{"id":13715,"date":"2011-07-08T11:09:22","date_gmt":"2011-07-08T18:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13715"},"modified":"2011-07-08T11:09:22","modified_gmt":"2011-07-08T18:09:22","slug":"reply-to-george-viii-no-real-marriage-until-youre-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13715","title":{"rendered":"Reply to George: VIII. No “Real” Marriage Until You’re Dead!"},"content":{"rendered":"

[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George’s widely-read article, “What is Marriage<\/a>“, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0here<\/a>.]<\/em>
\n <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Page 259: In which George accidentally argues it\u2019s okay for the government to recognize only the marriages of dead people (yes! yes, he does!).<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Robert George, having \u201cproven\u201d that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, and that it has an essential orientation to children, now turns his attention to what he calls \u201cmarital norms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, unions that are consummated by the generative act [*], and that are thus oriented to having and rearing children, can make better sense of the other norms that shape marriage as we have known it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Basically, he’s claiming it’s significant that his own theory of marriage explains our culture’s marital norms. But George makes three mistakes here, mistakes he’s made before.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. This reasoning is circular.<\/strong> George insists that his conjugal\/procreative view represents \u201cmarriage as we have known it.\u201d He\u2019s wrong, but for now take him at his word.\u00a0 In that case this paragraph amounts to:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The conjugal view of marriage explains the norms that have arisen around the conjugal view of marriage, which suggests the conjugal view is correct.\u00a0 Why? Because it explains the norms\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

    And so on, around and around, with no starting point.\u00a0 One might as well argue that segregationist ideas were able to explain the norms of segregation, which suggests that segregationist ideas were correct.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0Because they explain the norms, etc.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. A theory\u2019s ability to explain does not make the theory true<\/strong>.\u00a0 Can the conjugal\/procreative view explain our marital norms? Perhaps. But that means nothing unless it\u2019s the only <\/em>view that can do this. George certainly hasn\u2019t established that.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
    2. George is violating the premise of his article.<\/strong> George believes marriage isn\u2019t just whatever we say it is.\u00a0 But \u201cnorms\u201d represent nothing more than what most people do and believe. They\u2019re not borne out of principled argument, but arise through trial and error over time and are subject to change.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Think of it this way: if marital norms continue changing<\/em><\/strong> to include two adults of any gender, will George revise his theory to include them? If so, then he\u2019ll have to adopt the revisionist view he detests. If not, then marital norms are irrelevant to his discussion.<\/p>\n

      What are those \u201cnorms\u201d?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Of course, those of us who are more empirical do care about these norms, so let\u2019s take a look. George talks about two: permanence and exclusivity.<\/p>\n

      And we\u2019re in trouble already. Western culture grew out of two traditions: the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman.\u00a0 Both have allowed divorce. The Old Testament is full of guidelines for ending a marriage, and while Jesus strenuously opposed divorce, that hasn\u2019t kept Protestant culture from permitting it.<\/p>\n

      As for exclusivity \u2014 throughout western history that expectation has applied mainly to women. Men could have multiple wives, concubines, and literal sex slaves.<\/p>\n

      George\u2019s norms depend on the time and place you\u2019re looking at.\u00a0 You can believe they have value and still recognize that George hasn\u2019t grounded them in principled reasoning.<\/p>\n

      On permanence <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      George writes:<\/p>\n

      For if bodily union is essential to marriage, we can understand why marriage is incomplete and can be dissolved if not consummated, and why it should be, like the union of organs into one healthy whole, total and lasting for the life of the parts (\u201ctill death do us part\u201d). That is, the comprehensiveness of the union across the dimensions of each spouse\u2019s being calls for a temporal comprehensiveness, too: through time (hence permanence) and at each time (hence exclusivity).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      First, toss out the first half of that first sentence.\u00a0 Marriage cannot always be dissolved if not consummated. From the American Bar Association<\/a>:<\/p>\n

      Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Some<\/em> states. What about the others? Looks like George is picking and choosing his norms.<\/p>\n

      Now to the rest of George\u2019s paragraph: a comprehensive union requires comprehensiveness across time.<\/p>\n

      Does it? We can\u2019t know and George can\u2019t prove it. First, because he never proved that a \u201creal\u201d marriage must be a \u201ccomprehensive union.\u201d He just said that most people acknowledge it to be so. But, as we\u2019ve established (over and over), what most people acknowledge is irrelevant in George\u2019s logic.<\/p>\n

      Second, even if you accept the notion of comprehensiveness (as I\u2019m inclined to), George never defined the term clearly enough to draw logical conclusions. He has said that comprehensive<\/em> doesn\u2019t have to mean all-encompassing<\/em>, so that takes \u201cpermanence\u201d off the table, even by George\u2019s own reasoning.<\/p>\n

      No one\u2019s married until someone dies!<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      Now this next bit is a favorite of mine. Let\u2019s see where George\u2019s premises can take us:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. George believes a lot of couples claiming marriage don\u2019t have \u201creal\u201d marriages.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
      2. George believes a union must be permanent to be a \u201creal\u201d marriage.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
      3. But we can\u2019t know a marriage is permanent \u2014 and therefore \u201creal\u201d \u2014 until it finally ends with the death of one partner.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
      4. George believes \u201cthe state is justified in recognizing only real marriages as marriages.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
      5. Therefore (wait for it\u2026), George\u2019s reasoning leads us to conclude that:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The state is justified in recognizing only the unions of dead people<\/span><\/em> as marriages.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        Because, after all, until then, the state can\u2019t be sure they are \u201creal.\u201d<\/p>\n

        I love that.\u00a0 I have to admit it.\u00a0 It tickles me and I find it delicious. To escape this, George has to abandon one of his beliefs. I have no idea which one, but I can\u2019t wait.<\/p>\n

        By the way, I have to wonder what George thinks of a couple with children who continues living together, but not comprehensively.\u00a0 That is, they stop having sex, or lose their emotionally intimacy, or separate their finances as much as they can, or simply barely speak to one another.<\/p>\n

        If their union is no longer comprehensive, are they still really married?\u00a0 And if \u201creal\u201d marriage requires permanent, continual comprehensiveness (\u201cthrough time\u201d and \u201cat each time,\u201d in George\u2019s words) is the government justified in saying they were never really married?<\/p>\n

        Also, George (as a Catholic natural philosopher) is devoting his life to creating a reason-based justification for Catholic doctrine.\u00a0 But here\u2019s a conflict. If two Catholics are married by a priest and have sex, the Church sees them as permanently married (with few exceptions).\u00a0 How does that fit with George\u2019s requirement for permanent, continual comprehensiveness?\u00a0 It seems to say a man and wife could just shake hands and part ways, and thus no longer be \u201creally\u201d married.<\/p>\n

        I can only wonder.<\/p>\n

        Sorry<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

        I know I promised you polygamy and incest, but that would make this entry awful long. It’s coming, though.<\/p>\n

        Next time: Polygamy, incest, and the failure of George’s definition of marriage.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        * We’ve been through George’s abuse of this term many times. Check here<\/a> if you don’t recall.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        [This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George’s widely-read article, “What is Marriage“, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0here.] Page 259: In … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-george-what-is-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13715","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\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13715"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13715\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13726,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13715\/revisions\/13726"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}