Ask a Question
Why gay marriage is a self-contradiction
Peter Reynolds is a senior, majoring in philosophy and government at Georgetown University, Washington DC
As I gaze out of my window at Georgetown University, I see a tree, and in that tree I see the order of creation, imprinted with the mark of its imaginative Creator. Then my mind turns to mankind in the twenty-first century and how out of touch with order we have become.
In the beginning, God created them male and female, male and female he created them. So speaks the book of Genesis (Gen 1:27). Men and women are different. Physically, emotionally, psychologically they are different! The concept is difficult to understand in contemporary academia, where we find ourselves buried in our books, transcending new heights of brilliance. But before we geniuses fly to such heights of erudite knowledge, please let's understand the basics first. Come back down to earth.
Marriage, since the genesis of man, has been the institutional building block of society. The word carries power. Webster defines it as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."
The dual purpose of marriage is unitive and procreative. It provides a structure for raising children. The state cannot survive without the reproduction of the people. More importantly, the state will not be healthy without healthy citizens. And so, the family provides a most essential function for the state. A strong mother and a strong father equal a strong child, who will one day be a strong citizen. It is the recipe for good citizens
Two women can't make a child; two men can't make a child. A "gay family" is a higgledy-piggledy family. It's a misnomer, a sterile misappropriation.
The child's conception should link male and female together like superglue, forever changing them. They become responsible for each other and the baby; and they become a new and unique productive unit in the state. The parents now exercise indispensable roles in the new family. Beyond the obvious biological differences, they influence the child in different ways. The woman/mother provides the potency of her femininity, while the man/father provides the potency of his masculinity. Neither is more important, they are both vital and dynamically complementary in influencing the development of the child.
The family recipe of a mother, father, and child is as old as civilisation. It has withstood the test of time. Tradition must be changed when it fails or becomes antiquated. Marriage has done neither. The institution always strengthened the state through its product, namely citizens, and it continues to strengthen it today.
Disturbingly, deluded self-righteous romantics obsessed with propagating rights are posing a serious threat to this institution. Through their efforts to have state support for same-sex relationships, they have hijacked the potent word marriage.
The physical reality of the union in marriage is real. The male and the female really unite in a way that is impossible for members of the same sex. This sexual union is existential. You would not be reading this if it weren't for such a union.
In A Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, speaks of the fallacy of gay marriage: "What's at the heart of this fallacy? It's the idea that the real person isn't the physical, biological reality of you or me, the real person is the consciousness, which merely resides in a suit of flesh. The person isn't the flesh but the consciousness that resides in the flesh."
Basically, he means, the fallacy is that people refuse to recognise the substance of the person. They need to come back down to earth and see man's physical reality. The person is not only a mind or only a body; the person is a unity of body and mind.
The trouble is that the word "love" is being bandied about like a whore. Gay marriage activists cry that any two same-sex adults should have rights to marriage because their shared "love" is equal to any heterosexual "love." In essence, the union in marriage has been equated to love shared, and the whole physical reality of this love being shared has been jettisoned.
Along with that, the whole structural purpose of marriage, which is the founding and maintaining of a family, has been jettisoned. What really needs to be jettisoned though is the word "love" from the legislative arena in regards to marriage. The word's meaning is a mystery. There are many definitions. Most likely, the real definition is in proximity to all the definitions combined and yet even more profound.
The fact is that marriage, in relation to the state, serves as an ordering unit through which healthy citizens are bred. "Love" really is not the concern of the State. Whether gay marriage can possess real love is marginal. The crux of the issue is whether or not it serves society. Gay marriage does not because it cannot. It cannot be procreative. It cannot breed good citizens. It cannot provide a structured family unit. In truth, we cannot even call it "gay marriage." That would be like saying gay heterosexual union. "Gay marriage" is a contradictory phrase bespeaking unreasonableness.
If this were math, I would say, "one plus one equals two." And, indeed, it does because there is an order to all things; there is a law. There is a mathematical law and likewise there is a natural law, a law of reason through which man can understand his telos, his ultimate end, and the way he must live so as to fulfill it.
Here at Georgetown, the oldest Catholic university in America, relativism is all-pervasive. One continues to live in hope that at least some of its professors will teach that truth and teach that it is definite, objective, and timeless.
Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 18 No 1 (February 2005), p. 13
|AD2000 Home | Article Index | Bookstore | About Us | Subscribe | Contact Us | Links|
Page design and automation by
Umbria Associates Pty Ltd © 2001-2004