Arguments against Same Sex Marriage
Image via WikipediaSame-sex "marriage" is but the latest episode in the culture war. This becomes obvious if one analyzes the arguments supporting that concept and links them to those aspects of our modern culture that give it an aura of legitimacy. Most of the literature supporting same-sex marriage boils down to two basic arguments: the inequity of traditional marriage and the bigotry of those upholding it.
I will depict both arguments as honestly as possible, show why they are intellectually unsustainable, and then indicate why our culture is nevertheless unable to refute their apparent legitimacy. Finally, I will propose a strategy, not of resistance, but of conquest. A conquest of hearts and souls.
The inequity argument (Oxford Dictionary: inequitable = unfair, unjust)
The inequity argument invoked by the homosexual lobby runs as follows: our agenda puts no restriction on whom heterosexuals can marry, but the prevailing rules impose a major one on us. Allowing us to marry would enhance our happiness without diminishing that of heterosexual couples. So long as "straights" are not forced into marrying people of their sex, why should they care about whether same-sex couples marry or not?
The argument is as clever as it is deceptive. If the definition of marriage is broadened to include gay couples, the meaning of marriage will be changed not only for gays but for all, including heterosexuals. Instead of a life covenant based on a procreative promise, it would become a mere contract between any two individuals.
The law recognizes marriage not only because it entails a contractual relationship between two persons, but because that contractual relationship is consistent with the good of society and the State (which also includes the good of individuals). Marriage is generally ordered to the procreation of new persons, to whose education and upbringing the spouses commit themselves. Same-sex couples are, by nature, incapable of procreation. Moreover, most of them admit to never aspiring to any life commitment (more on this later). Consequently, giving such couples the legal status and rights proper to marriage would be unjust. Those rights are linked to the expectation of duration and procreation. If there is no promise of procreation, why should the State care about marriage?
The inequity argument wrongly assumes that sexual morality has to do solely with the behaviour of individuals. It ignores its importance for family and society. Without sexual morality, the unity of the couple and of the family is shattered. And since marriage and family are part and parcel of the social order, sexual morality impacts very meaningfully on society also. This is precisely why marriage is a social institution.
Because of its strength, the human sexual impulse must be regulated. The regulation is necessary not because the Church says so but so as to ensure the stability of the family, which is the building block of society. The upshot is that, for the family to fulfill its role and for ordered liberty to exist, some constraints on sexual conduct are required. Marriage, family, and ordered liberty cannot co-exist with widespread sexual permissiveness. The more there is of the latter, the less of the former, and vice-versa. This is illustrated by the experience of Soviet Russia where, in the early twenties, Communist rulers undertook to abolish the legal registration of marriage. According to the Soviet prosecutor of the time, Krilenko, the rationale for such a move was as follows:
"Why should the State know who marries whom? ... Free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist state; in that State marriage will be free from any kind of obligation, including economic, and will turn into an absolutely free union of two beings". (1)
The agenda of the homosexual lobby and of radical feminists fits perfectly with that statement. Yet the Soviet experiment was a dismal failure and marriage was soon restored.
The homosexual lifestyle
Concepts such as life commitment, conjugal fidelity, and social stability are completely foreign to the homosexual lifestyle. A study of homosexual men under age 30 in Amsterdam, sponsored by the Dutch AIDS project and published in AIDS 2003, found that single men acquire 22 casual partners a year, men with a steady partner acquire eight casual partners a year, and "steady partnerships" last an average of 18 months. (2) In a book published in 1996 and entitled Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan argues that stable homosexual couples have a "need for extramarital outlets".
All this helps to understand why homosexual activists tend to view society as an amalgam of people regulated solely by the State. The notion that between the State and the individual stands another natural institution--the family--and that families develop institutions of their own, such as schools and local churches, seems totally alien to their mindset. According to their understanding of equality, whether a boy grows up to marry another boy or a girl has no social relevance. But equality does not entail the right to redefine marriage: we are all equal vis-a-vis the social institution of marriage.
The bigotry argument
The other argument in support of gay marriage is that traditional marriage is grounded not in reason but in religious belief, which is assumed to be devoid of any rational content. Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate Magazine, put it this way in a recent column:
"We on my side ... don't ... believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist".
The argument wrongly assumes that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is doing so solely for religious reasons and is in effect imposing his religious values on others. In other words, opposition to same-sex marriage is deemed to be rooted in bigotry. This ignores the fact that religious people who oppose gay marriage generally do so not solely on the basis of religion, but also on the basis of reason. For example, a statement issued by John Paul II on June 3, 2003, makes the following point:
"Homosexual unions are ... lacking in the biological and anthropological elements ... which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race."
