Marriage encompass the reproductive type of relationship, it explicitly references that relationship in expecting a man and a woman. But it is not too surprising when that reference is being attacked to find that some people don't understand quite what it means to be a type of relationship. Consider the following question...
Q If she is sterile, it is impossible for her to be in a reproductive type of relationship. She can’t reproduce.
I am very sure that is the hangup the author of the question is having (henceforth the person I talk to in answering). And I appreciate it, honestly, as something substantial.
But understand that a "type" of relationship is based on the characteristics of the members of the relationship, and from there people have "conditions" that may make those characteristics impotent. But the type is still based on those characteristics even in the presence of impairing conditions. As I have noted on other occasions, infertility is a condition that can only exist in a context reproduction is normally expected.
Perhaps that explanation was too quick. How about an example...
People are a type of living being. They have two arms, two legs, two eyes (these are characteristics). They may even have more abstract characteristics like free will, liberty, ownership, and responsibility. However, if someone is missing an arm, they aren't disqualified from being a person. If they are in a totalitarian nation where they are not allowed free will, they are still a person and deserve that freedom. The condition of missing an arm, or being in a totalitarian nation does not negate the type of being they are.
"Reproductive" is a type of relationship. It consists (among humans) of a man and a woman as characteristics because we have found that when a child is created, it is by the relationship between a man and a woman. A man or woman may have a condition where they cannot contribute what they need to for a baby to be fully created and gestated. But just as those missing an arm, and those missing their freedom are still people, these are still men and women in a reproductive type of relationship.
The classification of the conditions you named are all "impairments". That means they cannot do something normally associated with the rest of their type. In our free western society we have a generous outlook on impairments in that we try as best we can to help people accomplish what their conditions are impairing them from doing. That is equality, or trying to equalize their condition to mitigate their impairment.
Do you believe homosexuality to be an impairment? Do you believe that homosexuality is a reproductive type of relationship that simply suffers from a condition that would otherwise make it reproductive? If so, that is a rather extreme condition as it affects 100% of homosexual relationships.
Even if only 80% of people had two arms, it would still be enough to call it a characteristic of that type of being, and it would be enough to consider the lack of an arm to be a condition of impairment. Even if only 80% of all combinations possible that could be called reproductive types of relationship could actually create children, it is still a reproductive type of relationship.
But would you really argue that homosexual type of relationship is simply an impaired reproductive type of relationship when it is 100% non-reproductive, not even with all our scientific miracles and marvels?
Are you ready to march down to your nearest GLBT and declare, "Hey everyone, I figured it out, the reason we keep saying that infertile people get married to argue that we should get married to is because we are impaired just like infertile people!"
I'm not, and I doubt you are, though you are ready to make that same argument to people not in the GLBT center here at FSB.
Even a reproductive type of relation ship that suffers from a condition of impairment (infertility, sterility) is a reproductive type of relationship. Infertility is not a condition of something that we do not expect to reproduce at all, a lightbulb is not "infertile", for example. A homosexual couple that goes to the doctor seeking insurance for their lack of reproduction may even go so far as sue the insurance company for equal rights! But the truth is they would be denied and would lose because homosexuality is not an impairment, it is not infertility or sterility. It is simply the natural outcome of that type of relationship.
Thanks for reading through it all, it is not a difficult concept to get, but it is important. Not just to this debate but to understanding the world around you. Biology, anthropology, etc... do not create types and classifications only when there is 100% compliance. They see what is generally true, and assume when it is not it is an exception for some reason.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment