{"id":13770,"date":"2011-07-14T11:55:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T18:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13770"},"modified":"2011-07-14T11:55:00","modified_gmt":"2011-07-14T18:55:00","slug":"reply-to-george-x-why-infertile-straights-get-to-marry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13770","title":{"rendered":"Reply to George: X. Why Infertile Straights Get to Marry"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em><em>[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George&#8217;s widely-read article, &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155\" target=\"_blank\">What is Marriage<\/a>&#8220;, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/category\/george-what-is-marriage\/\" target=\"_blank\">here<\/a>.]<\/em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>Pages 256-257, and 265-268, in which Robert George explains why infertile opposite-sex couples can still have &#8220;real marriages.&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Reading Robert George&#8217;s article, I have to wonder whether his reasoning led to his conclusions, or whether he <em>started <\/em>with certain conclusions and developed reasoning, however tortured, to justify them. This section, more than any other, shows the answer.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The problem and the promise<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>George now tries to roll a heavy boulder up a steep hill. He\u2019s just not strong enough to do it.<\/p>\n<p>His task in this section \u2014 in the whole article, actually \u2014 is to develop a theory of marriage that <em>excludes <\/em>same-sex couples and <em>includes <\/em>infertile opposite-sexers.\u00a0 Let\u2019s recap his argument against same-sexers to see why this will be so tough.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Marriage is comprehensive union.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>A comprehensive union requires bodily union.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Organic bodily union requires \u201cbodies coordinating toward a      single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>The only candidate for this biological function is reproduction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>A same-sex couple cannot reproduce, and therefore cannot achieve organic bodily union, or comprehensive union, or marriage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>I hope I\u2019ve thoroughly <a href=\"http:\/\/wakingupnow.com\/blog\/reply-to-george-vi-marriage-man-woman\" target=\"_blank\">slaughtered<\/a> this argument, but for now let\u2019s take it seriously. It would seem this excludes infertile opposite-sexers, too.<\/p>\n<p>But George doesn\u2019t think so. In fact, he promises to show that problem of whether:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>marriage is possible between an infertile man and woman\u2014is easily resolved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\u201cEasily resolved.\u201d Let\u2019s have a look and see.  <!--more--><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">When do individuals form a unit?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>He starts with this analogy:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Again, this is not to say that the marriages of infertile couples are not true marriages. Consider this analogy: A baseball team has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to winning games; it involves developing and sharing one\u2019s athletic skills in the way best suited for honorably winning (among other things, with assiduous practice and good sportsmanship). But such development and sharing are possible and inherently valuable for teammates even when they lose their games.<\/p>\n<p>Just so, marriage has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to procreation; it involves developing and sharing one\u2019s body and whole self in the way best suited for honorable parenthood \u2014 among other things, permanently and exclusively. But such development and sharing, including the bodily union of the generative act, are possible and inherently valuable for spouses even when they do not conceive children.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, people who can unite bodily can be spouses without children, just as people who can practice baseball can be teammates without victories on the field. Although marriage is a social practice that has its basic structure by nature whereas baseball is wholly conventional, the analogy highlights a crucial point: Infertile couples and winless baseball teams both meet the basic requirements for participating in the practice (conjugal union; practicing and playing the game) and retain their basic orientation to the fulfillment of that practice (bearing and rearing children; winning games), even if that fulfillment is never reached.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>People have thrown George a lot of flack for comparing infertile couples to \u201closers.\u201d He\u2019s said that\u2019s not what he meant, and points out with some fairness that an <em>analogy<\/em> is not the same as an <em>equation<\/em>. Marriage, he says, is not a competition; people who focus on that aspect of the analogy are missing the bigger point.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s give him that, and make a stronger critique of the analogy. It&#8217;s about people forming a unit because they are working together <em>to achieve a goal<\/em>.\u00a0 That\u2019s crucial. Imagine if the baseball players weren\u2019t trying to win. Suppose they were just out on the field to enjoy the day, throw the ball around, hit it a few times, maybe sunbathe. Then they wouldn\u2019t be a team at all, just a few folks having a good time. So you see, goal-oriented behavior <em>matters<\/em> in George&#8217;s analogy (as does the nature of the goal).<\/p>\n<p>This assumption, not pointed out by George, destroys the analogy. I\u2019ll lay it out as clearly and fairly as I can:<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"172\"><strong>The analogy<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"172\"><strong>The reasoning <\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"172\"><strong>The conclusion<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"172\">Baseball   players<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">A group of people<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">A man and a   woman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"172\">Who are trying   to win a game<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Who are working   together to achieve a goal<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Who are trying   to conceive<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"172\">Are still a   team<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Are still a   unit<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Are still a &#8220;real&#8221; married couple<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"172\">Even if they fail<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Even if they   fail<\/td>\n<td width=\"172\">Even if they   fail<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>George\u2019s analogy, then, applies only to infertile couples who are <em>trying <\/em>to conceive. If baseball players are tossing around a ball, not trying to win, they\u2019re not a team. And if an infertile couple knows they can&#8217;t have kids, and they&#8217;re just just tossing around on the bed for fun and intimacy, not trying to conceive, then they\u2019re not a real married couple, according to George\u2019s analogy.