Monday, January 27, 2014

Fletch Gay Marriage and Civil Rights

You will frequently hear the proponents of gay marriage compare their 'struggle' for 'equality' with that of Martin Luther King, Jr and the Civil Rights protests that took place in America in the 1960s.

 I do not believe that gay marriage is a "civil right", especially for the reason of "equality".

For “equality”, the two things being compared must be equal, or “the same” with regard to the unique attributes or innate characteristics that define what those things are.  Thus, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman - this is not “the same” or “equal to” two women or two men.

Are a male/female couple the same as a male/male couple or a female/female couple? No, they are not. There are differences. For a start, two men or two women can’t have sexual intercourse (coitus).
Some might argue that this argument falls apart when we compare it to racial equality - that in the past people have argued that a black man and a white man aren't "the same" or "equal" either and used that inequality as a basis for segregation; however, in this case the color of a man is not an attribute that defines what a man is or what makes him equal to another man. The color is a secondary characteristic, much like an apple is an apple, no matter if the skin is red or green.
As far as equality, a red apple has as much apple-ness as a green apple. They are the same and thus, equal as pertaining to the characteristics or properties that make an apple, an apple.
We can differentiate people by nationality (this is an “Indian” man or a “Chinese” man) , or apples by variety (a Granny Smith or a Braeburn) but, again, these are secondary characteristics and do not define what it means to be a man or an apple.
Marriage, also, has characteristics that define it. The color of the couple are secondary. The color(s) of one or both of the couple is not something that defines what marriage is. The nature of marriage is not dependant on it. I believe that marriage is dependant, however, on the couple being a man and a woman. Marriage is based on the complementarity of the couple based on gender. Because of this complementarity, their union is not only spiritual but bodily. So, one of the things that define marriage is sexual intercourse, which gay couples cannot have.
Proof that the union of a man and a woman is natural or normal is that there are resultant offspring or children. This is not a man-made convention, but something that occurs naturally and something that is good. It is something that only happens between a man and a woman and is proof of the ‘rightness’ or correctness of male/female relations and the goodness of the family. 
Gay proponents could argue that they want something equivalent to marriage. Equivalent means having the same value, worth or significance; the same in some aspect, but not necessarily all aspects.I believe they already have that in Civil Unions.
Again, the thing is, you can't force things that aren't equal to be equal by force of law. It has nothing to do with civil rights. 
Apples and oranges...

4 comment(s):

Chris Sullivan said...

I think this is a good argument and one I have used for years.

Unfortunately, it seems to be irrelevant to the debate against legalising Same Sex Marriage because neither the state nor the Catholic marriage ceremonies contain any promise or commitment to sexual intercourse.

When one reads the promises the spouses make to each other during the marriage ceremony, it is apparent that they could equally apply to same sex couples.

God Bless

Fletch said...

Hmmmm, though in the Catholic marriage ceremony, the priest does ask -

"(Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?"

"Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?"

"Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"

Technically, if they do not agree to this, then their marriage is not binding. I have heard of a case from someone I know where a couple got married but then only afterward did the husband discover that the wife never ever wanted to have children. The Church allowed the marriage to be annulled, because without that promise, it is as though it was never valid.

Chris Blackington said...

Our society is irrational, immoral. However Christ will prevail. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that the church has found itself in the midst of an evil society.

William Stout said...

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more. Isn't it interesting that reason has taken a backseat on this issue?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.