Posted by
Edmond Long on Monday, November 23, 2009 10:23:01 AM
In my previous post, I asked for help on understanding the new definition of marriage. Actually, what was being sought was the new definition itself. The restrictions on who can marry have been changed, but no conclusive definition of this newly expanded view of marriage has been offered.
Extending to homosexuals the right to marry has some interesting and peculiar consequences. Not only has marriage been redefined, but three fundamentally different forms of human sexuality have been equated. From the beginning of human history, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman has been considered normal and distinct. Now, oral sex between two women and anal sex between two men have been elevated to the same moral plane as sex between a husband and a wife.
This point is cogent. A marriage can be annulled if either partner is unable to consummate the marriage or is not willing to consummate it. A marriage has been consummated when spouses have performed between themselves a conjugal act suitable for the procreation of offspring. While laws concerning consummation of a marriage vary from state to state, consummation is most often understood as having occurred when a husband a wife have completed the act of sexual intercourse after a wedding ceremony.
So, how do homosexuals consummate a marriage? Can two women or two men, according to law, consummate a marriage? Consummation in a homosexual marriage can occur only if anal/oral sex between two men and oral sex between two women are the moral, functional and legal equivalents of sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife. The definition of consummation in the preceding paragraph is derived from the Catholic Church’s definition of consummation. Not only is a conjugal act required for consummation, but one is required having the potential of producing offspring. Again, homosexuals could not, by this definition, consummate a marriage.
Now from the outset of the drive for the extension to homosexuals of the right to marry, the cry has been one for equal treatment. Homosexual have declared they sought no special treatment, just equal treatment. Based on the law and legal definition in several states, homosexuals cannot consummate a marriage. In order to be married, then, special rights must be granted to homosexuals as a class. The laws regarding consummation are as the laws regarding incest, wholly inapplicable to homosexuals. In both cases, one group receives special treatment; another group is denied that treatment altogether. Heterosexuals must consummate their marriages, and cannot, by law, marry someone within a certain biological kinship range.
So, what is a universally acceptable and defensible definition of marriage? Can we say marriage is defined as two people legally committed to one another in a loving relationship? Why just two people? As I asked in my previous post, why legalize homosexual marriage, a form of marriage without historical precedent, yet, continue to outlaw polygamy, a form of marriage historically and, in some places, currently practiced? How can we defend not allowing anybody or any group the right to marry since we have trashed the historical and universal definition of marriage?
Does someone out there have an answer?