Opinion » Columnists

The fallacy of same-sex unions

Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon.
Due to benign interpretations of the homosexual condition itself it is increasingly being viewed as something neutral or even good. Presently it threatens to destroy the institution of marriage in Canada and the United States.

No ideology, however, can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation (Gen 1:27-28. Gen:2:24) . According to consistent biblical testimony concerning homosexuality, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. In fact, all major religions of the world consider homosexuality an objective disorder.

The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are varied and betray a lack of right reason. They are little more than attempts to rationalize without thinking rationally.

Some argue that same-sex marriages are about tolerance and equality. As natural law implies, however, sexual orientation does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnicity, gender or age in respect to non-discrimination. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. Unlike race, ethnic background, sex and age, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. In suggesting otherwise one is merely exploiting tolerance in the service of a particular ideology. The equality issue begs the question, why not the right to allow brothers to marry sisters and adults to marry children? More to the point, why not allow polygamy?

A popular argument is that same-sex unions can in no way be the cause of any injustice to others. As a civil law, however, they cannot help but play a decisive role in shaping both the thought and behavior of individuals and society. Legal recognition of same-sex unions would act to obscure basic moral values causing a devaluation of the institution of marriage. It is therefore somewhat naive to suggest, as do a number of proponents of same-sex marriage, that religious institutions will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages in the future if same-sex marriage becomes law. If a government can redefine the term "marriage" they can also redefine any existing laws to which the term marriage is related.

Where adopted children are involved in same-sex marriages, they are deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood and hence the opportunity for full human development.

Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation. Nonetheless, homosexual acts must be considered wrong because they close the sexual act to the gift of life. Procreation, while not the only purpose of marriage, is nonetheless essential to the institution. The fact that some married couples do not have children either because of infertility or personal decision does not determine the purpose of marriage. Exceptions do not invalidate but prove the rule; individual practices do not invalidate the objectives of an institution; variations do not nullify a norm.

Marriage exists solely between a man and a woman who through their personal gift of self to each other, perfect one another into a communion of persons. This human development of the spouses and the proper nurturing of children who are the fruit of such unions makes an immense contribution to the common good of society. One does not need to have any particular religion to recognize this, or that the family based on marriage is the best way to bring up happy, productive children.

In rejecting erroneous opinions that support homosexuality one does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

While the Canadian government is working to legalize same-sex marriages I hope that lawyers and politicians of other nations will have the greater foresight and fortitude; that they work to uphold the institution of marriage as it is defined and not deconstruct it to appear as merely an expression of free love.

Paul Kokoski

The opinions and views of the authors do not always coinside with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coinside with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

In an exclusive interview with Pravda.Ru, US filmmaker talks to Edu Montesanti on the presidential elections in the Caribbean country, and its importance to Latin America. "The left will come back in Latin America, more likely sooner than later," says Oliver Stone

Exclusive Interview: Oliver Stone on Venezuelan Election

In an exclusive interview with Pravda.Ru, US filmmaker talks to Edu Montesanti on the presidential elections in the Caribbean country, and its importance to Latin America. "The left will come back in Latin America, more likely sooner than later," says Oliver Stone

Exclusive Interview: Oliver Stone on Venezuelan Election