Let me begin the end of my comments by thanking you for being such a fine interlocutor and for letting the discussion go this long. Many a faint heart would have quit long before this stopping point. I also want to thank you for the level of civility you displayed in discussing this contentious topic. Those who defend marriage are sometimes called bigots or homophobes, but I do not think that defending marriage has anything to do with either prejudice or fear, and I appreciate that you did not degrade the conversation in that way. Your courtesy was received with great gratitude.

With that said, I will only offer a few brief comments.

First, it is obvious that Groups 1 and 2 have irreconcilable differences, but that does not mean that both should be equally recognized. The North and the South had irreconcilable differences and, if you recall, Douglass thought that they should be left to their own devices, while Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of evil and slowly choke the rest of it out of the South.

Second, Group 2 has still not made an argument. Yes, they have strong feelings and unbending opinions, but they have not made a rational argument for their position. If they want to be heard in the public square, then they should make arguments that everyone can engage. Not everyone with strong feelings needs to be recognized.

Third, although I agree that consent is an essential part of marriage, it cannot be the only criteria. I once again put before you the case of polygamy and (to obviate your incest response above) the case of homosexual incest. What logic could Group 2 offer to resist either of these problematic relationships?

Fourthly, nature and the natural law are the most solid grounding for arguments, outside of a religious grounding (though religious people are often very amenable to natural law arguments). Our founding fathers invoked the natural law, as did Linconln, the abolitionists, the women’s suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement. They all invoked the natural law to ground their arguments. Group 2 cannot do this, though Group 1 can.

Lastly, and forgive me for ending on a personal note, although you write with intelligence and thoughtfulness, I find it hard to resist the conclusion that you are a relativist. To be sure, you are an intelligent and thoughtful relativist, but a relativist nonetheless. I suspected this in the beginning, resisted the thought in the middle of our exchange, but you finally convinced me with your last comments. This does make it a bit difficult to argue any particular position because in the end rational arguments, even though they are sound, are unable to persuade.

Please forgive my ending on this personal note and please refer back to the beginning of this post for how thoroughly I enjoyed commenting here and for how much I respect and, admittedly, even feel warmth toward you, for the way you have conducted this exchange.

Ok, let ‘er rip!

And then I’m going to start posting about less controversial subject matter. (I’m thinking death. Or maybe taxes.)

I’m not sure you understood my point.

In my dialog, Group 2 doesn’t want to argue with Group 1 about the definition of marriage. Why? Group 2 has realized that there are irreconcilable differences in their views and that rehashing them is not getting them anywhere. Group 2 has heard and understands completely Group 1’s position. Nonetheless, G2 isn’t buying what G1 is selling (and vice-versa). The twain simply have different beliefs:

• similar to how Christians and Muslims have different beliefs;
• similar to how Democrats and Republicans have different beliefs; and
• similar to how secular liberals and Christian conservatives have different beliefs.

Acknowledging that the argument has stalled (neither is buying what the other is selling), Group 2 has decided to ask another question: What should we do to move beyond the impasse?

“If marriage has a nature (as defined above), then the government should look to the truth of reality and make laws accordingly,” says G1.

“That’s just it,” says G2. “We don’t agree on marriage’s nature as you’ve defined it. We realize you think your position reflects an immutable truth, but we feel the same way about ours. This is not an invitation reopen the debate about the nature of marriage. Can we simply agree that we have differences?

We also want to ask you this: Is it the government’s job to determine ‘the truth of reality’? What if down the road the government decides that the Catholic definition of marriage is wide of the truth mark? What if it then decides to stop recognizing Catholic wedding ceremonies?

We believe that our definition reflects reality. You believe that our definition undermines the meaning of marriage. Well, we’ll concede that it may undermine your particular meaning, to the extent that a Jew’s concept of god may undermine a Buddhist’s. Do you think the government should make a judgment on the Jew’s faith in order to make the Buddhist more comfortable with his own faith? Or vice versa?

