About Same Sex Marriage

Before I begin this writing, I will clearly state what I do NOT defend.

 

First, I do not defend or advocate for any people who make fun of people with same sex attractions. Everybody has dignity, made in God's likeness and image. Hence, I condemn this bigotry.

 

Second, I also do not defend any people who physically attack people who have same sex attractions, or people who arbitrarily prevent these brothers and sisters of ours getting jobs. This is gravely unjust, and I applaud people who condemn these kinds of actions.

 

Third, I do not defend the view that there is somehow something sinful about having same sex attractions per se. A person cannot be judged on something they cannot consciously control. A person can only be judged on their actions - it is acting out on those attractions that is the sin. But that is not, fundamentally the point of this essay.

 

In sum, I advocate wholeheartedly the Catholic view of the matter, that people with same sex attractions should be treated with sensitivity and respect, and unjust discrimination should be avoided.

 

The words today about same sex marriage is that it is the seeking of "Equality". However, as I will argue, it is only fair to treat equal, "same" things equally. The thing is, same sex relationships, as I will point out, do not have the relevant sameness to opposite sex relationships to participate in the relationship of marriage. This is a just discrimination, given that the relationships, being fundamentally different cannot be called the same thing and treated the same. In this writing, I will show what the important difference is.

 

First thing to note is that every single one of us comes from the union of a man and a woman. Every child needs and mother and a father. This basic anthropological fact explains why marriage exists, it is, at its deepest level, about being a foundation for the family. The family is in principle, if not in practice, possible in the relationship between a man and a woman. However, this love is subordinate to the higher purpose of being the foundation for the family, and so, every human life.

 

If we accept the premises that we all come from the union between a man and a woman, and that is is very important that a child has both of his or her parents, than it follows that the relationship that ties children to their natural parents be protected. This is ultimately what marriage is all about - it is deeper than just love between two people. Instead, the love is for the core of the family, and so the core of society. The reason why marriage exists is to enshrine this vital relationship.

 

Same sex relationships, although many of them loving, cannot even in principle be the foundation for the natural family. It is a biological fact that such relationships are inherently sterile. Thus, in an important way they are not the same as opposite sex relationships. As a result, it is a mistake to treat them as the same in calling them both marriage. One aspect may well be there - love. However, one similarity does not make the relationships the same. While in opposite sex relationships, the possibility of the natural family is present, in same sex relationships, the opposite is the case. They are fundamentally different things. In this way, it is dishonest to call both relationships equivalent - because in this important way they are not.

 

I foresee some objections. Firstly, one may say "You say that marriage has the purpose of procreation and family. But what about infertile couples? Their unions are sterile. If this is so, why can't gays marry, given their relationships are also sterile?"

 

In response, I draw the distinction between something being possible in principle and possible in practice. Something being possible in principle means being possible in relation to the definition of the thing. Opposite sex relationships, by definition, male and female, have the possibility in principle of procreation and so, the natural family. The fact that there are some that do not live this out in practice - like infertile couples - does not change the fact that procreation is still possible in principle in these relationships. Between two men or two women, by contrast, the natural family cannot even in principle occur. Same sex relationships have no possibility whatsoever of natural procreation. So, they also cannot, even in principle, cannot take part in the relationship that is supposed to protect the natural family. Infertile couples, by contrast, at least have the procreative ability in principle, just sadly not in practice.

 

Second objection is to point out that people with same sex attractions are just as good parents as people who are heterosexual. One could possibly infer therefore, that gender is not relevant in the raising of children, and so same sex marriage is therefore licit.

 

I reply that yes, people with same sex attractions are just as able to love as those who have opposite sex attractions. But love in terms of affection is not the only thing that is important in a child's development. Instead, if love is willing the good of the other person, then it is reasonable to say that real love would not deny a child one of his or her parents. Single parent cases or adoption cases are making the best of a bad situation - there is no intent of a child losing any relationship with either of his or her parents in most of these situations. However, in the case of same sex relationships, a child is deliberately denied a mother or a father. This is unjust - an injustice that no amount of well-meaning love and affection can fix.

 

 I have argued briefly why same sex “marriage" is not about equality, given that such relationships are inherently different to opposite sex relationships. While opposite sex relationships can, at least in principle, be the source of life and the family (the reason why such relationships are enshrined in marriage the way they are), same sex relationships are not of this nature, not even in principle. They are not the same, and so it is a mistake to call them so equivalent. I do not deny that there is love in same sex relationships. But there are thousands of ways to love - one does not have to be married to love. Children need their mothers and their fathers and stable families - and marriage is the best means we have of attaining this ideal. Same sex relationships, as I have pointed out, cannot provide these things, and so, cannot honestly take part in the relationship of marriage.

 

In writing what I have, I am protecting marriage. Again, I reiterate my points made at the start of my essay - all unjust discrimination should be avoided - attacking, making fun of and the like. ALL people have inherent dignity. I am simply pointing out that we discriminate when there are relevant differences. We treat different things differently. As I have pointed out, same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships are inherently different, one having within itself the possibility of the natural family, the other never having this possibility. So, it is an injustice, indeed dishonest to call them equal and the same when they are not