Now here's a headline for you. An ostensibly secular self-described liberal Democrat writes a book (The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn) that rejects same-sex marriage, using a similar argument that Catholics would use, viz., that marriage is about procreation of children, not about love or some private matter or what have you. "[M]arriage fundamentally involves sexual intercourse and the affiliation — emotionally, practically and legally — between any child created and both parents." (Technically, I'd disagree; perhaps we could say that marriage is fundamentally about sexual intercourse and in virtually all cases involves sexual intercourse, but obviously we can't say that marriage requires sexual intercourse, since even if you don't accept the Catholic view that the marriage of Mary and Joseph was without sexual intercourse, throughout history many marriages have in fact been without sexual intercourse.) His point is that marriage is a public institution, and that's the role it plays. That is certainly key to marriage, I would agree. Marriage is a public act; the couple act as one in all their legal and public affairs, and serve as a "cell" of society. It's not just a mutual agreement to be sexual partners for an indefinite period of time.
Anyway, it is welcome to hear a non-religious person articulate this argument.
Leave a comment