There will always be contrary ideas out there, Group 1. We’re ok with the existence of your definition of marriage, even if we don’t buy it. Why can’t you be ok with the existence of ours? Telling us once again how wrong we are is not going to further the discussion.”

We here in Group 1 respectfully disagree. We recognize triangles for what they are–three-sided figures–and not for what we would like them to be.

Relatedly, why, according to your view, should the government narrow marriage to your stifling definition of TWO consenting adults? Gimme many consenting adults, and tax breaks to boot! What is wrong with that?

And, for that matter, why is consent a requisite for marriage anyway?

Group 2: Well, Group 2 has not yet considered why polygamy is wrong(or is it?), but we will get back to you soon. As to your other points: maybe triangles aren’t a good example. Triangles have an immutable nature, but marriage does not. And, of course consent is a requirement for marriage–you can’t force someone into marriage.

Group 1: You have still not made an ARGUMENT for why you think marriage does NOT have a nature, nor have you tried to refute our argument. We await either of these eagerly. But, to address your last point:

Are you saying that there is a freedom in humans that the governmeent must respect no matter what? Are you saying that our natural dignity as human persons demands that consent be a part of marriage?

Group 2: Yes, the exercise of freedom is part of our human dignity. We have this dignity by nature (as you defined it above).

Group 1: Okay, so we are agreed that there is a truth of things that is simply a given, and freedom is one of those truths and consent in marriage is another. These are two immutable truths given to us by nature.

Group 2: Well, we don’t like the word ‘immutable’, but the logic of the argument certainly leads us here. So, yes, these are two immutable truths of nature. We agree (albeit nervously).

Group 1: Great. Groupd 1 is very proud of you. But here is another question: if consent is all that is required, then why can’t two heterosexual men get married? They’d get great tax breaks and all the other bennies of being married.

Group 2: Are you making fun of us?

Group 1: Sort of.

Group 2: Two roommates can’t get married because they do not love each other in a romantic way and they do not have a sexual relationship together.

Group 1: But married people who stop loving each other are still married, aren’t they? Doesn’t that show that somehow the bond of marriage is stronger than the feelings of love at any one time? Also, you would not want the government trying to determine the love between two people, for obvious reasons.

Group 2: Yes, that is true.

Group 1: But if you really believe that sex is important, then why do you keep disparaging the argument (brilliantly outlined above) that procreation is essential to marriage–babies are the natural end of sex (unless there is a problem or one places a barrier in the way).

If sex is important (an immutably true part of marriage, you might say?) then we are back to nature, in the more biological sense. Forgive me for being a bit childish here, but I think the following will make the nature point: wee-wee’s go in woo-woo’s; wee-wee’s can’t do anything with other wee-wee’s and they certainly don’t go in rear ends. This is contrary to nature, even, and especially, by your strict evolutionary biology standard. (How would anything evolve were homosexuality the prevailing case? And might not nature, as in ‘natural selection’, weed out ‘homosexual’ animals?)

Group 2: Your comments are slightly annoying, though they are forgiven because they make Group 2 chuckle. We see your point. Maybe biology isn’t the right measure here; the real issue is human freedom and the government telling people what they can and cannot do.

Group 1: Biology shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly (you invoked it powerfully above), but you are right: we should not limit ourselves to biology and the issues of freedom and government are important. Let us get back to the broader meaning of nature, which includes biology though is not limited to it, and see what it means for marriage to have or not have a nature.

If marriage has a nature (as defined above), then the government should look to the truth of reality and make laws accordingly. Their law-making should be guided by nature and should support lasting marriages. So, for example, tax breaks for families with children is a good law; no-fault divorces are a bad law. Recognizing two men who have sex with each other is also a bad law as it weakens the meaning of words and the institution of marriage itself.

