xXCryptoXx's 100th Debate: The Conjugal View of Marriage is Philosophically Valid

A common good is something with an objective core, which inherently serves the well being and good of humanity. Common goods cannot be changed; rather they can only be distorted from their objectively good nature. For example, friendship is a common good. Let’s say that the objective core of friendship dictates that all friendships require selflessness and love between the two friends. If someone thought friendship was about using another individual in order to further their own motives, then that someone would be universally wrong. That person didn’t change the definition of friendship; rather they distorted friendship from its objective nature which inherently promotes the well being of those within the relationship. In the same, revisionists are universally wrong when they try to distort marriage from its objective nature, from what marriage is. Revisionists often claim marriage to be something purely contractual, or about consent between two adults, but this view remains ignorant to the common good produced specifically by conjugal marriage. In fact, the revisionist view of marriage is too broad. Imagine a square. This square holds the broad definition of the revisionist view. The problem with the view is that it is too general, for it neglects to see that a special relationship exists, which fits the definition provided but is also distinct from any other relationship that may also exist within the revisionist definition. Within the square is the heart of what marriage is: the conjugal view. The conjugal view fits the broad definition that the square provided so it therefore exists within the square shape, yet the heart shape is special in itself in that it is distinct from the square shape, but still exists within the square. In the same, the conjugal view exists within the revisionist definition, yet is distinct from any other relationship that may too exist within the revisionist definition. In essence, I am arguing that the conjugal view of marriage is distinct from any other relationship in that only conjugal relationships have an inherent link to procreation. Revisionists neglect to see the distinction between conjugal relationships and other relationships and therefore neglect to see the conjugal relationship’s special link to the common good. Regardless of whether or not one calls this distinct relationship “marriage” is irrelevant, because that does not take away from the conjugal relationship’s objective nature pertaining to the common good. In the same, one could call a leg an arm, but that does not take away from the nature of what a leg is. Although the leg is a body part, the leg has a special function unlike any other body part that makes a leg, a leg. The same could be said with marriage. Although there are a plethora of many different relationships, only the conjugal relationship is especially distinct from any other relationship through its inherent link to the common good. In order to discern the difference between the conjugal relationship and any other relationship we must first analyze what the conjugal definition entails, and then compare it to the revisionist definition. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.” [2] “It is a private union with a public purpose. Private in that comprehensive union exemplifies the love of the spouses. Public in that their comprehensive union is directed toward a purpose beyond the love of the spouses: children.”[3] The marital relationship is comprehensive in the sense that it is unlike any other relationship. Marriage is where the individuals within the relationship are joined together by the very aspect of their humanity. “Consider the various parts of a plane – the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts together into a single whole is their coordination toward a common end: flight.”[3] The unity inherent among married couples is that when they come together by nature of their sexuality, they may achieve an ends that could not have been achieved alone. This unity is the coming together in order to strive towards a common goal. This end of the means is procreation. Children produced are reflective to the union at hand. The nature of this comprehensive union is that it can only be completed by a man and a woman. No other relationship can strive towards this comprehensiveness, for there is no biological unity which strives towards an end that the individuals within the relationship could achieve on their own. Artificial reproductive technology is therefore irrelevant, because the relationship still lacks the intrinsic means to children. Consider the following: The conjugal relationship could mathematically be defined as so – X → Y without Z Other relationships could be mathematically defined as so – X → Y only with Z X in first definition is the conjugal relationship, in the second definition other relationships. Y is procreation. Z represents outside means in order to achieve procreation. The arrows represent the link to procreation. Only conjugal relationships in of themselves have a special link to procreation (the common good) through biological unity. Every other type of relationship possesses no such link, and therefore requires outside means in order to achieve the same result. These outside means could include artificial insemination, adoption, ect. Now I foresee the objection that it is irrelevant as to whether or not outside means are required to achieve procreation, since ultimately the common good is being produced. However, no other relationship in of itself has a special link to the common good. No other relationship is especially ordered towards procreation like the conjugal relationship. This of course makes the conjugal relationship distinct from any other relationship, and this special link to the common good is what gives this relationship the title, Marriage. Ultimately though, if the value of a relationship is determined by some link to the common good even if it is not a natural link, my opponent would have to argue that companionships, fraternities, and friendships are all just as special since each one could adopt a child and raise one. Though if my opponent argued this, my opponent would be ignoring that unlike any of the other relationships mentioned and then a plethora of others, the conjugal relationship is ordered towards reproduction, and many of the time child rearing. All though other relationships could come across the result of procreation by accident and not by nature of the relationships itself, it would still be irrelevant since it lacks the intrinsic nature of being ordered towards reproduction as conjugal relationships are. The only thing inherent among all other relationships would be love, but by nature all other relationships would still lack any intrinsic means to the common good. Let’s look at a common revisionist definition: Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other.” [1] Love is essential to any relationship, but it still lacks some intrinsic good. There are many kinds of social relationships that involve love. For example, friendships involve love. The only true distinction among a friendship and a relationship between two romantically involved people is just that: romantic feelings. However, romantic feelings are still essentially private since the feelings are relevant only to the people within the relationship. The conjugal relationship is held together by this romantic love, as love is essential to any relationship, but through this love, this relationship and only this relationship is ordered towards an intrinsically good end. So what about infertile couples? Those relationships count as conjugal relationships, but they cannot achieve procreation. Doesn’t that mean that relationship is essentially private since it is only held together by love and cannot achieve procreation? Whether or not conjugal relationships, infertile or not, have children is irrelevant. The conjugal view of marriage is about the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. What is relevant is that even though the conclusion of the sexual act cannot be achieved, infertile couples are still ordered towards procreation through biological unity. Infertile couples are still able to engage in the sexual act that comprehensively unites them together. In this way infertile couples are still of a procreative type even if procreation cannot be achieved. Imagine a car. Cars are ordered towards driving by their very nature. This means that even if the car has no gas to drive, it is still ordered towards driving through the kind of thing it is. This means the relationship is still special in of itself, because even though it lacks the ability to achieve the conclusion of the relationship, it is still biologically ordered towards the conclusion of the relationship. This is what makes the conjugal relationship special: not that the conjugal relationship can achieve procreation (because other relationships can also achieve procreation), but that only the conjugal relationship has a special, comprehensive link to procreation through its biological nature. [1] John Corvino, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage" in Gallagher and Corvino (eds), Debating Same-Sex Marriage (OUP: 2012) [2] 2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34:1 (2010) [3] Tim Hsiao on Gay Marriage