Far from being opposed, faith and reason support each other. This being said, there is a deeper flaw in the bigotry argument. It is the claim that, in these matters, only people who do not take their cue from God can truly argue in reason. People who think like the editor of Slate magazine, i.e. the bulk of academia and the media, think that the litmus test of "reason and open-mindedness" is complete divorce from any religious faith. This is the secular humanist view of the world, one in which there is no God, the world of the spirit does not exist, and man is a mere animal--a sophisticated chimpanzee. People who adopt this view are free to do so. However, they must realize that their choice gives them no claim to some kind of intellectual or moral superiority vis-a-vis people who profess a religious faith.
Secular humanism is itself a system of beliefs, just like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, and no less dogmatic than the latter. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 declared that "religious humanists" believe the universe to be "self-existing and not created", that "man is a part of nature, and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process." An updated version published in 1973 reiterates these ideas and states that "moral values derive their source from human experience."
These ideas are simply taken for granted and never proven. For humanists to claim they only are "crippled by reason and open-mindedness" is thus pure arrogance. Indeed, it is a case of religious intolerance.
Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration should read what leading secular humanists have been saying in recent years. I recommend an article by Robert Reich, a senior member of the Clinton administration, who lately argued that
"the great conflict of the 21st century will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists ... between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance ... to a higher authority; ... between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma." (3)
This statement displays as much ignorance as it does arrogance. If Reich had his facts straight, he would know that many great scientists also believe in a personal God. He would also know that allegiance to a higher authority, far from diminishing respect for the individual, enhances it.
THE BROADER RELIGIOUS WAR
It would be nice to stop here and conclude that the arguments about same-sex marriage are rooted in a secular humanist tradition whose claim to intellectual and moral superiority is demonstrably unfounded. But, unfortunately, the story does not end here. What we are up against is not just phony arguments but a vast strategy of deception. The debate on marriage is part of a broader religious war. And Christians need be made aware of this lest they soon find themselves stripped of their religious rights.
Gay strategy
The issue of gay "marriage" has come about because the homosexual lobby has a strategy. In 1990, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen published a book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, setting out how the gay movement should go about achieving its objectives. In an article entitled The Overhauling of Straight America, Kirk summarized the strategy as follows:
{We} can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.... Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices; but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.
Myth 1
Science and Public Opinion: these are the tools that the homosexual lobby pretends it has been using to advance its agenda. But again, that claim simply does not square with the facts. The evidence provided in support of gay marriage has been shown to be phony. For example, gay activists tried for years to propagate the idea that they represent 10 percent of the population. They invoked "scientific research" done by the great guru of the Sexual Revolution, Alfred Kinsey, to support that claim. Yet no reputable scientific survey has ever been able to duplicate Kinsey's findings. And it is now generally acknowledged that his number was widely inflated. See One, not ten, percent claims to be homosexual, C.I., World Report, Jan. 2005, pp. 39-40. For Kinsey, see article Talking about sex, Kinsey style, C.I. Jan. 2005, pp. 16-17. (4)
Myth 2
The other myth propagated by the homosexual lobby and the media to legitimize gay marriage is that people are born with their sexual orientation. Yet no one in the medical community subscribes to this view. How could it be otherwise? If homosexuality were generic, evolutionary science suggests that it would have died out. A survey of the literature on this issue indicates that research has yet to find any "gay gene." (5)
Interestingly, there is one thing that the literature does show clearly, although it is hardly ever acknowledged by the homosexual lobby or the media: many people have changed from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation with and without therapy. (6) The complicity of silence on this matter is simply astounding.
The contraceptive mentality: source of decay
What the foregoing suggests is that:
* arguments in support of same-sex "marriage" are intellectually unsustainable; and
* the push for same-sex "marriage" is part of a wider agenda based on junk science aimed at eradicating any remnant of Christian culture.
But we must now ask ourselves why phony arguments and, more generally, the gay strategy, have succeeded in making such an impact on our Western societies. Is it merely because of a lack of understanding of what the gay agenda entails?
The problem we face, unfortunately, is not just an intellectual one. It is rooted in the heart. As mentioned earlier, the inequity argument in support of same-sex "marriage" is refuted by marriage's ordering to procreation. However, this refutation ignores a major point: the link between marriage and procreation has long been severed by the widespread use of contraception. When a married couple resorts to contraception, it willfully separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act, where God ordained that they be always united. Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, taught that every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.
