Pages

Thursday, July 14, 2011

On Gay Marriage and Unicorns

It is difficult for me to motivate myself to speak about 'gay marriage.' The reasons for this are mostly detailed by Steven Greydanus' articles. To me 'gay marriage' is simply the latest logical conclusion of Western societies' warped view of marriage.

The current debate in political circles is if those with same-sex attraction should be allowed to 'marry.' Some are against the idea on the basis that marriage is between a man and a woman, not between those of the same sex. Others argue that same sex relationships are the same as those of opposite sex counterparts, and demand that the legal definition be 'redefined' to include same sex relationships (the exact nature of these relationships differs from group to group).

There is a third category on the issue however that does not get much notice on the issue. That marriage by nature (not legal definition) is a far older institution that the legal recognition of such. It is a natural institution, and by nature has certain properties that, as a result of the nature of the institution, exclude certain parings of relationships.

Marriage by nature is primarily for the purpose of raising children. The natural end of the sexual act is the generation of children. Half of a human's physiology is by nature geared toward reproduction. Yet at the same time that physiology is incomplete without a member of the opposite sex to complete it. When a man and woman come together in union then the system is complete and the possibility of children, while not guaranteed, is the natural goal of the union.

Gay 'marriage' then is by definition of the term a contradiction. It is a fiction in the mind of those who do not understand marriage itself. While this attempt to sever sexuality from children is not unique to the gay 'marriage' lobby (indeed it has been an issue for a century), it is unique in the nature of the expression. The gay lobby presents a view of marriage that is in direct opposition to the nature of the institution. It is in some sense the culmination of the line of thinking that severs sexuality from children.

But if this is true one may ask, "So what?" What does it matter that the concept of gay 'marriage' is in direct conflict with human nature? This is a question for a later post. I will leave with one thought, however. The last century was filled with systems created by governmental systems that attempted to redefine human nature. Ranging from Communism to Fascism, these systems attempted to impose by force a view of humanity that is radically different from actual human nature. The results are the record of history.

2 comments:

Nixon said...

It's only fair that stable gay relationships of long standing should have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. I know the image of gay marriage is to some people horrific and ludicrous.

Nixon
Wedding Theme

CatholicGuy said...

See, it would have been helpful to actually read the post. That way one could see that the actual definition of marriage excludes certain pairings of people, including pairings of the same sex.

Redefining marriage and then arguing that is pointless. The discussion is about the definition of marriage.