The Meaning of Marriage Part Two of Two

PART TWO - CONCLUSION That leaves us with (b), namely that marriage has always meant the union of persons (or consenting adults) who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life. Now once this is assumed then there are three further possibilities that open up to us. Either i.   throughout most of human history all cultures have understood the institution of marriage to be the union of consenting persons (or adults) who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life; ii.  throughout most of human history, some cultures have understood the institution of marriage to mean the union of persons, etc.; iii.  throughout most of human history no cultures have understood the institution of marriage to be the union of persons, etc.; Logically, these are our only three options as subsets to option #2. The first possibility can easily be dismissed on historical grounds since prior to the 20th century there have never been any people groups which believed the institution of marriage to involve anything other than sexual dimorphism. Advocates of same-sex “marriage” do make a lot out of the fact that there were some select cases among the ancient Romans and other decadent societies where two homosexuals would compare themselves to a man and wife and appropriate other marital terms to their relationship. For example, in his taste for the bizarre, the emperor Nero reportedly engaged in a “marriage ceremony” with one of his male slaves. The Emperer Elagabalus (reign 218 – 222) also “married” a Carian slave named Hierocles. However, since we are talking here about cultures and people groups, little is advanced by detailing the shenanigans of specific non-representative individuals. To the degree that marriage is a recognizable cultural and legal institution, it has always been understood in conjugal terms rather than simply a union of generic persons. The fact that there may have been select individuals throughout history who may have understood things differently is irrelevant with regard to the social institution of marriage, for if there was no distinction between the purpose of the social institution of marriage and the private intentions of individuals, then the social institution of marriage would never exist in the first place, since the private ends of individuals differ greatly. (This is a point I develop in more depth in my Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage with the American Family Association.) This basic fact rules out options i and ii above, leaving us with option iii: until comparatively recently in human history, no cultures have understood the institution of marriage to be simply a generic union of persons who commit to romantic partnership and domestic life; rather, marriage has always been understood to involve sexual dimorphism and complementarity. This was the position articulated by the third-century Roman jurist, Modestinus who wrote, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a consortium for the whole of life involving the communication of divine and human rights.” Now by itself this proves little, since truth is not determined by majority vote. It is theoretically possible that even though option iii is correct, marriage still does mean the union of persons but no one realized this until recently. Now this would be truly incredible, for it amounts to claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons without any society ever realizing it; that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is, but additions to it; that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened to be members of the opposite sex; that being man and wife was never a core ingredient to marriage because man and wife were always a species of the genus “union of persons.” Those who take the view that marriage always has been the union of persons are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history, the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what the institution actually was, for until recently no society has ever understood marriage to be anything other than a union of a man and a woman. This would force us to affirm that when people recognized that there is a certain kind of relationship that is inherently sexual and uniquely enriched by family life and which uniquely requires permanent and exclusive commitment (in other words, what we call marriage), that this type of relationship was always a subset of a more generic relationship (‘union of persons’) for which sexual dimorphism was irrelevant, but no society ever understood this until the 20th century.                This raises a question: what type of evidence could, even in theory, establish the correctness of the claim that throughout millennia of human history people were marrying and being given in marriage without ever understanding the nature of the institution they were entering (having erroneously imagined they were entering an institution that was inherently sexually dimorphous)? What type of evidence could in principle prove the truth of these assertions? The reason no one has been able to answer this question is because we are dealing with beliefs which tend to be held dogmatically and not on the basis of logic and evidence. Those who hold this position have set the issues up in such a way so that option#2 is simply true tautologically, which is a species of the petitio principia fallacy (assuming the initial point). The way you can tell if someone is holding a belief dogmatically is to ask them, “Are your claims falsifiable?” If they say yes, then you must ask them, “What considerations, or set of considerations would, if true, render your claims incorrect?” If a person admits no considerations that could, even in principle, falsify his beliefs, then those beliefs are being held dogmatically and no amount of rational argumentation will make any difference. What about the third option, that the meaning of marriage is relative because it is entirely a social construct? We will consider that final option in the next article in this series. If it too is found weighed and wanting, the only alternative will be the traditional view that marriage is a sexually complimentary union of a man and a woman. Next Steps Read this article again carefully, to make sure you understand the distinctions Robin is making and the thrust of his argument as a whole. Share it with some friends, then discuss Robin’s points together in order to prepare yourselves to talk about “gay marriage” reasonably and with grace.

Robin Phillips

May 06, 2013

Edited without prejudice to reduce the length of the article without being impeded by the       described statement or proposal