"Opposition to Same-Sex ‘Marriage:’ Why?

"
(Copyright 2010 by Richard Bonomo)

[N.B.: I was motivated to write this, initially as an op-ed piece, as I noted that most of
what I have seen written about this issue either misses the point, or simply engages in
name-calling.  This is an effort to both "get to the point" and raise the level of the public
discussion.  This is also available on Facebook.]

Observing and engaging in discussions about same-sex “marriage,” I am finding that

many people, even among those opposed to the concept (especially those in the legal
profession), tend to be “positivist” about the matter: they view marriage as a state-
regulated contract, and the ongoing argument principally about what is prudent or
socially desirable.

Those who favor the concept of same-sex “marriage” attempt to make this a church-
state issue, or attempt (and fail) to draw parallels between the preservation of the long-
standing definition of marriage and legal racial segregation.

These views, I think, all miss the primary objection of those of us who would dismiss the
concept of same-sex “marriage” as laughable, were there not such intense public
discussion of the idea, and a small but very vociferous section of the population
demanding that we accept and accommodate this concept.

The principal problem many of my fellow citizens and I have with same-sex “marriage”
is this: it simply is not possible.

Human male and female, of normal constitution, mate within a stable relationship with
the strong possibility of producing offspring in the natural way, for whom they, by nature,
have responsibility and over whom, they, also by nature, have authority. This reality
(true mating, usually with the possibility of offspring) is built into our very bodies.  This is
the essence and core of marriage. This is neither a social convention nor the product of
human genius.  The various and varied inventions surrounding and regulating marriage
(e.g. ceremony, laws, enforcement of stability and/or monogamy), which are the product
of human genius, are not of the essence nor defining of marriage. They are accessories
to the natural institution.  Civil and religious institutions can and do regulate the various
matters surrounding marriage, but they do not, and cannot, alter what it fundamentally
is.

NO two human males of normal constitution can truly mate with each other. NO two
human females of normal constitution can truly mate with each other. No simulated
mating of people of the same sex can ever produce offspring in the natural course of
things, for there is no natural mechanism for doing so.  There, therefore, cannot really
be a “marriage” between people of the same sex. Period.

For those of us who understand things in this way, the State attempting to define such a
thing in law and requiring institutions and individuals to act in accord with such a
definition would be very much like having the State declare that, henceforward, the term
“circle” will include four-,  seven-, and nine-sided geometric figures and demanding that
everyone adopt this convention.   At best, it would be linguistically confusing, and
certainly beyond the State’s power to accomplish, and beyond the State’s legitimate
power to attempt.

More seriously, the State attempting to define same-sex “marriage” would involve
coercing people into treating as “good” a particular set of behaviors that have long been
and are generally regarded as evil, independently of the state of civil law on the matter.
This has serious implications for legitimate liberty, individual and institutional.

Considering another aspect of the debate, if it can be graced with that terminology
giving the free-flowing invective often present:

The advocates of expanding the definition of marriage will often assert that same-sex
“marriage” should not be regarded as a threat to the institution of marriage, given our
alleged acceptance of easy divorce and the resulting de facto serial polygamy, followed
by our recent alleged acceptance of casual sexual contact among those who are not
married to each other, and so forth.

I tend to agree with this assessment to a point.  I think it is true the proposing of what I,
and the great number of people who share my view, can only view as the completely
absurd and anti-rational notion of same-sex “marriage” is not an isolated attack on the
institution of marriage per se, but the almost inevitable conclusion of the assault on
marriage which perhaps begun by the acceptance of divorce, especially easy divorce,
and was continued by the later wide-spread acceptance of contraceptive sexual
intercourse.

Acceptance of divorce, especially easy divorce and remarriage, especially in Christian

societies, has made a joke of the idea of the permanence of marriage.  The embrace of
artificial contraception, the chemical versions of which are more akin to performance-
enhancing drugs than medicine (but that is a topic for another essay), has practically
severed the link between sexual relations and procreation. The acceptance of casual
sexual relationships has  even removed the popular idea of marriage as a license to
have sex.  Indeed,  marriage has, for many people, been reduced to a legal
convenience for those of opposing sexes who have “feelings” for each other.   Is it any
wonder that homosexuals  -- or others of the same sex motivated by economic or
domestic practicalities for that matter – are clamoring for the same legal status?  Is it
any wonder that even judges are starting to view the situation – however absurdly –
through the prism of anti-discrimination provisions in law?

Those of us who have been viewing the sexual revolution and its effects on human
society (yet more essays) and on our nation with alarm, who continue to assert the
biological bases of marriage, who endeavor to call our fellow citizens and our fellow
men of all nations to live in a manner in keeping in with their dignity as Homo Sapiens,
are not ready to give up on our societies nor on the fellow members of our species.  We
are aware we, as a species, are standing at a crossroads: will we and our fellow men --
male and female -- look into ourselves, perceive the meaning and purpose behind our
own organs, and act in harmony with our own natures, or will we continue to be the
slaves of the pursuit of pleasure and convenience (and our impulses), and ignore our
very selves?

Richard Bonomo
Madison, WI, USA