I find the fact that this debate persists quite depressing. I will post this again seeing as how no one addressed anything in it and continue to beat a dead horse with fallacious arguments.
Consider the assumption that the "natural" end of marriage (or sex in general) is procreation, and that therefore non-procreative gay couples cannot reasonably be allowed to marry.
First, if we were to take this premise seriously, we would have to radically change marriage laws. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry - this would include both younger people who are infertile due to health issues as well as older people who are infertile due to age. Obviously very few would agree to this.
It is curious that the criticisms heaped upon gays who want to marry is not also directed upon elderly people who want to marry, or young infertile couples, indicating that the problem cannot possibly stem from people's disapproval of a couple that won't be having children.
If we were to enforce the idea that marriage exists for the sake of having and raising children, wouldn't we prohibit couples from remaining childless voluntarily? Even if we didn't outlaw both contraception and abortion, we would have to take steps to ensure that all married couples not be childless: if they won't produce their own kids, they will have to adopt some of the many orphaned and abandon children currently without stable homes and families. Since we don't see anyone arguing for such outrageous measures, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex marriage don't take that principle as seriously as they seem; and because such measures are so outrageous, we have good reason not to take it seriously either.
Second, Gay couples are not universally childless. Some gay male couples have children because they have made arrangements with someone else to act as a surrogate mother. Some lesbian couples have children because they used artificial insemination. Finally, some gay couples have children because they have adopted.
Whatever the reason, more and more gay couples are not childless - and if marriage, whether in "nature" or as a legal institution, exists to promote and protect both procreation and the raising of children, then why can't it do so for gay couples as well as straight couples?
Since when do people tailor their activities based solely or even primarily upon what they imagine the biological ends to be? Who gets married solely to have children and not to pursue a meaningful and intimate relationship with someone they love? Who eats food solely in order to ingest nutrition and not to enjoy the social and psychological experiences that accompany a good meal?
Finally, we have the Philokalia/Mindstorm argument that the existence of gay marriages would constitute a desecration of a sacred institution created by God for the purpose procreation. This might be true if churches that regarded homosexuality as an abomination were forced to perform and recognize same-sex marriages, but no one is suggesting this occur.
Civil marriages, established and regulated by secular laws in a society filled with a diversity of views, ethnicity, upbringings, and religious beliefs, cannot be restricted by how some religions view marriage from within the theological boundaries of their faith. Marriage between members of different religions cannot be legally forbidden simply because some churches consider it sacrilege. Marriage between members of different races cannot be legally forbidden simply because some groups regard miscegenation as contrary to God's will. So why should marriage between members of the same sex be any different?
Log in to comment