jump to navigation

The Absurdity of Same-Sex Marriage August 16, 2007

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , ,

(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.

Update to this post (1)

It would seem that trends over the past decade should give us reason to worry. Just as more Americans have come to accept same-sex marriage, there also seems to be some move to normalize pedophilia! Homosexuality was once considered a psychological disorder, but the American Psychiatric Association (APA) changed that long ago. Now, the APA has changed the definition pedophilia, which theoretically leaves room for a “normal pedophile”. The report, “The Problem of Pedophilia“, is very disturbing, to say the least. It notes:

The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.

This latest article appears in the A.P.A.’s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.

The authors of the article propose that psychologists stop using judgmental terms like “child abuse,” “molestation,” and “victims,” using instead neutral, value-free terms like “adult-child sex.” Similarly, they say we should not talk about the “the severity of the abuse,” but instead refer to “the level of sexual intimacy.

The authors conclude that behavior which psychotherapists commonly term “abuse” may only constitute a violation of social norms. And science, they say, should separate itself from social-moral terminology. Religion and society, these writers argue, are free to judge behavior as they wish…but psychiatry should evaluate behavior by its own set of standards.

In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be “abuse” if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.

Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM–IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the “psychologically normal” pedophile.

If we accept same-sex marriage, can acceptance of pedophile relationships be far behind?



1. northwolf - November 14, 2008

I grew up in an academic environment that was very tolerant and accepting of homosexuals (and ironically, this school is a Catholic one). My stand on homosexuality is that we cannot begrudge those who fall in love with those of the same sex, nor can we chastise them for wanting to be in a loving and healthy relationship with those that they love.

That being said, however, I am however, on the viewpoint that the sanctity of marriage as both a Christian and secular concept, should be protected. Marriage should only be reserved between a man and a woman.

I have long held exactly the same viewpoint as you do… I am happy when my gay friends find someone that they love and enter into a relationship with. More blessings to their union! Unfortunately, they must respect the fact that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. To allow otherwise, precisely as you argue, would open the floodgates for a dangerous precedent of even less orthodox unions, such as polyamory or polygamy.

The LGBF community shoulders a heavy burden in not being allowed to enter into marriage. But such is life, it is full of burdens.

2. Maddog - November 14, 2008

Thanks for your very charitable comment, Janjan. I think a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church would make a great companion for your comment, so I’m putting it here.

(By the way, I must say I was surprised by the… uh… suit in your avatar!)

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

140 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; ⇒ 1 Cor 6:10; ⇒ 1 Tim 1:10.
141 CDF, Persona humana 8.

3. beetlebabee - December 5, 2008

I’ve been following quite a few NARTH articles lately since proposition 8 came roaring through, knocking me off my complacency plateau.

Homophobia. Ever wonder where that ubiquitously nifty word that doubles as a spiked club actually came from? Scientists? Medical Doctors? English Majors? Nope. Activists! Convenient isn’t it? I’m learning so much.

It’s amazing to me that the APA could have been pressured to change medical practices because of peer pressure. Aren’t psychologists supposed to be immune from something as obvious as peer pressure?


4. Maddog - June 4, 2009

Here’s a related article:

Love isn’t enough

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: