Melanie McDonagh makes a decent small-c conservative case against gay marriage based on a traditional procreation-based definition of marriage. This is fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go quite as far as she, or other defenders of “traditional” marriage suggest it does. In the first place, as Stephen Hough reminds us in an admirable piece at the Telegraph, the Catholic Church itself has altered its views on marriage:
One problem is that the argument about the meaning and ends of marriage has changed. The Church altered its teaching from the mid-20th century onwards away from the traditional ‘procreation first, relationship second’ to an equal billing for the two. Pope John Paul II was a key thinker in this shift of official opinion when he was still a mere priest teaching in Poland – a hundred years ago he would have been considered a heretic for his views. But people now, at least in the West, primarily choose their partners based on love, companionship and compatibility.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in