PHNix Network Advocate

(Warning: this post mentions certain mature — even disgusting — concepts. It is not intended for young readers)

The proponents of same-sex marriage want to change a revered institution to accommodate the sexual preference (or alleged “rights” or sexual orientation) of certain groups. These groups often include lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transexuals (sometimes referred to as the LGBT sector). Now while that may sound very inclusive and tolerant, their advocacy is actually based on faulty logic that will eventually lead to disaster.

Many people assume that because the institution marriage involves a relationship between a man and a woman (and with God as Witness and Judge as Christians believe), then it must also be based on sexual preference: the distinctly heterosexual preference of the majority. That is not exactly the case.

God’s created reality as the basis of marriage

It is true that marriage — especially Christian marriage — is a monogamous heterosexual union. But the sexual preference of the human participants alone is NOT its basis. If it were, then it would be subject to change at any time, subject to the whims of any of the contracting parties. But marriage is supposed to be far more stable and permanent than that.

The truth of the matter is that the heterosexual orientation of marriage comes about because of something far more basic: the natural, biological reality that God created.

The purpose of marriage is to bring about the union of persons in a relationship that allows them to beget children and to raise them in a loving, nurturing environment: the family. Marriage, therefore, recognizes the simple biological reality in God’s design: that natural reproduction and nurturing of offspring is essential for the continued survival of the human race.

This reality cannot be changed. Non-heterosexual unions cannot beget children. Even science, for all its advances, still cannot effectively replace natural reproduction (if it tried to, the world would de-populate very quickly). And even if it could, this does not change the original basis of marriage nor nullify its validity. It is still an institution based upon a biolgical imperative that is part of God’s created reality.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

Well, so what if marriage recognizes this biological reality? Why not change marriage to accommodate a different set of sexual preferences (or “rights” or sexual orientation) anyway, since these are held by a minority group? What would be the consequences of this logic?

Well, obviously if the sexual preferences (or “rights” or sexual orientation) of the LGBT groups are to be accommodated, then what do we do about those of other groups? If we allow same-sex marriages, then what about catering to the desires of pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? What about incestuous marriages? What about casual marriages for those who prefer temporary relationships? What about polygamy for those who want more than one partner? What about making room for those who prefer sickening sadomasochism? What about forced marriages for those who are into extreme domination? What about…?

At this point the problem should be evident. If we tinker with marriage to accommodate the sexual preferences (or, again, “rights” or sexual orientation) of one group, then why not modify it to accommodate those of all (or most) of the other groups as well? Why not make it cater to every gross sexual perversion under the sun?

The logic that allows same-sex marriage is the same logic that allows any and every kind of “marriage”. It is absurd on the face of it. Exposing this absurdity also makes for a compelling counter argument against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is not simply a human institution. It is a divinely ordained institution. As such, it logically respects the natural design of God’s creation. The “modified” versions of marriage that other groups want to implement do not respect that design and will rapidly lead to moral, biological, medical, and economic disaster.

God did it right the first time. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Some Resources:

Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage
Beyond Gay Marriage (another view of essentially the same argument although purely secular and not orthodox Catholic or Christian). An excerpt:

Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician.

None of this is well known. Both the media and public spokesmen for the gay marriage movement treat the issue as an unproblematic advance for civil rights. True, a small number of relatively conservative gay spokesmen do consider the social effects of gay matrimony, insisting that they will be beneficent, that homosexual unions will become more stable. Yet another faction of gay rights advocates actually favors gay marriage as a step toward the abolition of marriage itself. This group agrees that there is a slippery slope, and wants to hasten the slide down.

…

There is a rational basis for blocking both gay marriage and polygamy, and it does not depend upon a vague or religiously based disapproval of homosexuality or polygamy. Children need the stable family environment provided by marriage. In our individualist Western society, marriage must be companionate — and therefore monogamous. Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself, and by gay marriage’s ushering in of polygamy and polyamory.