|
|
| Homosexual Marriage: An Idea At War with Itself |
Posted: 07/13/2006
Homosexual Marriage: An Idea At War with Itself
By Chuck Edwards
Much ink has spilled regarding whether two homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry each other. And while the debate is multi-faceted, the ultimate concern comes down to one question: "What is sex?" Not "sex" meaning intercourse, but sex as in gender.
Those endorsing gay marriage have an underlying assumption about gender. Whether they express it in these terms or not, the assumption is that gender is a thing to be molded according to personal preference. Therefore, what matters most is how one feels about his maleness or her femaleness, regardless of one’s gender. That's why we find a coalition among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered.
Yet nature tells a different story. Gender naturally comes in two discrete kinds and this arrangement ultimately serves a specific purpose: procreation. Thus, gender is the reality built into our bodies as male and female.[1]
And when it comes to gender, form determines function.
It cannot be denied—no matter how much it may be distained, degraded, abused, or ignored—the fact remains that a male and a female are necessary to ensure the survival of our species. And that is why successful societies have sought ways to encourage and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Without such social protection, barbarism results.
To propose any other kind of sexual union is to disregard natural reality. And trying to fool nature is a fool’s game. For example, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases is rampant across the gay-male community. This statistic is a direct result of not only the numerous sexual partners gays experience, but also because of the extremely unhealthy kinds of sexual acts most gay men engage in. In addition, every study to date verifies that children are best cared for and raised in families comprised of a mother and father.[2]
Other concerns miss the point. For instance, the issue is not "sexual orientation"—nature knows no such arrangement. Contrary to news headlines, studies claiming a biological origin of homosexuality, on closer inspection, are found to be flawed on various levels. Yet these peer-reviewed critiques are seldom, if ever, reported to the public.[3]
Neither is the debate over legal "rights"—rights reside in human beings, not human preferences. Besides, marriage is a legal right that already is extended to every person, but not to every preference. Someone may prefer to marry his sister, but this is not a legal right because it is not morally right. It is wrong because it contradicts nature’s law.
Homosexual marriage is not even about "tolerance." Tolerance turns out to cut both ways, and since neither side of the debate tolerates the other’s views, appealing to tolerance offers no help in deciding who is right.
Because of the natural pairing of opposite sexes, we should stop pretending that gender doesn’t matter and start reaching out with compassion to individuals who experience same-sex attraction. Those who find it difficult to integrate their sexual feelings with their physical selves need wise counsel, not state sanction. In fact, as thousands of former homosexuals attest, reorienting their sexual desires brings emotional, psychological, social, spiritual, and sexual wholeness that comes with affirming one’s true sexual identity.[4]
We find, then, the need to recenter the discussion concerning gay marriage. Nature compels us to acknowledge that homosexual "marriage" is an idea at war with itself. What is intriguing is why so many of us are afraid to admit the obvious.
[1] I realize that an extremely small percentage of babies are born hermaphrodites, having both male and female sexual organs, with a slightly larger percentage having less extreme traits of "intersexuality." These abnormalities do not discredit the point I am making in this brief article.
[2] The Case For Marriage, by Maggie Gallagher, provides research and statistics on why children need both a mother and a father as the best arrangement for developing into healthy, happy adults. Gallagher’s website is www.marriagedebate.com
[3] See the article, "In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.
[4] For more information, see Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and gays at www.pfox.org.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Read and post feedback
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
1811 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
E-mail this article to a friend |
Return to home
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage: An Idea At War with Itself
| Posted On: 07/21/06 10:04:10 AM |
Age 57, UK |
Yes chuck you are right, but if I may be more plain, to me the issue is this. The male does not have a natural receptacle for another male's penis - thus something must be abused. Abused means improperly used. Marriage is a "union" and, scripturally the "two become one flesh" Thus homosexuality is abuse of the body and cannot be explained away or justified as anything other than sin. Ever. Though we all struggle with sin, even after (if not more so after) being saved, we don't try to justify it, but to repent.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage: An Idea At War with Itself
| Posted On: 07/15/06 06:48:35 AM |
Age 52, FL |
Well done article, Chuck.
A minor typo: "...no matter how much it may be distained, degraded..." - the word is, of course, disdained.
I particularly liked two or three points you made that don't ordinarily get into the debate.
You did a superb job of dismissing tolerance as a justification for destroying society - both sides find the other's position intolerable, so without the moral high ground, that's a stalemate. The matter to be determined, then, is "Who has the high ground?"
Toward that end, I've always appealed, as you do here, to the argument from reality. Boys and girls pair off nicely, and no other combination works. It's so obvious it's almost silly.
As you point out, rights inhere in people, and one specific rebuttal to the pro-sin position that should frequently be made is it's not a civil rights issue. You refer to this tangentially, and very effectively, with the reductio ad absurdum illustrated by incest, and your characterizing it as preference makes clear that when, for example, the comparison is attempted to the civil rights movement, it should be immediately countered that unlike being of, say, African descent, no one is of homosexual descent. Think about that - especially when the argument turns to some presumed hereditary basis for the preference.
Finally, in footnote [1] you conclude that hermaphrodicity is not fatal to your argument, which is true. But rather than simply state that, it may be helpful to point out that such abnormalities actually bolster your case in that it is apparant that they are a mistake - odd, dysfunctional, clearly wrong and in need of correction, not, as the queers might have it, a vindication of their premise that their choice is also reflected in nature.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
