{"id":12653,"date":"2011-02-21T13:40:15","date_gmt":"2011-02-21T21:40:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=12653"},"modified":"2011-02-22T00:54:41","modified_gmt":"2011-02-22T08:54:41","slug":"the-crucial-difference-between-a-mouth-and-a-stomach-another-response-to-what-is-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=12653","title":{"rendered":"The crucial difference between a mouth and a stomach: Another response to “What Is Marriage”"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Crossposted at Family Scholars Blog<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Oh!\"<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

Girgis, Anderson and George’s rebuttal <\/a>to my earlier post<\/a> (for convenience, I’ll call them “George,” after the most senior member of their team) was helpful to me, and clarified some of their arguments, for which I’m thankful. Nonetheless, it is no more persuasive than their original article.<\/p>\n

I will attempt to explain my objection to their position again, drawing from from my now-improved understanding of their argument.<\/p>\n

George’s argument is that there is something special about penis-in-vagina sex (which I will call PIV sex) (( I was persuaded to switch to this term after reading this post by Rob Tisinai<\/a>. I’d highly recommend reading Rob’s entire series<\/a> of posts responding to George et al.)) that makes marriage uniquely possible for heterosexual couples. As I understand this part of their argument, it goes something like this:<\/p>\n

1) Marriage must be a comprehensive union of body and mind.<\/p>\n

2) A comprehensive union of body can only be achieved via penis-in-vagina sex.<\/p>\n

2a) Penis-in-vagina sex is comprehensive because during such sex, male and female reproductive organs complete an otherwise incomplete reproductive system. This is true even if other parts of the reproductive system, such as the uterus, are missing.<\/p>\n

2b) It doesn’t matter if one or both people having PIV sex are infertile, because the parts remain “oriented” towards their basic function of reproduction even if reproduction is physically impossible.<\/p>\n

2c) Other forms of sex are mere pleasure, providing only individual benefits, and so cannot provide comprehensive physical unity.<\/p>\n

3) Same-sex couples are incapable of penis-in-vagina sex, and so are incapable of marriage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

My previous response concentrated primarily on their requirement of PIV sex. My point was that there is nothing special about PIV sex that makes it the only physical act that can be part of a comprehensive union.<\/p>\n

It’s true, of course, that PIV sex sometimes leads to reproduction, and this is the major distinction between PIV sex and other forms of sex. But as George repeatedly argues, reproduction is not necessary for marriage. (“…marriage is not a mere means, even to the great good of procreation. It is an end in itself, worthwhile for its own sake.”) So if non-reproductive heterosexual sex can seal a union, why can’t homosexual sex do the same?<\/p>\n

George’s response, as I understand it, is twofold. First of all, homosexual sex doesn’t complete the separate parts of a male\/female reproductive system, and therefore can’t provide the body aspect of comprehensive unity.<\/p>\n

To that, I’d respond, sure it can! Anticipating this response, George wrote:<\/p>\n

Pleasure cannot play this role for several reasons. The good must be truly common and for the couple as a whole, but pleasures (and, indeed, any psychological good) are private and benefit partners, if at all, only individually. The good must be bodily, but pleasures are aspects of experience. The good must be inherently valuable, but pleasures are not as such good in themselves\u2014witness, for example, sadistic pleasures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In their response, George mistakenly said I never responded to the first two sentences of the above. But I did, writing:<\/p>\n

George\u2019s reductive, simplistic view of sex \u2014 if it\u2019s not coitus, then it has no content at all, beyond simple pleasure felt individually \u2014 has little relationship to the variety and value of sex as many couples actually experience it, and is thus deeply unsatisfying to anyone who thinks arguments should be based on reality. There are literally thousands of witness-participants (both hetero and homo) who have reported having deeper, more meaningful, and more useful sexual experiences than George\u2019s argument credits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

George claims non-PIV sex within a committed relationship is not “truly common and for the couple as a whole.” That’s simply not true. George’s argument requires ignoring how sexual pleasure is actually experienced by committed couples in real life; George’s argument contradicts reality and cannot stand.<\/p>\n

Sex for humans (and possibly for some other primates, like bonobo chimps<\/a>) is not only a means of reproduction; it’s also a means of bonding. As such, sex in both heterosexual and homosexual couples can provide a meaningful physical union.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

Much of George’s argument is spent explaining why, if forming a complete reproductive system is what’s special about PIV sex, infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. George writes:<\/p>\n

Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether or not it causes conception. The nature of the spouses’ action now cannot depend\u00a0 on\u00a0what\u00a0 happens\u00a0 hours\u00a0 later\u00a0 independently\u00a0of\u00a0 their\u00a0 control\u2014whether\u00a0a\u00a0 sperm\u00a0 cell\u00a0 in\u00a0 fact\u00a0penetrates\u00a0an\u00a0ovum.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But obviously, spouses can <\/em>control in advance whether a sperm cell in fact penetrates an ovum, if they’re determined. For example, both partners could have had their respective tubes tied prior to getting married. Or the woman may have had a hysterectomy<\/a>. In these cases, couples fully control whether pregnancy occurs, but no one would say that they are therefore not “real” marriages.<\/p>\n

George argues that it doesn’t matter if the reproductive system is in fact not complete, because it is still “oriented” towards reproduction.<\/p>\n

Consider digestion, the individual body\u2019s process of nourishment. Different parts of that process\u2014salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestinal absorption of nutrients\u2014are each in their own way oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action remain oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The digestive system as George describes it has only one function (nourishment). As George describes the system of coitus, however, it clearly has two <\/em>functions: reproduction, and facilitating comprehensive unity. (These functions are distinguished within George’s own argument, since George argues multiple times that unity occurs and is valuable regardless of conception). This is an essential distinction.<\/p>\n

Sex in humans is less like the stomach and more like the human mouth; even if the digestive system isn’t functioning, we can still use the mouth for other functions, such as breathing. And just as a mouth is “oriented” towards both <\/em>nourishment and breathing, sex between humans is oriented towards both <\/em>reproduction and bonding.<\/p>\n

So why should we believe that only PIV sex can facilitate comprehensive unions, and it does so even when the couple is infertile? George would say it’s because, even if the reproductive system is incomplete or blocked, only in PIV sex is a biological system’s purpose in any sense made whole. But George is mistaken, because our sexual systems, like our mouths, are oriented towards more than one purpose. The purpose of bonding, with all its attendant goods, is made whole by many kinds of sex, not only by PIV sex; when we bond with our spouse (of either sex) through sex, that too fulfills a function our sexual systems are biologically oriented towards. Comprehensive bodily unity is not a good that’s limited only to heterosexual couples.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

Another difficulty I have with the “comprehensive unity” line of argument is that it’s a test never applied to heterosexual couples. Anticipating this argument, George points out that non-consummation is, in our legal tradition, grounds for annulment. But an annulment on grounds of non-consummation only happens when one or both spouses chooses <\/em>to pursue it. It is voluntary and chosen by at least one member of the couple, and so is not comparable to a standard applied involuntarily by those outside the couple.<\/p>\n

An annulment on grounds of non-consummation is not <\/em>an instrument used by outsiders to the marriage to prevent two consenting, non-related adults from forming a family. It’s not <\/em>a prior restraint on getting married; if a straight couple publicly declared their intent to never have PIV sex, that would not prevent them from getting legally married. If a man has lost his penis in an accident, and this is somehow known to authorities, there is still not a single state in our union in which he would be forbidden to marry.<\/p>\n

(For that matter, although there has not yet been a test case as far as I know, the in-practice meaning of non-consummation may prove more ambiguous than this discussion assumes. I suspect that in states that recognize SSM, same-sex couples who have never had sex together could seek annulments on the grounds of lack of consummation.)<\/p>\n

In short, the standard George proposes is not an objective standard applied to all couples equally. A test that appears designed to catch out same-sex couples, and which is never applied to opposite-sex couples, displays traits of unjust discrimination, rather than the traits of a neutral standard fairly applied.<\/p>\n

* * * <\/p>\n

Again, my thanks to Girgis, George and Anderson for their response. In my next post commenting on their argument, I will discuss what marriage is, and the problem of incestuous marriage.<\/p>\n

POST-SCRIPT<\/strong>: I haven’t made any arguments based around the example of trans people and marriage, because I’m uncertain what GG & A think their policy preferences say about marriage prospects for trans people. (I have guesses, but not certainty.) But it’s a matter of interest to me and to many of my readers. So let me ask directly. If the authors of “What Is Marriage?” are reading, could you please tell us:<\/p>\n

1) Do you think a couple consisting of a cis woman and a post-operative trans man can have a “real” marriage? (“Cis” means someone who is not transsexual; a “post-operative trans man” is a man who was born with a physically female body, but who lives his life as a man, and who has had sex reassignment surgery<\/a>.) <\/p>\n

2) Second example: Can a couple consisting of two woman, a cis woman and a pre-operative or non-operative trans woman, have a “real” marriage? (A “pre-operative or non-operative trans woman” is someone born with a physically male body, but who lives her life as a woman, and who has not had sex reassignment surgery.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[Crossposted at Family Scholars Blog.] Girgis, Anderson and George’s rebuttal to my earlier post (for convenience, I’ll call them “George,” after the most senior member of their team) was helpful to me, and clarified some of their arguments, for which … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[135,112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-crossposted-on-tada","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12653"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12690,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12653\/revisions\/12690"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}