caa a22 4500 606237690 CHVBK 20210128101254.0 cr unu---uuuuu 210128e20150201xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s10677-014-9513-0 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10677-014-9513-0 Tully Patrick University of Scranton, Scranton, PA, USA aut Arbitrariness, Irrationality, and the Sterility Objection: A Reply to Anderson [Elektronische Daten] [Patrick Tully] Does the contemporary Natural Law position that only heterosexual couples are capable of marriage rest upon an "arbitrary and irrational distinction between same-sex couples and sterile heterosexual couples?” Anderson (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (4):759-775, 2013: 759). There are many who think so. In a recent article in these pages, Erik Anderson offers his case that these critics are correct. In what follows I examine Anderson's argument and conclude that, whether or not one ultimately agrees with the New Natural Law account of marriage, the distinction found there between same sex couples and sterile heterosexual couples is neither arbitrary nor irrational. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2014 Natural law nationallicence Marriage nationallicence Sterility objection nationallicence Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Springer Netherlands 18/1(2015-02-01), 135-144 1386-2820 18:1<135 2015 18 10677 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9513-0 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9513-0 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Tully Patrick University of Scranton, Scranton, PA, USA aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Springer Netherlands 18/1(2015-02-01), 135-144 1386-2820 18:1<135 2015 18 10677