<\/p>\n<p>Now take a closer look\u00a0at this odd sentence from the quote above:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>But such development and sharing, including the bodily union of the generative act, are possible and inherently valuable for spouses even when they do not conceive children.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I don\u2019t know how many times I can say this: <em>PIV [penis in vagina] is not a generative act for an infertile or elderly couple!<\/em> It\u2019s not. Not, not, not.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n<p>Put differently, there is no sense in which their bodies are \u201ccoordinating toward a single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient\u201d \u2014\u00a0not if that goal is reproduction. They can\u2019t achieve it alone and they can\u2019t achieve it together. And if they\u2019re not even trying? Then they\u2019re like that gang of friends throwing balls around \u2014\u00a0they&#8217;re just doing it for the pleasure and satisfaction of it.<\/p>\n<p>Okay, this is merely George&#8217;s analogy. It fails, but that could just be due to bad writing and explanation. We need to dig deeper to show George\u2019s mistakes.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">A truly awful implication<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>George writes:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether or not it causes conception. The nature of the spouses\u2019 action now cannot depend on what happens hours later independently of their control \u2014 whether a sperm cell in fact penetrates an ovum. And because the union in question is an organic bodily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological factors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or believe that they cannot. Whatever their thoughts or goals, whether a couple achieves bodily union depends on facts about what is happening between their bodies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Stop. Think about what must surely be an unintended logical consequence:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><em><span style=\"color: #800000;\">Rape is an organic bodily union<\/span>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>According to George, organic bodily union does not depend on psychological factors. On intent. On thoughts or goals. Nothing matters but \u201cfacts about what is happening between their bodies. \u201c Even if you take physical violence out of the picture, that still leaves rape by terrifying the victim with the <em>thought<\/em> or <em>intent<\/em> of violence. And, according to George\u2019s reasoning, that\u2019s organic bodily union.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, no act of physical love can ever seal a marriage between two men. But rape between a man and a woman can.<\/p>\n<p>Ponder what this reasoning allows. A girl is handed over to a man for a marriage she doesn\u2019t want. If he takes her by force on their wedding night? That\u2019s organic bodily union.\u00a0 If she stays with him because she\u2019s \u00a0cowed into permanent resignation and submission by force of law, because it\u2019s the only way she can keep and care for the child borne of that wedding night rape \u2014 that\u2019s a \u201creal\u201d marriage. (And not unheard of.)<\/p>\n<p>But two free women, in a loving, sexual, committed, permanent relationship, raising children together? Nope, no marriage possible.<\/p>\n<p>Something is horribly wrong with George\u2019s definition of marriage, of comprehensive union, of organic bodily union.<\/p>\n<p>Now, George might insist the full-hearted consent is need for a marriage, but this itself would be a radical notion. Throughout much of the world, throughout much of history, a girl married the man her family chose and stayed with him because it was her lot in life and role in the society. If George insists on full-hearted consent, then he&#8217;s as much of a \u201crevisionist\u201d as anyone \u2014 <em><strong>in fact, his view of marriage, the <a href=\"http:\/\/wakingupnow.com\/blog\/reply-to-george-iii-stop-sneaking-in-your-conclusion\" target=\"_blank\">\u201cconjugal\u201d<\/a> view, would be possible only because society has adopted what he considers the \u201crevisionist\u201d view.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Still, whether or not George insists on full-hearted consent for marriage, that still leaves rape as \u201corganic bodily union,\u201d which George defines as independent of thought, goal, and intent.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">We\u2019re back to spouses as stomachs<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>George revisits his digestion metaphor:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite organically through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual body\u2019s process of nourishment. Different parts of that process \u2014 \u00a0salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestinal absorption of nutrients \u2014 are 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>\n<p>Similarly, the behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if non-behavioral factors in the process \u2014 for example, low sperm count or ovarian problems \u2014 prevent conception from occurring, even if the spouses expect this beforehand. As we have argued, bodies coordinating toward a single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient are rightly said to form an organic union.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, infertility is no impediment to bodily union and therefore (as our law has always recognized) no impediment to marriage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The digestion metaphor is odd and misguided, but let\u2019s begin with the most mysterious phrase: \u201cdynamism toward reproduction.\u201d This is (yet another) undefined term. At first I thought by &#8220;dynamism&#8221; George meant something like, <em>capable of producing change or accomplishing a goal<\/em>. But in that case, he\u2019s self-evidently wrong because for infertile people, \u201cthe behavioral parts of the process of reproduction\u201d have no capacity to produce a reproductive change or accomplish a reproductive goal. That\u2019s what &#8220;infertile&#8221;\u00a0<em>means<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Reluctantly, then, I went to the dictionary. The <a href=\"http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/dynamism\">best<\/a> I could do was \u201cgreat energy, force, or power; vigor,\u201d but that fails too. Sex between an infertile couple has no <em>reproductive<\/em> energy, force, power, or vigor. And, as I said above, they\u2019re not \u201ccoordinating toward a single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>New analogy, same mistake.