Michael Medved: “Marital Intercourse: Uniquely Intimate, Uniquely Significant”
Michael Medved has this post on his Townhall Blog. He writes: “Society and law rightly give unique weight to this one form of physical contact, and pay less attention to other forms of affection or pleasure.”
4 Comments
So sexual behavior is a positive reason for straights to marry, but your argument against the same right for same-sex couples? I smell hypocrisy and a double standard.
Gary47 - you are comparing apples and oranges. The primary, though not exclusive, purpose for sexual relations is procreation.
Heterosexual sexual relations have reproductive potential which is necessary for society to perpetuate. This is not the case for homosexual sexual relations.
None of which is relevant under a secular legal system. If reproduction is your sine qua non for marriage, then you need to ban infertile or non-reproducing couples from civil marriage.
There is never a guarantee of reproduction even with so-called fertile couples. But, the potential for reproduction is the normal situation in heterosexual relationships. Even with so-called “infertile” or old couples, the potential still exists as many examples attest.
This potential has always been considered relevant in Western legal systems so I am not sure how you can say it is irrelevant. You can only do so by redefining marriage as has been done in some recent cases.