If marriage does not have a nature, then much of what you say follows. If the meaning of marriage is simply the preference of Group 1 vs. the preference of Group 2 (and 3 and 4), then it is not a matter of respecting truth but of getting power and thus getting our way. Us Group 1ers have argued that marriage is not simply a matter of preference, but a matter of the truth of things. That means that the marriage question is not simply a matter of power, but a matter of recognizing what is and acting in accord with it.

The truth of things is also demonstrated quite persuasively by the available statistics. Contrary to your claim that allowing gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage, exactly the opposite has proven true in countries that have legalized it. Fewer people get married, more divorces occur, and fewer children are had in these countries. Also, homosexuals are significantly more at risk for depression, suicide, and other mental disorders, even in places, like northern Europe, where homosexuality is widely accepted. Similarly, although long term statistics are not fully ready yet, all the available info points to the fact that children of gay couples are also at a significantly higher risk for depression, drugs, crime, and–not surprisingly–sexual identity confusion. These sad statistics are true because people are acting against the nature of things, the nature of who they are, and it wreaks havoc on their lives and the lives of others.

Group 2: But many of these statistics are also true of divorced couples and their children.

Group 1: Yes, that is true, but that also proves the point. You are taking your bearings from something broken, something not ideal; something which SHOULD be one way and–for whatever reasons–is not.

Like all living things, humans flourish when they act in accord with their nature and the nature of things.

Here are the two definitions in question:

• 1. One group defines marriage as, at minimum, a union between and man and a woman.
• 2. Another defines marriage as, at minimum, a union between two adults.

Currently, the government recognizes the first group’s definition. The second wants the government to recognize theirs.

What to do? If you ask Group 1, they’ll say this: “Protect my definition of marriage. After all, it’s the correct/natural/historically agreed-upon definition.” If you ask Group 2, they’ll say this: “Recognize my definition. After all, it’s the correct/just/forward-thinking definition.”

Each group also says that the other’s definition is mistaken and will cause/causes harm to the other. And both sides make terrific arguments to support their definition, but the government is left with a quandary—which one to get behind?

Group 1: “This is silly. Redefining marriage to include ‘gay marriage’ is a contradiction. It’s akin to redefining a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to include ham and cheese. One cannot ignore the true nature of marriage and its biological underpinnings, namely procreation.”

Group 2: “We understand you think marriage is between a man and woman. We disagree. What’s more, we don’t see why our definition should threaten yours. And let’s not forget that we live in a country that is dedicated to accommodating a plurality of ideas. Take religion, for example. The government recognizes a huge variety of them—and those different religions essentially offer competing ‘definitions’ of god. Should the government change course and endorse one definition of god, one religion?”

Group 1: “You’re advocating putting your own notion of diversity and inclusiveness above the course human history, the logic of our biology and more importantly, the health of our society. Let us speak to that last item. If we redefine marriage in the manner you suggest, we essentially kill it in the process. Marriage and family are the building blocks of society. As goes marriage, so goes society.”

Group 2: “On the contrary, the institution of marriage will be strengthened once the government recognizes gay marriage. What’s more, we think society will benefit from it, too, especially when you consider the alternative: families without married parents. Who wins in that situation? Surely not children. Marriage, as I’m sure you agree, is essential for creating unity and familial cohesion. If you’re concerned about the health of society, more marriage is better than less.”

Group 1: “If you start tinkering with the definition of marriage, where do you stop? What if someone wanted to marry his horse? What if , in his deranged mind, he thought the definition of marriage should include unions between man and animals?”

Group 2: “As you recall, we define marriage as a union between two adults. We believe this on the basis that rational, consenting adults should be able to get married if that’s what they choose to do. A horse (of course) is neither rational, consenting nor an adult human.

