The Argument Against Homosexual Marriage - Part
2
In this short series, we're looking at answering the challenges
brought forth by the homosexual community and others in their quest
to offer homosexual marriage as a legitimate alternative to the
traditional joining of a man and a woman. Our last article examined
two specific arguments showing why the concept of homosexual
marriage makes no sense. We answered the charge that marriage is
merely a legal convention and demonstrated how all cultures need to
promote and cultivate the joining of the two sexes in a monogamous
union in order to survive and flourish. We then turned and examined
the very meaning of the word marriage and how it is understood
universally to mean only the union of a man and a woman, not two
people of the same sex. (If you missed this article, you may read it
online at http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/feb04.htm)
In this installment, I'd like to look at two more arguments
showing why homosexual marriage is a dangerous precedent for any
society to set. We'll demonstrate how homosexuals by their actions
and stated desires want to nullify the concept of marriage as a
lifetime monogamous commitment. Next, we'll look at whether the
government guarantees people the right to marry whomever they want.
3. The Behavioral Argument Against Homosexual Marriage
The cultural and linguistic arguments against homosexual marriage
are incredibly strong, but there are those who still persist in
advancing the concept of same sex marriage. They share the opinion
of Chip Arndt and Reichen Lehmkuhl, the self-proclaimed
"married" homosexual couple who won CBS' game show The
Amazing Race. Arndt noted the Oxford dictionary definition of
marriage encompasses only a man and a woman. He then commented,
"What's happening today, which has always happened through any
revolution of culture, is that people redefine words. And we're
basically saying-
Reichen: It's time to redefine.
Chip: It's time to redefine it."1
Now we've already demonstrated that heterosexual marriage is
necessary to survival of a culture and how the concept of marriage
as we now understand it is incompatible with same sex unions. What
many don't realize is many in the homosexual community who do want
to redefine marriage intend to change the concept well beyond the
boundaries of which sexes are involved.
Even today, looking at homosexual couples who identify themselves
as monogamous or committed, one finds a modification of those
concepts. In the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology,
scientists studying homosexual relationships noted "Gay
monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. 'Monogamous' seems to
imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues
on the side."2
Another study of homosexual partnerships was conducted by German
"Sexologist" and homosexual Dr. Martin Dannecker. In 1991,
Dannecker studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in what they
defined as "steady relationships". However, Dannecker
found that 83% of those males had numerous sexual encounters outside
their partnerships over a one-year period. Dannecker then concluded
that the "clear differences in the manner of sexual
gratification" between single and non-single gay men were the
reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady
relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual
contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In Contrast,
single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts.3
Such a radical departure from the concept of two people entering
into a lifetime commitment is both shocking and dangerous.
Promiscuity is understood as a high-risk behavior carrying dire
consequences, not the least of which are health related. In fact, an
upscale homosexual men's magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in
October of 1996. Here are some of the results: "One of the
single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an
increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." 52% have
had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex.
42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim
between 40 to 100 partners.4
Of course there are those who want to do away with the concept of
marriage being a union between two individuals altogether. In a
recent Los Angeles Times article the head of the International Gay
& Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Paula Ettelbrick, was
interviewed and asked about her views on the same-sex marriage
controversy. Ettelbrick, who is also a law professor,
"recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives,
including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a
lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men
and women who share sexual relations."5 The article goes on
to discuss how one of her goals, in Ettelbrick's words, is to
"push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the
process transform the very fabric of society."6 Such changes
to the concept of marriage do nothing to alleviate the high-risk
behavior in which homosexuals engage and, according to Dannecker's
study, may actually enflame such behaviors.
4. The Political Argument Against Homosexual Marriage
Ultimately, it becomes important to understand why marriage is
encouraged within the laws of the United States. As stated last
month, the marriage relationship is seen as so necessary that
"every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively".7
This means that the welfare of the society depends on the active
encouragement of monogamous heterosexual unions. When understood
this way, one can make a case that the U.S. constitution requires
the definition of marriage to remain as it now stands.
First, we must understand that homosexuals are not being denied
equal rights to marry whomever they want. The restrictions regarding
marriage are enforced equally to both the heterosexual and
homosexual population. For example, neither homosexuals nor
heterosexuals can marry a sibling. In the same way, no one can marry
someone of the same sex - that proscription applies to all citizens
equally and is therefore not discriminatory.
So, why does the government restrict marriage at all? The opening
paragraph of the U.S. constitution is known as the Preamble, and it
sets forth the overarching principles of what the document is
designed to accomplish. It reads "We, the People of the United
States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this
constitution of the United States of America."8
Note that the writers explicitly state its purpose is to promote
the general welfare for the people of the United States and their
posterity. But we've demonstrated that homosexual marriage is in
conflict with this. It wouldn't promote the general welfare of the
society - it would hinder that process! Therefore, it does not make
sense to say homosexual marriage is a constitutional freedom. How
can we usurp this foundational intent of the framers that's
explicitly stated in the constitution itself with something that is
nowhere mentioned as a right?
Philosopher Francis Beckwith, in his article "Wedding Bell
Blues; Understanding the Same-Sex Marriage Debate" sums it up
thusly, "Since marriage is an intrinsic good, just as justice
is an intrinsic good, a culture that does not nourish, encourage,
and protect traditional marriage will do so at its own peril, just
as it would imperil itself if it no longer understood justice as an
intrinsic good. … Republican (small "r") government
results from good citizens civilized by the institutions of family,
honest work, and good religion. If, to quote Aristotle, statecraft
is soulcraft, then the end of the state should be to produce good
citizens and therefore provide a privileged and protected position
for these institutions. The state, consequently, should treat
traditional marriage as privileged and protected in contrast to
other alternatives."9
Beckwith states that the purpose of government really defines its
role regarding marriage. If the state is interested in making good
citizens and promoting the good, then marriage must be protected as
a heterosexual union. He continues "On the other hand, a state
that treats all alternative lifestyles as equal does not believe
that statecraft is soulcraft and is therefore not particularly
interested in producing good citizens qualified to engage in
republican government. Such a state denies there is any such thing
as the good, the true, or the beautiful."10 The founding
fathers have demonstrated that the government of the United States
was formed for a higher purpose, that qualities such as establishing
justice, promoting the welfare of the people and ensuring that their
posterity also enjoyed those assurances. Since homosexual marriage
endangers society in real ways and is antithetical to those ends it
cannot be considered constitutionally protected. It does, in fact,
undermine the intent of the constitution itself.
In the two points above, we've looked at two strong reasons why
speaking about homosexual marriage makes no sense. Let me know if
you agree or disagree with these points. Write us at newsletter@comereason.org.
Next time we'll wrap up this series by looking at one more point
- the question of where it can be claimed legitimately that
homosexual marriage is wrong on moral grounds. I hope you join us then.
. |
