Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Eugene Volokh has written an excellent series of posts about the use of the One True Purpose fallacy by opponents of gay marriage. The argument takes one of two forms, one against gay marriage and one against homosexuality itself, but both have the same flawed premise: the notion that either marriage or our genitals have only One True Purpose. They argue that marriage exists only for the raising of children and since gays can't have children, gay marriage goes against the One True Purpose of marriage. This is all nonsense, of course. Gays can and do have children - hundreds of thousands of them in this country alone - and those children would be better off with two committed parents just like the kids with straight parents are. And of course, there are lots of straight marriages that have nothing to do with having children.
Or they argue that our genitals are intended for reproduction only, and therefore homosexuality is wrong because it uses them for purposes other than reproduction. Of course, this same logic would rule out all non-reproductive forms of sex, the use of birth control, and masturbation - not to mention going to the bathroom, since we use the same reproductive organs for that as well. Volokh does a terrific job of demolishing such arguments:
If one is really looking at what marriage "used to" be as a guide to what it must be, one must also consider that marriage often used to be a contract between a man and several women, or more likely (as the commenter I quote above acknowledges) a contract between a man and several women's fathers. But, in any event, for centuries marriage has also often been about love, about company in old age, about emotional tranquility, about sexual hygiene, and more.I would think that this capacity of marriage to serve the other valuable functions is a sign of the strength of marriage, not something to be minimized or condemned. We wouldn't find it repulsive when post-menopausal women marry. We wouldn't find it a sign of "pure evil and cultural nihilism." Rather, we'd dance at their weddings, and appreciate the value of the marriage both for the parties and for society. Same when we see the marriage of people whom we know to be infertile, either because of disease or because of deliberate choice. Such a marriage is an occasion for joy, not contempt or concern about the erosion of the One True Inherent Nature Of Marriage.
Once we acknowledge that marriage can therefore have many functions, what's so "pure[ly] evil and cultural[ly] nihilis[tic]" about extending to marriage to couples who are unable to reproduce because of their gender, rather than because of their age or because of some medical condition? Of course, one could make other criticisms of same-sex marriage. I'm ultimately unpersuaded by these criticisms; but at least many of those criticisms focus on plausible speculations about actual effects, rather than on the supposed One True Purpose of an institution that -- like many successful human institutions -- serves many purposes...
A commenter on the Usage and Marriage thread perfectly illustrated what I see as the One True Inherent Meaning error as applied to sexual practices. Someone else had written, "I think that gay sex is in fact natural for gay people. Therefore, I think that gay sex, and gay marriage, would not violate natural law." The commenter responded, "You are simply wrong based on human biology. Tab P goes into slot V not slot B."
Well, tab P goes into slot V, except when it doesn't. My guess is that, as a purely descriptive matter, tab P goes into the P-owner's hand many more times, on average, than it goes into slot V. If the most common use (i.e., the norm) defines the One True Inherent Use, then any sex other than masturbation is unnatural.
Ah, the commenter might respond, but that's not the purpose of the penis. The purpose of the penis, either in the sense of what its biological function is, or in the sense of how God designed it (I don't know the commenter's philosophy, so I'm not sure which he'd focus on), is to be inserted into a vagina so as to procreate.
But biology doesn't have "purposes," except in a metaphorical sense. Biology has developed the penis into a multi-functioned organ -- it can be used for urination, for sexual pleasure, for emotional bonding, and for reproduction (I list these in what I guess to be decreasing order of actual frequency of use). Likewise for the multi-functioned vagina, though replacing urination with delivery of babies. More broadly, the sexual act is likewise a multi-functioned act. Likewise, biology has developed the mouth into a stunningly multi-functioned organ: It can be used for (among other things) breathing, communicating, consuming sustenance-producing substances, tasting substances to see whether they are wholesome, expelling vomit, kissing, licking stamps, and at least four different kinds of production of pleasure in oneself and others -- singing, eating tasty food, stimulating others' nongenital erogenous zones, and stimulating others' genitals.
The anus is a less multi-functioned organ. Still, it can be used not just for elimination of wastes, but also for prostate exams, for gynecological exams, for the administration of medicine to people (often babies) who can't easily keep it down when the medicine is administered orally, and for the relatively accurate determination of body temperature. The latter four functions are of course artifacts of modern medicine, but I doubt that any of us would condemn them as violations of natural law, especially since learning, thinking, and developing new processes is natural for humans. Likewise, the anus can be used for sexual pleasure, and has been used that way by humans for millennia (and is used that way by some animals). Why then treat the anus, the mouth, or the penis as having One True Inherent Purpose rather than recognizing that they can be used in multiple ways, each of which is fully consistent with our biology.
Well said, professor.
Comments
The right wing's argument that marriage is sacred and solely for producing children also flies in the face of another aspect of history (European history, that is). Up until about the 17th century the only marriages that were normally formalized in Christian Europe were those of the nobility and the extraordinary wealthy. The common folk, who comprised most of our ancestors, simply "shacked up"--to use a modern but descriptive phrase. They couldn't afford the formality of a marriage; the church wanted too much for the sacrament. Divorce was just as easy, at least for the male. If the "wife" didn't produce as desired--and that means sex, children, and keeping house in all its meanings--the man simply walked away, there being no formal bond. The strongest glue that bound two in marriage then was the need for two parents to raise the resulting children until their teens. If one died or disappeared, most widowers and widows simply set up housekeeping with someone else, that being a necessity for survival. Today things aren't a whole lot different except that modern society has instituted a variety of safety nets, some accidental and some quite specific.
Posted by: Keanus
| July 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Other uses of the anus and the penis and vagina have included rape and the domination of captives, as a means of control and terror, even by an "alpha male" of other males in a group. These are negative uses to be sure, but it seems to me that often these things are unfairly associated with gay sex by those who object to gay people. Even subconsciously. This is what makes their prejudices often so hard to overcome, they are deeply ingrained, atavistic.