And since we can anticipate your question about incest, we’ll answer it right now: While you may have two consenting adults, the concerns of societal health trump all. Society has an overwhelming interest in limiting (because it can’t practically prevent) incestuous relationships, whereas there’s no empirical evidence that society is harmed by gay relationships. ”

Group 1: “Allow me to make another point, a point which struck me when you were talking about families with gay parents. How do such families come into being? One thing is clear: they don’t come into being through natural procreation between gay parents. And to go back to our PB&J analogy, marriage without procreation is like peanut butter and jelly without the jelly. To separate the two is to undermine marriage to the point of non-existence. As we read in a great blog somewhere, “Only in a contraceptive culture one can separate procreation from marriage. The really inseparable bond between marriage, sex, and babies has been weakened by our habitual use of contraception which separates sex and babies (making babies a ‘choice’) and also ‘freeing’ people to have sex without marriage (denying the responsibility toward the other, and using him or her as means not an end, in the sexual act). This is really a modern phenomenon.”

Group 2: “Again, we must respectfully disagree. It seems you see marriage, sex and offspring as three sides of a triangle. Whereas you see that triangle as reflecting a immutable reality, we see it as simply reflecting your own specific morality. We don’t resent you for believing what you believe, and we’re not asking you to change. We’re asking the government to change—to recognize that there are differences in belief. It shouldn’t be a stretch—they already recognize various religious faiths.”

I’ve clearly got a lot to chew on here, and I badly want to write, but I’ve got much less interesting things monopolizing my time on this Monday.

In the meantime, I’ll ask a quick question:

What should the government’s role in marriage be? Why?

I began to see that what Jeb means by ‘nature’ is what I would call ‘biology’. As I understand it, biology is a part of nature, but not the whole story. Nature, as I have been using it, means “what a thing is” or “the essence of a thing.” For example, squirrels are squirrels and by nature squirrels do squirrelly things. They hop around, gather acorns, attack my wife’s basil plants, and climb trees. This is what squirrels do by nature; in other words, it is the nature of a squirrel to be squirrelly. As humans, we are, by nature, rational animals who have free will (there is a biological component in our nature, but also something more).

I have also used ‘nature’ in a similar, though broader sense, as Nick points out in the phrase “all men are, by nature, equal.” Here I mean nature as “the way things are” in a broader sense, that is, the truth of things written into reality. We might call this the “natural law” or use some similar term. Within this understanding of nature, though not separated from the first sense, our human actions also have a “nature” or a meaning and purpose. We don’t make this meaning, but we discover it and live it out.

So, for example, marriage has a meaning and purpose (unity and procreation). We do not make this meaning, but we discover it as a given of reality, of the way things are. Sex, within marriage, is not just a biological reality, but, we could say, also an existential one and, as I have suggested, a social one as well. We are not simply irrational animals passing on our genes, but human beings who make free choices about our spouses and who pass on not just chromosomes to our offspring, but a way of life. This is part of what it means to be human–it is our nature as human beings.

Second, I want to reiterate the definition of marriage that I gave above: “marriage is the union of a man and woman, oriented toward the mutual help and support of spouses, and the procreation and education of children.” There is indeed a biological component to this–who could deny that?–but the nature of marriage is by no means limited to biology. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Lastly, I would like to restate the argument I gave above about how marriage is a natural institution. Jeb, even by your strict evolutionary biology standards (sex, procreation, monogamy), you have basically come to the definition of marriage. But here is the argument from above again:

…it is only in a contraceptive culture that one can separate procreation from marriage. The really inseparable bond between marriage, sex, and babies has been weakened by our habitual use of contraception which separates sex and babies (making babies a “choice”) and also “freeing” people to have sex without marriage (denying the responsibility toward the other, and using him or her as means not an end, in the sexual act). This is really a modern phenomenon.

But, I would argue, that procreation, by nature, belongs in marriage. Consider the following: sex, naturally, leads to babies. Children do better with two parents, a father and mother. This is shown time and again is sociological studies of children of divorce or unwed mothers who routinely have more problems with school, drugs, and crime. This is not mere convention; this is true because of the nature of who we are and who we are meant to be.

Similarly, the “language of sex” bespeaks permanence. Sex is a mutual and total self-giving in love. This is the meaning of sex. Now, we can use other people for pleasing ourselves sexually, but this is an abuse of sex. It is a taking and not a giving. You do not seem like the kind of person who would advocate using others for sex or, what is the same thing, casual sex, so I don’t need to convince you here. The sexual act is an act in which a husband and a wife give themselves to each other without reserve as a gift. If sex is a total gift of self, then nothing can and should be held back. Here we have the argument against contraception, especially within marriage. But we also here have the reason that sex should not be had outside of marriage: because of the deep meaning and total self-giving that occurs in the sexual act, we need a relationship that can sustain such an act. The only relationship that fits the bill is the indissoluble bond of marriage.

QED: by nature sex belongs in marriage.

Jeb, I have a feeling that you never felt you comment about photosynthesis was adequately addressed, and that when Jared speaks of nature you do not find it as persuasive and compelling as you might find an argument for photosynthesis.

It about this business of nature. Jeb, I have a feeling that you never felt you comment about photosynthesis was not adequately address, and that when Jared speaks of nature you do not find it as persuasive and compelling as you might find an argument for photosynthesis. It seems that you equate nature with science, i.e., deducing testable hypothesis from empirical data. Since that is not what Jared is talking about, I think you guys are not meeting on the grounds where you should meet.

Jared, when you talk about nature you do not mean science in the way Jeb means. Rather, I think you are talking about it in the manner in which we might distinguish nature from culture or custom. Although you would included those sciences in your understanding of nature it is also much more far reaching than Jeb’s. For example you would say that all men are, by nature, equal. This is of course not something which could be tested with a hypothesis and empirical data, but it is undoubtedly true.

Jeb, am I characterizing your perspective correctly? I think you conversation with Jared would be much more fruitful if you would clarify what you mean by ‘nature’, since you say you disagree with him about this particular point but it is not exactly clear why.

(I may be belaboring the point, but I relish reading your comments. Keep ‘em coming!)

Ok, here are my thoughts:

For me, marriage is not something that is “written into nature.”

Sex and procreation are—and perhaps monogamy is as well. (That’s what a lot of evolutionary biologists say, anyway.) But marriage is something else, I think.

Maybe marriage is some kind of social codification of natural impulses. Yes, you’re right that one of those impulses is procreation. Another is the impulse to spend one’s life with one single person.

You say “homosexual unions are contrary to nature and not in accord with it”—and that is true from a procreation standpoint, but not from a marriage one. Why can’t gay people marry? What objections does “nature” present? If you think of marriage as a mere synonym for procreation, then maybe you’ve got a point.

” … marriage is not something that the government defines because the meaning of marriage is rooted in nature. Sexual complementarity and the begetting of children are not man-made conventions.”

Whether you realize it or not, you’ve equated marriage with “sexual complementarity and the begetting of children.” Is that what you believe, that those things are one and the same?

Also, you make a leap with your thinking that I don’t. You seem to think that if marriage is something defined by man, it has no meaning or is not worthwhile.

I agree with the first two sentences of this paragraph:

As I noted above, marriage and family is the primary cell of society. As the family goes, so goes the society. If we try to change the very meaning of marriage, we, in essence, destroy it, and dig up civilization at its roots. It is not entirely clear to me that we could then hold together as a society. I learned this way of thinking from Aristotle, who, as you know, is no Judeo-Christian.

But disagree with the rest. In a macro sense, the sexual orientation of family members has nothing to do with the health of the family and/or society. You’ll find proportionate health and dysfunction in all family types. Massachusetts is still standing after it legalized gay marriage. (Indeed, polls show ever greater acceptance of the state high court’s ruling.) Do expect that to change—is Massachusetts heading down the road to societal disintegration?