more succinctly so the best I could do was to re-post. This is just a summary of the paper by Robert George, but it summarizes the core arguments.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 2:56 pm
[…] The best summary (and most unemotional argument I’ve ever seen posted on the internet) of the different definitions of marriage debated within the US today is made in the paper “What Is Marriage” published in the Winter 2011 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. I highly recommend reading the entire paper, but this post from the blog Theo-sophical Ruminations gives a summary: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-best-argument-i%E2%80%99ve-read-for-traditional-mar… […]
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 11:01 am
This is a beautifully stated position. I am thankful to have been exposed to it and will be looking for the original piece. Thank you for sharing it.
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 2:29 pm
wonderfully written – lets send it to all Supreme Court Justices;. if they do not regard the Marriage betwen One man and One woman as the only norm to deserve this title – lets say they will sink into the dirty sexual satisfaction at all cost without the physical invlvement of the partnermode. THAT is not the business of the Supreme Court. lets hold their feet to the fire on this..
LikeLike
March 27, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Obviously, this is written by a person who can only see their own particular view of marriage. Many heterosexual people marry without any plan to produce children, yet they perform the sexual act many times, with absolutely no concept of parenting children. However, it is a bonding experience with them as Oxytocin released during sex helps bind the couple to one another. People who get married in the years after their 50s have absolutely no belief in producing children. If we remove this “critical” part of marriage, then should we also prevent these people from having a “marriage”? The ideal situation for children is a loving mother and father. However, there are many derivations of the “Family” that are healthy that do not have both a mother and a father. The Supreme Court is determining the legal issues of marriage, not the religious views of marriage. Many religions do not have a problem with same sex marriage. Should we enshrine only certain religions who only follow the oldest and strictest views? What about Solomon and all his wives? Rachel and Leah? Views on marriage have evolved over the centuries. Are we to remain backwards like our barbarous ancestors, or are we to evolve as marriage has evolved over the centuries? Many people were still in favor of slavery in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed. It had been our history. Should we have maintained that traditional view, or did we evolve believing that all men (and women) were created equal and should be treated as such? We didn’t give women the right to vote until the 1920s. Did women suddenly become a lot smarter, or did we evolve in our understanding of the obvious evolution of thinking by society? Do not be left behind in your thinking that you are unable to conceive that all people want someone to grow old with……… and want to be protected by the law that applies to all couples.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 4:54 am
Therefore, women who are barren and men who are sterile should not be allowed to marry either.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 5:02 am
reading yourepistle has shown me once again how sick this society really is. you have said so yourself: “when you remove” – well in MARRIAGE you do not “remove” morality, you do not remove the absolute union, Marriage the way it has existed over thousands of years is the real thing, using your lingo. evolution, which you like to apply to all things has not changed marriage, quite the contrary – it has strengened it.
the Supreme Court should stay out of it. live together, love each other – and be happy, something that the word :”gay” means.
I have don e some research in Vermont: the divorce rate amongst same sex people is at least three times bigger then in the heterosexual marriage. and it creates other problems: who gets the child? In a female same sex marriage there is only ONE person that is blood-related to the child – and the Suopreme Court has already made that decision in a fight between the mother of a child and a step father: blood is thicker than water.
what else do we have to endure???????
I will get out of this discussion – there is no agreement possible. in these times where immoral behavior seems to be tantamount to acceptance – I will NOT> the Church will NOT. and those who cherish their partners will NOT. so what in the hell are uyou aiming at????? the law???? it will change absolutely nothing. live with your likes and be gay.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 6:44 pm
So I assume then we should make it illegal for two people to marry who 1) don’t want to have sex, and 2) Can’t bear children. I think it would be good idea to sue the government and have a case that requires a man and a women to get married and sign a contract to use their physical bodies to make children, and if they don’t they should be put in prison. We should also require that couples take fertility before they marry to ensure that they can have children, and if it turns out they can’t they will not be allowed a marriage license. I think if one opposes same-sex marriage, they oppose all forms of marriage that don’t involve having children.
LikeLike
March 28, 2013 at 6:50 pm
of course not – and you – like most liberals only want to throw a stick into the argument. same sex marriages are NOT period. end of story. laws can legalize all sorts of things, perverted sex – do you really know what they are doing?? have you ever seen the “toys” these people need to get sexually aroused? and you want to put THAT smut and dirt on the same level as a MARRIAGE???
won’ty work, no matter what the twitter in the wh wants. lesbians – do you knhow where that name comes from? probably not – an Island near Greece, where only women-warriers lived. its empty of them now – they cannot reproduce. I didn’t say and nobody does that they must – but they can’t. neiter lesbians nor homosexualls can. and no matter what they call it – it AINT MARRIAGE.
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Hey Karen, sounds like you could use a good healthy dose of gay sex!
Oh, and by the way, a lot of heterosexual marrieds couples have toys.
LikeLike
March 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm
no thank you, I prefer normal sex with a normal MAN, not a queer. how do you know ANYTHING about heterosexual people?????I have seen the toys gay people use – they try to imitate the real thing – pigs, that’s what they are.
LikeLike
March 31, 2013 at 9:10 am
Read Romans 1…God WILL have the final say!
LikeLike
April 1, 2013 at 11:48 am
With respect, Dr. Spurlock, yes, this piece is written by a person who can only see his own particular view of marriage. This is where we all begin. We can commend Dr. Nielsen for attempting to establish the definition, not on biblical norms, but on the grounds of nature and reason. And yes, it is true that for many reasons many heterosexual couples approach marriage without any thought of procreation. And all who engage in sexual activity gay or straight receive the benefits of nuerotransmitters to help them bond. The point the paper is attempting to make is whether it Is enough to be romantically enclined and desire to pledge fidelity to one another and seek to fulfill each other sexually if the couple so desires, or does nature and reason require what the paper calls “a comprehensive union,” or “a bodily organic union” to qualify for marriage. Organic in the richest sense. The sexual organs are the only organs that require complimentarity (male and female) to accomplish their function. All other organs (some redundant) need no other organ to accomplish their individual function in their contribution to the life of the human being. The team illustration gets at the nuanced difference between succeeding to accomplish what is essential for the propagation of the species, or not. A team is designed to win. They are still a team if they do not win. Obviously some couples will possess damaged or malfunctioning sexual organs; and of course there are many who seek to marry who are passed the age of child bearing. But this does not necessarily erase legal parameters implicit in the concept of comprensive union or bodily organic union in principle. The other illustration about whether or not marriage would need to be regulated at all if we reproduced asexually is provokative. The only reason to regulate marrage is because of the potential procreative result. Also, since you mentioned it, I am sincerely interested in the many religions that do not have a problem with same sex marriage. I would enjoy reading their theology. And your comment about respecting the ongoing evolution of marriage, this facinates me. Evolution is a term that has a wide semantic field. I think you are speaking of certain beliefs and values that are changing from one thing to another and you are assuming that the changes are for the good. I’m curious as to what standard, what set of values, what ethical criteria determines for you that a change in values is a change for the good. Could it also be as reasonable to beleive that at some point in human history great clarity was given and perceived as to the nature of the marriage covenant and from that point we could be in a state of devolution? i’m not asking if this is true, but if it is reasonably possible. A case in point is the one you cited in the Bible about Rachel and Leah. The Scriptures are clear in both old and new testiments about the nature of the marriage covenant, repeated by Christ himself, “for this cause a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wive and the two shall become one flesh.” According to his biblical criteria marrying two wives is a devolution from the original design. But the article and paper do not attempt to establish the definition of marriage on biblical grounds, but upon the foundation of nature and reason. Closer to the original definition of evolution has to do with the origin or adaption of the species through the mutation of DNA multiplication of some kind, in the higher species, definitely coitus. If what is claimed is true, that the homosexual orientation is inherint in nature, how then do they propagate? My best answer, honoring this claim (upstream science questions it), is that it is a series recessive genes. And yes my ancestors in particular were barbarous. My Nordic heritage is not pretty! But it was that ancient document, then eight to twelve hundred years old, the Bible, that slowly began to transform our barbarism into civilization. I’m in total agreement about the positive strides we have made in the areas of racial equality and womens’ rights, but I would not call it evolution. The church in Antioch was multi-ethnic from the start (Acts 11 first century) and Jesus broke all the rules of propriety in his day and invited women to be his disciples (Luke 10). Thanks for great stimulous to my own thinking.
LikeLike
April 8, 2013 at 12:25 am
So then by this logic any two people that have sex, procreate, and raise a child are considered legally married…. without ever going through the legal process. This argument has so many holes in it, not to mention that it is extremely archaic.
LikeLike
April 8, 2013 at 2:48 am
@karen zoanelli Excuse me ma’am, but I find your language and behavior in this forum quite disgusting and highly insulting. Sexual relations are different for every couple on the planet. I happen to be gay, and my girlfriend and I don’t use “toys” as you’ve stated, nor do we need anything of the sort to become aroused. We love each other and are sexually attracted to each other without any artificial help. Is something so simple that difficult to understand? We’re different than you are. We aren’t physically attracted to men like you are. Our brains are wired differently.
Your insisting on your opinion and personal disgust in your own overactive imagination, as well as poor grammar, only further a lack of recognition for your views. It sounds entirely like you’re sitting down and throwing a temper tantrum.
LikeLike
April 8, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Well said Amy, and shame on you Karen.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
[…] Defending the natural institution of marriage: The Best Argument I’ve Read for Traditional Marriag… […]
LikeLike
July 2, 2013 at 9:46 pm
[…] long-dead horses please avail yourself to a summary of Robert George’s unemotional paper “What is Marriage” for a comprehensive explanation of the above three criteria. In summary, gender is relevant to […]
LikeLike
September 4, 2013 at 8:08 am
As poor of an argument as this is for a secular world, the Bible reveals to us the origins and intentions for marriage. Because of this, its definition of marriage is the foundational one. While I don’t think Christians should shove the Bible into bureaucratic arguments, I do think that it would be hypocritical of a Christian to fight for a different, or lesser, definition of marriage than the Biblical one. In my exposition of Biblical marriage, I conclude that there are six defining characteristics of marriage:
1. Marriage involves a man and a woman.
2. Marriage, specifically, is intended to involve only one man and only one woman.
3. Marriage necessarily involves the pursuit of fatherhood and motherhood.
4. Marriage involves female submission to male headship and male servitude.
5. Divorce is not an option unless one spouse leaves no other option.
6. Remarriage is not an option unless your spouse has passed away.
You can read my full explanation here:
http://xaqmatthews.blogspot.com/2013/09/fight-for-more-than-just-traditional.html
LikeLike
April 24, 2014 at 6:58 pm
I seldom leave remarks, however i did a few searching and wound up here Defending the natural institution of marriage: The Best Argument I’ve Read for Natural Marriage, and
against Same-Sex Marriage | Theo-sophical Ruminations. And I actually do have 2 questions
for you if it’s allright. Is it simply me or does it appear like a few of these responses look as
if they are left by brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you
are writing on other sites, I’d like to keep up with anything fresh you have to post.
Could you make a list of the complete urls of your social pages like your
linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter
feed?
LikeLike
June 21, 2014 at 12:15 pm
@Amy and cindy M: Well said! How dare people like Karen presume to judge others! Marriage or a similar long-term relationship is based on sincere and solid affection, Companionship, Comradeship, (and sex if the partners so wish). My own marriage (hetero) lasted less than 2 years, yet the many gay couples I know have been together for 15-20 years and still going strong.
LikeLike