Posted by: Gryph
| July 10, 2006 3:00 PM
I'm not sure this is accurate. A brief perusal of the records of that time period in various European countries shows many marriage contracts on record. In fact using these marriage records my cousin in-law was able to trace several families back quite far.
That many 'shacked up' is also true but these where socially frowned upon much more so than today and where in no way considered a marriage. But your correct some of these relationships where necessary for survival. As always society has many levels of activity but the marriage contract was being used extensively at the time.
One aspect your missing also is that the RCC didn't really get into the marriage business as a sacrament until the late 15th century. So they had just got there wheels rolling by the early 17th.
Posted by: Chance
| July 10, 2006 3:14 PM
The opponents of gay marriage are doomed, whether they know it or not. I know many young people, both liberal and conservative. They've grown up with gay people as friends and acquaintences. They just don't have the irrational hatred some of their elders have. It's why the popular support for gay marriage has increased twelve percent in just ten years. Those who want to ban gays are on the same side as those kooks who want to ban contraceptives (http://www.jillstanek.com/). They'll never win, they'll just waste some of our time.
Posted by: steve s
| July 10, 2006 5:02 PM
If non-reproductive memebers of society are unnatural, then ants must be from another planet.
And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted media personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
Posted by: Grumpy
| July 10, 2006 5:58 PM
It seems to me that the language you're using is posing the issue
falsely. Namely,
"Eugene Volokh has written an excellent series of posts about the
use of the One True Purpose fallacy by opponents of gay marriage."
Specifically the problem is the use here of the phrase "gay marriage".
With the implication that most people are opposed to "gay marriage"
when in fact I don't think that's at all the case.
I don't think it's true that a majority of the people in
this country object to creating a legal construct defining "gay marriage"
and making it a legal ceremony and giving certain privileges to
people having this status.
Instead I imagine that what the fuss is really about is this insistence
that "gay marriage" is the same as "marriage", i.e. "heterosexual
marriage." This implicit statement that it is evil to assert
that there is a difference between the two.
Beyond that there is another more complicated issue that I suspect
is also at the bottom of what people are really upset about -- which
I may or may not get to later in this comment.
Am I'm offbase in asserting that this is what the real issue is?
I predict that if a poll were done on whether or not people would
approve of "gay marriage," and even better if we just'd coin a new
word that doesn't have the word "marriage" in it, like say "civil
union," that the significant majority would approve.
And maybe that poll has already been done. After all didn't Bush
propose exactly such a thing?
But that proposal was met with a great deal of anger in many quarters.
Why? Why the anger? Why the hate? Anyone know?
What is really going on here?
Why the disingenuous representation of what the issue is?
Part of this I understand. There is a natural human tendency to exaggerate
opponents positions. To put them in the worst light, and even to assert
that they are something that they are not.
It's true there are people, even a large number of people, who are opposed
to this idea of "civil union". But the overwhelming majority
of such people are opposed to gays period. You can leave out the marriage
part. All that is necessary is to say "gay".
And of course this group is part of the majority that is opposed to the
idea that the concept "marriage" should be legally the same as "gay
marriage." (And in a way -- I know there must be a better way to say this
-- to make it kind of a thought crime to assert otherwise.)
Now given that, there is another unfortunate natural human tendency when
faced with an opposing opinion. That is to take the most objectionable
of those who oppose and imply that everyone that opposes belongs to that
objectionable group.
Now I'm guilty of both these sins; this misattribution of motive or opinion. And
I believe practically everyone is guilty of this.
But in my case I feel remorse. Usually. And in fact for every case where
I've exaggerated and misattributed there are vastly more where I've done my
best to understand the other's motive and responded to the reality of
what they think.
So I'm puzzled by what I see here. And there's nothing atypical about this
site or it's comments. I could go to a large number of spots of similar
sentiment and see the same pattern.
Posted by: mandrewa | August 30, 2007 11:46 PM
mandrewa -
Separate but equal is still separate. Gays are members of our society. They are not less than anyone else, their relationships do not have less value than the relationships of anyone else. They have great love for each other, or, in some circumstances, animosity for each other, just like everyone else. Some of them have expanded their families with children, some have not, just like everyone else.
They are not separate, it is damn well time to stop treating them like they are. And there are enough folks out there who appose even the rights of married couples being given them, enough so that several states have passed bigotry, into constitutional amendments. Enough so that many states, do not have civil unions or any equivalent. Why are we angry? Because opponents of gay marriage continue to make the lives of many families, shear, unmitigated hell. That will not end, until there is marriage equality. Sure, "giving" them analogous rights helps, I am the last to deny that. It is a huge step in the right direction. But it is not, nor should it ever be, an end.
Personally, I think that civil unions should be the legal, state recognized standard, that marriage should be abolished as a civil institution. But that's a whole different discussion.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 31, 2007 3:09 AM
The opponents of gay marriage are doomed, whether they know it or not. I know many young people, both liberal and conservative. They've grown up with gay people as friends and acquaintences. They just don't have the irrational hatred some of their elders have. It's why the popular support for gay marriage has increased twelve percent in just ten years.
Apparently they can't stand athwart history and yell "STOP", but they can put up speed limit signs?
Posted by: Coin | August 31, 2007 3:24 AM
Personally I think we need to recognise that the One True Purpose of the mouth is eating.
Oh and speech and breathing.
But singing and playing musical instruments are Godless perversions of the One True Purpose(s).
If children grow up around degenerates who pervert their mouths with abominations like singing how will they ever learn to eat?
Clearly this is the real cause of anorexia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 25, 2007 2:30 PM