Albany Via Media

November 26, 2011

To the Editor:

In response to Kathy Baldwin Keenan: Can we turn down the indignation just a notch so that we can have a conversation? This is one of those times when I don't recognize myself as the rigid ideological lock-step reactionary with whom she thinks she is speaking. Of course we disagree, but she seems to be missing all the nuances.

Does she really think that I don't believe that gay people are people first? Or that I have not also known and cared deeply for people who happened to have been attracted to the same sex — and who have also enriched my life? You can care for and respect people even if you don't necessarily agree with all the choices they make (and by the way, I don't believe same sex orientation is a choice).

I did not say simply that “marriage is for the creation of children.” Many marriages do not produce children and are not thereby rendered invalid or immoral. Obviously marriage is also meant for love and companionship.

What I was saying was a bit more subtle. From a biblical/exegetical perspective, what Genesis speaks of as a procreative “fruitfulness” is integral to the structure of meaning within which marriage has classically been understood. Traditionally, marriage has never been merely about the couple and their emotional well-being and satisfaction, although that has always been seen as part of the blessing of marriage. It has social and theological significance that includes but extends beyond the personal needs of the couple.

I am not convinced by the conclusion of the Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae that artificial birth control is inherently sinful and contrary to natural law. At the same time, I do think that its foundational understanding of marriage is coherent, namely that there is both a unitive and procreative aspect to marriage. Both are, to use my own phrase, integral to the structure of marriage. Humanae Vitae speaks of an “intrinsic relationship” to procreation — and who could deny that biologically speaking, sex is about reproduction? Of course sex is not merely a reproductive mechanism, any more than marriage is merely an arrangement to bear and nurture progeny — but the reproductive aspect is still fundamental.

By itself, this assertion of a “structural” or “intrinsic” relationship to procreation is not a complete argument against gay marriage (which I believe to be unbiblical), anymore than against birth control (which I do not think scripture prohibits, even implicitly). More steps are needed for each argument. I actually think that one could recognize this essentially procreative aspect and still support gay marriage — perhaps as a “generous pastoral response.” This is not my position, but it has far more intellectual integrity than the current tendency to deny the procreative significance just because we can exercise some control on the reproductive process by means of birth control.

Christopher Brown+