19 Jan 2012
The object of this posting is to review the case against gay marriage, and in particular to deny the proposition that limiting marriage strictly to between one man and one woman is unfair.
Since this is my first stab that the project, my reasoning and arrangement of the argument may not be as sound as it could be. However, putting one’s thoughts on paper is a good way to start refining them.
Let us begin by identifying the group that feels aggrieved. It is known by the acronym: LGBTTIQ, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersexed, queer, and questioning. A lesbian is homosexual woman. A gay is a homosexual man. A bisexual is a person, either a man or woman, who will engage in sexual activity indifferently with another person of either gender, though a decided preference to either homosexuality or heterosexuality may be exhibited. The terms transgendered, transsexual, and two-spirited mean roughly the same thing: a person of one gender who wishes to be the other gender, and in some cases this person may have undergone sexual reconstructive surgery and taken hormonal therapy in order to physically resemble the opposite gender. The term two-spirited refers to a native of North America who is transgendered or transsexual. (A hermaphrodite is a person who at birth possessed the sexual characteristics of both male and female, and is therefore a true transsexual. However, transsexuals in this posting refer to those who employ surgery and hormonal therapy to change from one sex to another. Hermaphrodites are not a part of the aggrieved group.) Queer used to be an epithet, but now is taken to be a cover term for homosexual or transsexual. Questioning is a person who wonders about their sexuality, and the act of questioning may be a sign of incipient bisexuality or homosexuality.
The common element of all these forms of sexuality is biological confusion.
Aristotle, in his work De Anima, concluded that each species has a desire for immortality, and since individual members of the species were not themselves immortal, each species possessed a powerful instinct to reproduce. Hence reproduction is a natural act of the species, and acts of reproduction by members of the species are natural and, indeed, necessary for the preservation, the continuance, the immortalization if you will of the species.
But nature is not perfect, and examples exist of deviations in individual members of a species from what is natural. Nevertheless, what is natural is good and what deviates from nature is not good. Thus acts which are not consistent with the potential for reproduction of the species, not being natural, are not good. Biological confusion may be said to be the inclination or desire in an individual that is not consistent with the potential for reproduction.
Sexuality in human beings is the most highly evolved of all the animals. It serves not only the instinct to reproduce but also the capacity in humans of enjoyment for its own sake. Thus unnatural acts of sex are engaged in for the sake of enjoyment, though a misdirected sense of the desire to reproduce may also underlie the biological urge for unnatural sex.
A species does not benefit from biological confusion. A species benefits from reproduction, and acts of biological confusion cannot lead to reproduction.
The handling of sexuality and reproduction in human beings is also the most highly evolved among the animals. Human beings invented marriage, and organize themselves naturally into complex societies that protect and support the individual generally in all phases of life. Societies allow a fuller development of the human being’s potential than would happen if human beings were solitary. The purpose of marriage was to establish stability in the mating pair for the mutual benefit of both, of their offspring, of the community, and ultimately of the species. In marriage, the mating pair pledge, or vow, to each other their faithfulness (that is, the exclusivity of sexual engagement) and the willingness to care for each other – in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, so long as ye both shall live. Having a caregiver in time of need to an extent relieves the society of a burden, which is an additional benefit of marriage to the community. Having a stable mating pair in which offspring are raised relieves society as a whole of the entire burden of raising the next generation.
Marriage also provides a superior environment for the raising of off-spring. Both parents are emotionally involved in the raising of children, which is of benefit to the children and seems highly useful to the development of a happy adult. Strangers are not usually so involved, and there is no question that being raised in the bosom of a happy family is superior to being raised in an orphanage, for example. Since the period of development of human beings from newborn into adulthood is so long, marriage is also naturally a long-term proposition, and familiarity and companionship between the married pair add to the benefits of marriage after the capacity for reproduction ends later in life.
Hence, marriage is naturally a relationship between a man and a woman that is founded upon providing an advantageous environment for reproduction of the human species.
But marriage is not an unlimited proposition. Marriage cannot take place between any man and any woman. There are the laws of consanguinity: a brother cannot marry a sister, a father a daughter, a mother a son, and so on. There often are laws against bigamy: a person cannot marry another person who is already married. A person cannot marry another person who does not wish to be married to them. There are minimum ages for marriage, and so forth. Thus restrictions, for good reason, exist in society concerning marriage. Marriage is not an unlimited right in society.
In the Catholic Church, for example, in addition to the above the marriage must be open to the having of children. So, a couple which has no potential for reproduction or frankly admit that they desire to have no children will not be married in the Catholic Church.
All that said, there is nothing in law which prevents a gay man from marrying a gay woman.
Indeed, at one time marriage between a gay man and a gay woman used to occur in order to disguise the homosexuality of both from society.
Thus marriage can have accidental uses; indeed, it has many accidental properties and advantages, but the essential aspect of marriage - why it exists at all - is reproduction.
Thus so-called “gay marriage” – of two homosexual men to each other or two homosexual women to each other - is a straightforward deviation from the essential purpose of marriage, since there is no potential whatsoever for reproduction in such an arrangement. “Gay marriage” amounts to a mockery, a sham, of the real thing.
Marriage is not founded upon sexual desire, but reproduction; and so to argue that marriage ought to be sanctioned on the basis of an unnatural sexual desire is nothing but to engage in moral confusion. Since society gains no benefit from “gay marriage,” and stands suffer from the loss the esteem that its sanction confers upon real marriage by a mockery, a sham, society ought to reject the proposition of “gay marriage.”
It is no denial of natural human rights to deny gays the ‘right’ to be “married” to each other. Since reproduction is what is natural, and there being no potential whatsoever for reproduction occurring as a result of acts of homosexuality, such acts are unnatural; and there is no natural human right to the unnatural. Thus to sanction or formalize a relationship on the basis of homosexuality is to lose sight of the essential purpose of marriage.
But what of marriage between an older couple, so old that reproduction is out of the question? Is this not also a mockery of marriage? And what of the marriage that has lasted beyond the years of reproduction? These seem to violate the essentiality of reproduction as the basis of marriage.
All this is granted, and we fall back to the accidental benefits of marriage to society. There is a certain prestige and sanction to marriage, which is one reason why gay people seek it for themselves.
The continuance of marriage between a couple too old to reproduce and a new marriage between a man and a woman too old to reproduce exemplify and to a certain extent add to the prestige which marriage has in society. Since reproduction is good, marriage is good; and maintaining and elevating the prestige of marriage in society contribute to human reproduction occurring in an advantageous setting. Insofar as “gay marriage” detracts from the prestige of marriage, society ought to resist it since widespread reproduction outside of marriage is harmful to society.
Thus, there is no natural right to “gay marriage;” “gay marriage” is positively harmful to society to the extent that it detracts from the prestige of marriage, and lastly there is no real obstacle in law from a gay couple getting married to each other so long as the couple consists of a man and a woman. The demand for “gay marriage” is an example of biological confusion giving rise to moral confusion.
It was asked recently by a journalist of a Republican presidential candidate in respect of gay marriage, “what do you say to a gay couple who wish to live in a committed, loving relationship?” The proper answer to that question is: what is stopping you? A couple do not need marriage to be in love, nor to be committed to each another. Friendship can be a committed, long term relationship, just as marriage can be. Thus there is no requirement for a gay pair to be “married” to each other to maintain a committed, loving, long-term relationship. They can even pledge to be faithful to each other. However, the fact that marriage is associated with a committed, long-term, loving relationship even by a gay pair shows the power in real marriage. Marriage has such power partly by the prestige which society confers upon it, and partly from the human need for security and for the companionship of others.
It is possible for a gay pair to designate each other as the next of kin in law, and given the prevalence today for an equivalent-to-spouse provision in contracts almost nothing stands in the way of the legal advantages of marriage being gained by a gay pair who wish to formalize a relationship.
Thus there seems to be no reason for society to bow before the demands for an institution of “gay marriage,” and some good reasons have been found to resist them.
- XXX –
No comments:
Post a Comment