Gay Marriage

I have seen many, many assertions that gays are morally wrong. That they are the scum of the earth, and should burn in Hellfire for all eternity. Religious groups, helping and being helped by powerful people on the political Right, have gained serious traction on both sides of the Atlantic, but it is in the USA that the arguments are at their most passionate.

Check out this site, which lists several reasons why gay marriage is such a bad thing. Shall we look at these arguments in more detail?

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

First of all, marriage as a word can be re-defined. It’s definition is not set in stone and there’s nothing wrong with this. Concepts and ideas are always being refined and altered – change is the norm, both in society and in nature. There is also a deep fear of using the word marriage to define same-sex unions, as though it will sully the word, but many hetrosexual marriages end in divorce, with couples cheating on each other, committing violence against each other, or stealing from one another, which would seem to be far more hurtful to the ideals of marriage than two people who love each other tying the knot.

Defining marriage as the perpetuation of the human race is an artificial application too. Marriage is about the union of two people who love each other – not about breeding.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

‘Natural law’ does not include Biblical quotes in its thinking. Natural law is in fact survival of the fittest, with evolution developing many different ways and means of a species’ survival. It is true that homosexual relationships are not going to further the propagation of the species or contribute to evolution, but it is equally true that homosexual behaviour is a product of biology and therefore nature. It has been observed in other species beside humans too.

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

There is the automatic assumption that a same-sex couple somehow can’t deliver the same love and care toward a child that hetrosexual couples do. This isn’t reasonable. The quality of a relationship is not defined by the gender of the two parents, or whether they are blood relatives, but by the behaviour. As long as a child has love, discipline and is taught to be honest, loving, kind and fair, what is wrong with that?

 4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

What exactly is the homosexual lifestyle anyway? What specifically is it about this lifestyle that will corrupt social values and public morality? The vagueness of this bit is quite obvious.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

As already mentioned, same-sex marriage is not in opposition to nature. People do not choose to be gay. It is a quirk of biology and thus nature. It is an evolutionary dead-end, certainly, but it is not in opposition.

Secondly, there are many examples in nature of the males and females of other species being decidedly promiscuous. Lions will mate with several lionesses to ensure their genes are dominant. Apes and other primates are the same. Indeed, given our close evolutionary relationship with primates, our culture of marriage is, it could be argued, against nature altogether.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

So the original author or authors of this article make it clear here that they think homosexuality is a changeable trait. They think it is a choice, despite evidence to the contrary. This Telegraph article points out evidence that homosexuality in men is at least partly genetic, whilst this article from the International Business Times supports this idea.

Furthermore, who is setting the definitions for what is a moral right here?

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Another attempt to link having children to the definition of marriage, as well as an attack on contraception. There are plenty of married, hetrosexual couples who do not want children – should they be condemned too?

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

Once again there is this idea that children cannot have a good upbringing with two parents of the same sex. Additionally, benefits are often bestowed upon families regardless of marital status, and using marriage to get more money from the State doesn’t strike me as a good reason to get married.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

I will agree that it is unfair to demand Churches and religious institutions to carry out homosexual wedding ceremonies and that such weddings would be best carried out via civil services. However, this particular part of the article is scare-mongering, suggesting gay marriage will be forcibly shoved down the throats of every man woman and child, and society will collapse as a result. The article doesn’t mention the increasing rates of divorce amongst hetrosexual couples.

Furthermore, the article implies that we all should accept the Christian definitions of marriage. What if you’re not a Christian? What if you don’t believe in anything? Why should any one group be able to impose their ideology on the majority?

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

“The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

The first part of this section makes it clear the author(s) are applying the Slippery Slope Fallacy. This is scare-mongering, plain and simple, and woefully ignorant too. It tries to subtle imply that homosexuals are deviants, out to subvert society, rather than simply trying to find acceptance.

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Unions between two people actually existed before Christianity existed. Furthermore, this is the site once again shoving the Christian belief system down the reader’s throat.

The site in question is an American site, and this is ironic – America was founded by people fleeing medieval Europe to escape from religious persecution, yet now there are a great many forces moving to ensure the USA is bound to the religious values of Christianity, whether they believe it or not.

Back to What I Think

5 thoughts on “Gay Marriage

  1. Good friend,

    Thanks for your kind “like” comment at my blog site today, on this topic. Let’s keep comparing notes and learning from each other.

    Your friend Mike B

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: