Ruth Institute Blog

Every time I hear a debate about redefining marriage, those in favor of redefining the institution always uncork the same old argument.  Marriage, they say, is an institution that has changed very much over time.   Marriage used to be an economic and social institution.  It had much less to do with love and much more to do with practical considerations, such as acquiring land or wealth, allying families, or increasing social and political connections.  Nowadays, marriage is about self fulfillment and happiness.  Why not change it so that gay people can be fulfilled and happy as well?

It should be obvious how dishonest this argument is.  But it’s sometimes tough to come up with exactly the words that express the fallacy of the argument.  Life Coach Stuart Schneiderman has done just that.

The institution of marriage has constants and variables. The constants are its reality; the variables are different customs and rituals that are part of different cultural practices.

Sentences like these make me wish I had written them myself.  If you’re ever going to debate with your friends about redefining marriage, it would be wise to memorize them.

Anyway, Dr. Schneiderman goes on to discuss the essential constant of marriage.

When it comes to marriage, the cargo that defines the institution is the act of consummation. Marriage is a mating ritual. Thus it must be consummated by the performance of what medieval thinkers called a generative act. If the marriage is not consummated, it is considered to be null, thus, that it never happened.

However perfect the ceremony, however affectionate the partners, absent a generative act it is not really a marriage.

Some have objected to this universal custom on the grounds that not all acts of copulation result in conception. This claim would have validity if the sense of consummation was that the couple had to conceive a child on their wedding night.

And no one has ever imagined such a thing.

Consummation is about possibility, about what might happen. When a marriage is consummated there might be conception. For those of a more advanced age, the logic changes slightly: their generative action might have caused conception in the past.

It is fundamentally incorrect to equate what is sometimes, but not always, possible with acts where conception is, would have been, and always will be strictly impossible.

Dr. Schneiderman then goes on to discuss a recent book on marriage.  Using material from the book, he shows how redefining marriage is an incoherent position from an evolutionary perspective.  Obviously, redefining marriage is unthinkable from a religious perspective (in any traditional religion).  Now, we can see how evolution doesn’t offer the marriage redefiners much hope either.