Analysis Of The Conjugal View Of Marriage

Sherif Girgis wrote his article, “Marriage: Whose Justice? Which Diversity?” in response to John Corvino’s, “What Marriage Can Be” article. Corvino’s article introduced the inclusivist view of marriage and then attacked Girgis’ conjugal view of marriage, which was introduced in Girgis’ book, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.” Corvino’s inclusivist view was meant to expand the definition of marriage, not re-define it (Corvino, p.6) and although Corvino’s defense of the inclusivist view was, “sophisticated, civil and well-informed” according to Girgis, it was also, “Contradicting virtually every philosophical and legal tradition until yesterday, it nonetheless offers no positive case for its thesis” (Girgis, p.1). Girgis obviously does not agree with Corvino’s inclusivist/revisionist view, but he does so on the basis that it has too many weaknesses. The conjugal view is superior as it most properly defines what true marriage is and should be. In the ensuing sections, I shall describe what the conjugal view of marriage is and why Girgis believes it to be superior to both the

They are: Marriage is inherently sexual, it is uniquely enriched by family life, and it uniquely requires permanent and exclusive commitment to begin at all (Girgis, p.3). In the conjugal definition, the three aforementioned characteristics are all present, yet in the inclusivist and revisionist view they are not. Girgis believes that accepting the inclusivist and revisionist views culturally entrenches a profound error about this human good, which will affect people’s choices and behavior in ways that harm the public good. Girgis also believes the combination of the three aforementioned characteristics are vital in describing how marriage can only be realized by a man and woman, which will be explained in the next