Marriage, can it be gay?

This is a very philosophical post. If you have the patience for it perhaps it will give you a better understanding of arguments for the proper definition of marriage.

If we say that God intended marriage and sexuality for one man and one woman we then have to ask "why?" and "how do we know this?" A fundamentalist view is to simply that "the bible sayeth so and ye hamasaxuals (pronounced hama (like llama) saxual (like saxiphone... but "ual" added on) will perish! (along with papists!)". Such a mind frame hardly takes into consideration the historical ::ahem:: ecclesial origins of the bible. It is likely these folks will have a hard time with logic. Especially since they are appealing to an authority without first establishing its legitimacy. Even so in general appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy.

Why does God say one man, one woman? Ultimately "theology of the body" demonstrates why. (When I say theology of the body and you think "Christopher West" it's about time you actually get the latest translation and read it yourself. Since that is almost as depressing as thinking "Marty Haugen" when you hear "traditional music".) Although, really common sense kind of provides the answer to this.

What is the function of that which we call the sexual organs? Science says reproduction. It's very simple and biologically proven. When a man is stimulated to the point of ejaculation and if it is while penetrating the vagina the result under normal circumstances are several hundred million sperm swimming up and actually being sucked up by contractions in the woman to an egg. That is if intercourse is within that small window of time. This is empirically indisputable.

So why should we not thwart such processes? Well, there's a couple reasons. First is if you accept there is a God, then logically (since the essence of God is creator) He "created" (notice I believe in evolution so this isn't 6 day creationism) and what's important about that is he has intention and puts order into what He made. If we can say there is a God and we can say He "created" that is he also designed (no, not intelligent design theory there's a difference, see the works of the late Fr. Dr. Jacki) then we can say that there is a purpose, a meaning and an end to this design. Notice this inference of a design is ultimately a philosophical one. Science cannot tell us if it is random or design, it only tells us what is.

If this is the case we can say we reflect God's nature most fully when we procreate. Only God can create something out of nothing, so to participate in that activity that begets kiddies is to reflect God most fully.

As a side note, if you adhere to a monotheistic belief system that believes in the Trinity, ordered sexual relationships reflect the holy Trinity. As God the Father eternally begets the Son and the love between the two is the Holy Ghost. A man and woman loving etc... then there is a third... except we are in time which means it happens chronologically and, well, there's a lot more to it now that Sin has kind of screwed up the whole process.

In the end, if you accept that an essential part of our being is sexuality and an essential part of sexuality is procreation which then is predicated on the idea that God has created the universe a certain way, which is to say he intended for various things to have a certain purpose and because of how they were made. We can then safely say using sexuality for any other purposes is damaging to us since it goes against his intent. This is because of how essential sexuality is to our Nature.

What does this have to do with marriage?

The argument is simple; marriage is that institution that humans engage in to ensure the best situation for a sexual relationship. If children are to be raised then a life-long commitment is necessary to ensure the best rearing of children. I think I can safely say without citing a statistic that most people who have grown up in a divorced family can testify to the negative effect of divorce on the family life.

But let's address the arguments people use for homo-marriages. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but here are some I have heard:

1) "Two adults who love each other should be able to make a commitment to each other.”

2) "Straight people have messed up marriage so gay people should be able to give it a shot."

3) "Some traditional marriages used to involve rape and other antiquated things."

4) "There was this one time a gay lover was refused from seeing his beloved who was in the hospital, if they were married they would be allowed to do this."

And just for good measure I will include one that I haven't heard, but could hear:

5) "If marriage is about raising kids what's wrong with a committed relationship that adopts? It includes sexual expression and the raising of kids". With the case of some lesbians there is even invitro fertilization which mimics the 'natural' process anyways".

Response to objection 1) This objection begs the questions: “What is love?”

The answer to the former is that loving is the willing of the beloved for their good according to their Nature and the nature of the relationship. Nature in this instance is not what is necessarily observed in nature. Nature in this instance means what /should/ be. Nature with a big “N” is a philosophical inference, not a scientific one. Science only tells us what is, what has been and what could be, not what should be. With that establish we return to what was mentioned earlier. If there is a God who established the universe with intention we can then discover what he intended versus what is etc…

2) This can be addressed in to wasy: A) It is right that people who have heterosexual relationships have damaged the institution of marriage. If we accept contraceptives, divorce etc… as norms for marriage then marriage has been redefined and technically this argument could (sort of) work. That is if it was formulated properly. If, however, the norms of marriage insist upon an exclusive, totally open to life, sexual relationship occurring within an indissoluble bond this argument does not follow.

B) A person who fails to do an action properly does not give license for another person to fail at it even further. A man who does not succeed in jumping over a fence and claiming he did succeed does not give a man the right to jump over a wall and say he jumped over a fence no matter how similar the action.

3) While all marriages involve traditions that is a matter of attribute not of substance. The substance of marriage persists despite better or worse things that have concurred with it.

4) This argument is basically saying that a particular instance in which a subjectively dissatisfying experience that may or may not have been the result of injustice is sufficient reason to give license for people to use the term marriage how they please. Presumably this is because it will provide the necessary legal rights and privileges that will prevent such a situation from occurring. The rights and privileges in this particular case focus on common practices in medical institutions. Quite simply providing the people who are in these situations with the rights and privileges to avoid such a misfortune is the way around it. Not redefining marriage. It should also be known that even the California supreme acknowledges that the rights and privileges of same-sex couples are identical to that of married persons. ( See the post Beyond Gay and Prop 8).

5) Once again this implicitly denies the intention of our sexual faculties. It gives license to use them in a way that will never naturally produce children. Invitro is an unnatural process in two ways. It does not occur in nature and it goes against our Nature. Same gender sexual activity will never result in children no matter how committed the individuals are. Adoption is not the result of same sex activities.

In the end if you reject God it’s impossible to prove that marriage should remain a heterosexual institution without turning to utilitarianism or consequentialism.