That teaching, although upheld and developed by John Paul II, has gone largely unheeded by both Catholics and Protestants over the past 50 years. Consequently, it would be a serious mistake to assume that the issue of same-sex "marriage" is merely judicial. It is most emphatically cultural and religious. By allowing contraception to become a basic feature of modern life, we have made the legalization of same-sex "marriage" very difficult to oppose. (It must be mentioned here that contraceptive methods do not include partial abstinence, which is based on a woman's natural biological cycle.)
Contraception implies that it is up to spouses only to determine whether and when the conjugal act will have any relation to procreation. And if that is the case, why should sex be reserved for marriage? And why should marriage be permanent? And why limit marriage to heterosexual couples? It is no wonder that, shortly after the introduction of the contraceptive pill in the 1960s, cohabitation began to compete with marriage and the rate of divorce skyrocketed.
What this means is that same-sex "marriage" is only the latest assault on an institution that has been beleaguered for quite some time. The first attack was triggered by the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 where contraception was declared permissible. Since then, marriage has had to face a constant onslaught from the media and trendy theologians who refuse to uphold Church teaching. If legislated, same-sex "marriage" may well bring about the end to marriage as a social institution. But that would only be because marriage was already undergoing a slow death. Same-sex "marriage" would merely be a coup de grace.
Moral decay requires a natural law strategy
The upshot is that marriage must be rescued, not only from same-sex "marriage", but from a deeply-entrenched moral decay of which same-sex "marriage" is but a symptom. Same-sex "marriage" will not cause the degeneration of marriage: it is its outgrowth. If we want to re-establish the beauty and value of marriage, fighting the homosexual lobby will not suffice. The most important thing is to reaffirm the link between marriage and procreation. And that means fighting the contraceptive mentality. For every petition we sign opposing same-sex "marriage," we should also sign one asking our clergy to propagate and explain the Church's teaching on contraception. The Pope has laid out the theological foundations of that teaching in 129 general audience addresses between 1979 and 1984. It is referred to as John Paul II's theology of the body and it has the power to reshape our entire thinking about human sexuality.
But teaching is not enough. For a new understanding of sexuality, marriage and the family to come about, there must also be couples who are ready to take up the challenge of a true Christian marriage. John Paul II's call to re-evangelize the culture is first and foremost a call for lay people to live fully the demands of the Gospel in family and professional life. Since the Council of Vatican II, we tend to associate the renewal of the Church with a rethinking of doctrine or liturgical practices. That is not what Vatican II was about. Rather, it was about the fact that not only priests and religious but all baptized people, whether living in the world or in the cloister, are called upon to sanctify themselves. The specific task of lay Christians is to sanctify temporal affairs, which for most of us means sanctifying family life and our professional work.
Needed: young rebels
What the Church needs nowadays is not more participation of lay people in its administrative apparatus. What it needs is a new kind of counter-revolutionary group of young men and women who are courageous enough to confront the culture of death inherited from the Sexual Revolution launched in the 1960s. Young people willing to testify to the truth of its teaching about sanctification through family and professional life. Can there be anything more exciting and challenging than to bring into the world beings endowed with eternal life?
What the foregoing suggests is that three things are necessary to ensure a minimum of sanity in modern society:
* as protector of the common good, the State must maintain the traditional definition of marriage and conform its laws to the natural law;
* as teacher of souls, the Church must put greater emphasis on its traditional teaching regarding contraception and divorce; and
* as members of the Church and of society, ordinary lay people must live up to the requirements of a true conjugal life.
End notes
(1) By a woman resident of Russia, The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly (July 1926), as quoted in: Dr. Allan C. Carlson, Marriage on Trial. Why We Must Privilege and Burden the Traditional Marriage Bond, Family Research Council, Family Policy Papers, November 23, 2004.
(2) The study is available at: http://ipsapp003.lwwonline.com/content/getfile/13/1073/12/abstract.htm).
(3) Robert Reich, Bush's God, American Prospect Magazine, June 17th 2004.
(4) For a thorough analysis of the number of homosexuals in the population at large, see : Sprigg, Peter and Dailey, Timothy,Getting It Straight--What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, Family Research Council, Washington D.C. 2001.
(5) McGuire, T. (1995) Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions, in Journal of Homosexuality, 28, --: 115-145.
