May 11, 2004

Homosexual MarriageAn Idea at War with Itself

Much ink has spilled regarding whether homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry. And while the debate is multi-faceted, the ultimate concern can be expressed in 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.

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.[2]

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.[3]

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.
  2. See the article, "In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak about Science, Morality, Philosophy," accessed 04/16/2004.
  3. For more information, see Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays.

Start a discussion

Commenting is not available in this section entry.