Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Philosophical Objections to Gay Marriage

The topic of gay marriage is a divisive subject, in large part because it is constantly coupled with religious overtones. However, gay marriage is not at its heart a religious issue; rather, it is a philosophical one. It is a faulty modern philosophy of love which allows society to even consider the possibility of gay marriage; the same flawed philosophy which has previously justified other sexual perversions such as divorce, adultery, and pornography.
Love, in its romantic sense (eros), must be a full expression of unity between a man and a woman, because the differences between man and woman are united by the completion of the human person. Men share specific characteristics with all other men, and women share specific characteristics with all other women. It is only when man and woman come together that a true exploration of the human person is possible. Thus, homosexual relationships cannot fully explore the totality of the human person, rendering love impossible.
Two points about love must be made. Romantic love is not simply a feeling of mutual attraction, as many moderns argue. Love is and must be a total outpouring from both individuals in a relationship to each other. If anything is held back, love between two partners cannot exist. Also, love cannot be felt for a time and then discarded. One who completely bares their soul to another (the physical aspect of which is the act of sexual union) cannot then take that revelation back. Love requires constant commitment, and demands the constant revelation of both partners to each other.
If either of these two aspects is not present, love cannot exist. What makes marriage special if it is nothing more than a formal legitimization of mere erotic attraction?
This is why divorce, adultery, and other forms of sexual deviancy are perversions of love. Divorce intimates that two people can share everything for a time, but they can break their relationship off and enter into total intimacy with another. Adultery signifies that it is possible to give oneself totally to more than one person. Similarly, gay marriage intimates that it is possible both to have an intimate connection with someone who one cannot experience the completeness of humanity.
Proponents of gay marriage often claim that since marriage is already treated casually by society, that marriage is not further harmed by the adoption of homosexual marriage. This statement is dangerously inaccurate. Fifty years ago, divorce was not rampant, it would have been unthinkable to kill a child who had survived an abortion, and gay marriage was abhorred.
We do not know what people will believe is acceptable fifty years from now. But we do know that gay marriage takes us further down a dark path, just as divorce, adultery, contraception took society did in previous eras. That path will lead to the eventual acceptance of now-unthinkable concepts that reflect similar misunderstandings of love and marriage.

1 comment:

  1. Wow. Excellent post. Given the USA's prohibition against congress establishing religion (and the subsequent general belief that there must be a "separation of church and state"), the only arguments about same-sex "marriage" that are considered valid arguments are those that can be made without any consideration given to specifically religious precepts.


Rules for Posting Comments:
1)All commentary is to be respectful.
2)Foul language/crude commentary is prohibited.
3)Use proper punctuation and capitalization.
4)Keep all posts in understandable English.
5)Refrain from personal/ad hominem attacks.
6) Sarcasm, humor, and witty commentary are welcomed.
All posts that violate these rules will be removed.
And the most important rule:
7) All posts are to reflect a spirit of Christian charity.