<\/p>\n<p>None of this makes any sense to me. The digestion metaphor doesn\u2019t help either. To begin with, forget about stomachs and intestines. George is very clear about distinguishing between behavioral and non-behavioral factors. Intestines are not part of the \u201cbehavioral process of digestion.\u201d It\u2019s not behavior: it&#8217;s involuntary muscle action. Instead, consider chewing which, like sex, is a behavioral choice.* If a person has a medical condition that makes swallowing impossible, then chewing in fact is no longer \u201coriented\u201d to the goal of digestion. If the person chews food at all, it will be only to enjoy the flavor.<\/p>\n<p>In other words:\u00a0 Just as chewing is not a digestive act when digestion is impossible, sexual intercourse is not a reproductive act when reproduction is impossible.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">I do not believe George\u2019s words mean what he thinks they mean<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>George continues:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Thus, infertility is no impediment to bodily union and therefore (as our law has always recognized) no impediment to marriage. This is because in truth 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 it can exist apart from children, and the state can recognize it in such cases without distorting the moral truth about marriage.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, a true friendship of two men or two women is also valuable in itself. But lacking the capacity for organic bodily union, it cannot be valuable specifically as a marriage: it cannot be the comprehensive union on which aptness for procreation and distinctively marital norms depend. That is why only a man and a woman can form a marriage \u2014 a union whose norms and obligations are decisively shaped by its essential dynamism toward children. For that dynamism comes not from the actual or expected presence of children, which some same-sex partners and even cohabiting brothers could have, and some opposite-sex couples lack, but from the way that marriage is sealed or consummated:\u00a0 \u00a0in coitus, which is organic bodily union.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This is why George\u2019s critics call his thinking convoluted:\u00a0 For George, \u201cdynamism toward children\u201d is about a penis entering a vagina, even for elderly or infertile adults who cannot create children, even for fertile adults who have no intention of raising the children they may create. For George, \u201cdynamism toward children\u201d has nothing to do with children at all, real or hoped for.<\/p>\n<p>George\u2019s own phrasing betrays him:\u00a0 If a comprehensive union depends on \u201captness for procreation,\u201d then in George\u2019s eyes infertile couples cannot have a comprehensive union \u2014 and therefore, cannot have a marriage. Oh, and there\u2019s another of George\u2019s undefined terms: <a href=\"http:\/\/dictionary.reference.com\/browse\/aptness\" target=\"_blank\">aptness<\/a>. But if you look it up you\u2019ll see how wrong he is.<\/p>\n<p>By the way \u2014\u00a0and I don\u2019t know whether I even need to point this out \u2014\u00a0George\u2019s tightly-insulated, reality-free logical structure ignores the fact that two romantically-bonded men or women can have a relationship that is oriented toward children.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">George admits defeat.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Finally, there\u2019s this:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[M]arriage is not a mere means, even to the great good of procreation. It is an end in itself, worthwhile for its own sake. So it can exist apart from children, and the state can recognize it in such cases without distorting the moral truth about marriage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This seems like George\u2019s admission of defeat, an acknowledgement that same-sex marriage is real marriage. His escape, though, is to say that recognizing same-sex marriage would be \u201cdistorting the moral truth about marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But what moral truth does he have in mind? Certainly it\u2019s not about children, child-bearing, or the best circumstances for child-rearing \u2014 he gives all that up in this very paragraph. The only distinction between an infertile opposite-sex and a same-sex couple is PIV, unrelated to the production of children. Is that his great moral truth?<\/p>\n<p><em>Marriage must be between a man and a woman because marriage requires a penis in a vagina. So there.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s what it amounts to, now that he\u2019s admitted infertile couples to marriage, now that he&#8217;s admitted that marriage is worthwhile for its own sake, existing apart from children. Nothing else remains.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The problem and the promise, redux<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>What did George promise us for this part of his article?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Part I also shows that what revisionists often consider a tension in our view \u2014 that marriage is possible between an infertile man and woman \u2014 is easily resolved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Fail.<\/p>\n<p>Even if you think he resolved the issue, it sure wasn\u2019t easy. And how did he \u201cresolve\u201d it? By taking his definition of organic bodily union (\u201cbodies coordinating toward a single biological function for which each alone is not sufficient\u201d) and throwing it out the window.<\/p>\n<p>As I said\u2026<em>fail<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Next: George argues that heterosexuals just aren&#8217;t smart enough to raise families in a world with same-sex marriage (well&#8230;that might be my own paraphrase).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #888888;\">* \u00a0Just to be clear: \u00a0<em>Having sex<\/em> is a behavioral choice. <em>Sexual orientation<\/em> is not.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George&#8217;s widely-read article, &#8220;What is Marriage&#8220;, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0here.] Pages 256-257, and &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13770\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-13770","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\/13770","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=13770"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13770\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13772,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13770\/revisions\/13772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}