OrthodoxyToday.org
Commentary on social and moral issues of the day


Gay Marriage: A Contradictory Phrase Bespeaking Unreasonableness

Peter Reynolds

  • Print this page
  • Email this page
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Bookmark and Share

As I gaze out of my window at Georgetown University, I see a tree, and in that tree I see the order of creation, imprinted with the mark of its imaginative Creator. Then my mind turns to mankind in the twenty-first century: how out of touch with order we have become.

In the beginning, God created them male and female, male and female he created them. So speaks the book of Genesis, the oldest book of the Bible (Gen 1:27). Men and women are different. Physically, emotionally, psychologically... they are different! The concept is difficult to understand in contemporary academia, where we find ourselves buried in our books, transcending to new heights of brilliance. But before we geniuses fly to such heights of erudite knowledge, please let's understand the basics first. Come back down to earth.

Marriage, since the genesis of man, has been the institutional building block of society. The word carries power. Webster defines it as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." A man, a male, and a woman, a female, are joined. The two are united through their wills, and their contract is consummated through sexual intercourse.

The dual purpose of marriage is unitive and procreative. It provides a structure for raising children. The state cannot survive without the reproduction of the people. More importantly, the state will not be healthy without healthy citizens. And so, the family provides a most essential function for the state. A strong mother and a strong father equal a strong child, who will one day be a strong citizen. It is the recipe for good citizens

The family is a unit. The mother, father, and child are inseparable. You take away one and the rest cease to exist. Think about this for a moment. It seems superficial but it is profound. A woman becomes a mom and a man becomes a dad when the child is conceived through the sexual act. They were transformed into dad and mom while co-creating a new life. The two became one flesh in sexual union and from that one flesh came forth three, each uniquely related to the others. And these three make one unit. This images the life of the Trinity. Mother, father, and child, three persons yet one family unit, a living reminder of God and a foundational unit of the state.

Two women can't make a child; two men can't make a child. Biologically, the female needs the male to reproduce, even if through artificial insemination. Where do you think the semen originates? A "gay family" is a higgledy-piggledy family. It's a misnomer, a sterile misappropriation.

The child's conception should link male and female together like superglue, forever changing them. They become responsible for each other and the baby; and they become a new and unique productive unit in the state. The parents now exercise indispensable roles in the new family. Beyond the obvious biological differences, they influence the child in different ways. The woman/mother provides the potency of her femininity, while the man/father provides the potency of his masculinity. Neither is more important, they are both vital and dynamically complementary in influencing the development of the child.

The family recipe of a mother, father, and child is as old as civilization. It has withstood the test of time. Tradition must be changed when it fails or becomes antiquated. Marriage has done neither. The institution always strengthened the state through its product, namely citizens, and it continues to strengthen it today.

Disturbingly, deluded self-righteous romantics obsessed with propagating rights are posing a serious threat to this institution. Through their efforts to have state support for same-sex relationships, they have hijacked the potent word marriage and thus blurred the difference between heterosexual relationships and gay relationships. Male and female union is essentially different from male and male or female and female. In fact, all three are different but at least the latter two are akin in that they are same-sex unions.

If this is not self-evident to you yet, then once again, I repeat, come back down to earth. I understand that the lofty clouds you contemplate on are comfortable, but I am talking reality and not quixotic imaginings. Look at a male; look at a female. I am talking physically. I know we like to abstract, but it is important to look at reality. Can you see the difference? The union of the two is ordered. We can see this... stop and think about it so I do not have to crudely describe the sexual union of a male and a female. The two sexes complement one another.

Now look at a male and a male. The two /do not/ complement one another. Physically, they do not fit, except in a disordered and backwards way. Lastly, look at a female and a female. Once again, no fit, not even in a disordered way. This may seem like kindergarten ontology, but I think, nowadays, it needs to be said.

The physical reality of the union in marriage is real. The male and the female really unite in a way that is impossible for members of the same sex. This sexual union is existential. You would not be reading this if it weren't for such a union. Do not reduce it to mere physical pleasure and fleeting fun. Gay marriages cannot include this procreative function. That is absolutely essential for you to realize.

In /A Clash of Orthodoxies, /Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, speaks of the fallacy of gay marriage: "What's at the heart of this fallacy? It's the idea that the real person isn't the physical biological reality of you or me, the real person is the consciousness, which merely resides in a suit of flesh. The person isn't the flesh but the consciousness that resides in the flesh." Basically, he means, the fallacy is that people refuse to recognize the substance of the person. They need to come back down to earth and see man's physical reality. The person is not only a mind or only a body; the person is a unity of body and mind.

The trouble is that the word "love" is being bandied about like a whore. Gay marriage activists cry that any two same-sex adults should have rights to marriage because their shared "love" is equal to any heterosexual "love." In essence, the union in marriage has been equated to love shared, and the whole physical reality of this love being shared has been jettisoned. Along with that, the whole structural purpose of marriage, which is the founding and maintaining of a family, has been jettisoned. What really needs to be jettisoned though is the word "love" from the legislative arena in regards to marriage. The word's meaning is a mystery. There are many definitions. Most likely, the real definition is in proximity to all the definitions combined and yet even more profound.

The fact is that marriage, in relation to the State, serves as an ordering unit through which healthy citizens are bred. "Love" really is not the concern of the State. Whether Gay marriage can possess real love is marginal. The crux of the issue is whether or not it serves the State. Gay marriage does not because it cannot. It cannot be procreative. It cannot breed good citizens. It cannot provide a structured family unit. In truth, we cannot even call it "gay marriage." That would be like saying gay heterosexual union. "Gay marriage" is a contradictory phrase bespeaking unreasonableness.

If this were math, I would say, "one plus one equals two." And, indeed, it does because there is an order to all things; there is a law. There is a mathematical law and likewise there is a natural law, a law of reason through which man can understand his telos, his ultimate end, and the way he must live so as to fulfill it. If you do not believe me that laws abound throughout all creation, then just jump up and you will come down. That would be the law of gravity. If, however, you /really/ don't believe me and are confident in your incredulity, then jump out of your window and fly. If you survive, then you will painfully realize the existence of law. If you die, then, on the bright side, at least we will realize its existence. You will become a martyr for the truth that law does exist. Here at Georgetown, the oldest Catholic university in America, where relativity is pervading, you will be a great admonition to its consequences, and perhaps even convict some professors to teach the truth and to teach that it is definite, objective, and timeless.

Peter Reynolds is a senior majoring in philosophy and government at Georgetown University. Contact at: prr6@georgetown.edu.

Posted: 12/02/04



Copyright 2001-2014 OrthodoxyToday.org. All rights reserved. Any reproduction of this article is subject to the policy of the individual copyright holder. Follow copyright link for details.
Copyright 2001-2014 OrthodoxyToday.org. All rights reserved. Any reproduction of this article is subject to the policy of the individual copyright holder. See OrthodoxyToday.org for details.


Article link: