Monday, June 29, 2009

"Gay pride" parade can't redefine marriage

Chicago's Gay Pride Parade dazzles - Chicago Breaking News
You want to live with your same-sex partner? Fine, go ahead. The law should not infringe upon your rights to pick your friends and those you live with. You claim to be gay? Who asked?

Parade or no parade... marriage by its nature is heterosexual. Homosexual relationships are not equipped by nature for producing either children or parents. Does this mean that gays should be treated as less than full citizens? Of course not, but it does mean that heterosexual marriage produces vital and necessary benefits that society has a just and legitimate interest to protect.

This is why traditional heterosexual marriage should be defended, and why not every partnership should be considered equivalent to marriage. Certain restrictions are necessary to protect both individuals and society.

You can't marry a 5-year old. You can't marry three people simultaneously. You can't marry someone who's already legally married, or your daughter, brother, or mother. You can't marry a person who is unable or unwilling to give free consent. You can't marry a dead person, or one who isn't yet born, or a squirrel or a tree. And you can't marry a person of the same sex.

For the good of society marriage should not be redefined to satisfy the demands of any interest group. And the law should make no attempt to recognize as "marriage" any relationship that is not between one woman and one man.


  1. I understand your argument. I will point out some points that I see as flawed.

    "Homosexual relationships are not equipped to by nature for producing either children or parents," you say.

    By your estimation, straight marriage is meant soley for procreation--to carry on society.

    Does this mean that straight people over a certain age--beyond the age allowing them to produce offspring--should be banned from showing their commitment and love for each other by getting married.

    Further, do infertile straight people also deserve to be discriminated against and not allowed to enter into a marriage.

    After all, those two groups of people certainly will not produce children.

    What about consenting adults--straight adults--who enter into marriage with the intention of NOT having children?

    If your argument is that marriage either must produce or have the ability to produce a child is a bit absurd.

    Also, parents come in all shapes and functions. Many straight people who biologically produce their children some times are not the best equipped to raise those children.

    A child is best raised by a stable adult--or more than one stable adult--who shows that child love, respect and stability. Gay citizens can do that just as well as straight.

    You're correct with your assertion that marriage makes a society stronger.

    It not only provides individuals with some heightened security in their partnership but it acts as a bond that isn't as easily broken as a simple "break up" in a relationship outside the context of marriage.

    So, why NOT allow marriage for two consenting adults--no matter their gender?

    What gay pride shows society is that people should not hide who they are. It shows that the gay community is just as diverse as those in other communities.

    It shows that we all have more in common with one another than we have different.

    We all want love. We all want acceptance. We all want to be able to serve our country in the best way possible.

    Anything less than marriage equality marginalizes people and makes for a less productive society.

  2. Jeff, thanks for Your polite and serious comments.

    You wrote, "By your estimation, straight marriage is meant soley for procreation--to carry on society."

    No, actually I didn't say that procreation is the only purpose of marriage. I said that marriage is equipped by nature for procreation, and that tells us a lot about the nature of marriage. Certainly not every heterosexual couple has the ability to reproduce, but I didn't state that the validity of every marriage depends upon producing children... only that marriage itself is naturally equipped to enable procreation. Homosexual relations, by contrast, are intrinsically infertile. This does not prove but does strongly suggest that marriage, by nature a permanent, two-person partnership capable of producing and raising children- is inherently a heterosexual enterprise, and no law can change that objective reality.

    As far as a couple that enters marriage with the positive intention of never having children, my belief -consistent with my Catholic faith- is that this intention renders the marriage invalid, as openness to the possibility of children is a precondition for a valid sacramental marriage. Obviously this isn't the view of the law in this country, and my other comments here are purely in the context of marriage as recognized by the law.

    You wrote, "So, why NOT allow marriage for two consenting adults--no matter their gender?"

    Your question assumes that "marriage" is something that man can redefine, or should attempt to change by law. That's not the case. Again, marriage is something so intrinsic to human biology, human nature, and human culture as to be beyond man's power to change. Can such a law be passed? Certainly. Should it? Absolutely not, any more than slavery should be legalized, or old people should be euthanized. Such laws violate the nature of man, and are unjust and harmful laws.


Thanks for Your comments! (Comments are moderated and usually approved the same day.)