Wednesday, December 15, 2010

If it doesn't fit, don't force it: Biological Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

In the November 20, 2009 issue of the New York Times the headline reads something like this “Gay Spouses Due Benefits in the State, Court Finds” this story entails how the state government of New York is recognizing same-sex unions in other states. (NY Times) If you are paying any attention to the media same-sex marriage is the center of attention at every election and ballot vote. Chances are everyone has an opinion on this subject. So what is the purpose of marriage in today’s modern society? Can marriage between two males or two females be really considered a marriage?

While the Constitutionality of Same-Sex marriage is much debated many would argue one of the major fallacies in same-sex relationships is the inability to reproduce, thus not constituting as a real marriage. Activist desire to change the definition of marriage from a binding oath of love and lifetime companionship to a simple binding legal contract. For centuries the word “marriage” was understood universally as an institution between a man and a woman and the two men could not marry because the cannot reproduce. While some do not believe in intelligent design it is apparent when you look at biological make up of a man and a woman it shows the were made for each other. Without this institution life itself will be unable to continue. It is also important to understand that a ban on same-sex marriage is not a ban on same-sex love (which God disagrees with). Many do not see anything wrong with two men whom love each other marrying just like a man and a woman who do the same. When faced with this question Commonweal the bi-weekly Catholic magazine has a profound answer it states “marriage as a social institution cannot (be based) on the goods of companionship alone”, it continues “there are profound social goods a stake in holding the procreative dimension of human love.” If all it takes is companionship and affection who is to deny the marriage between a dog and a man (which is already going on).While this sounds ridiculous it speaks to the fact that marriage must transcend mere camaraderie and address the biological, and the natural aspects of individuals as well. It is apparent that sexual differentiation, even in the absence of the capacity to procreate, conforms marriage’s larger design in a way same sex unions cannot. 
The purpose of marriage is not simply to acknowledge  love between two people because no piece of legislation can govern that, but rather marriage is an institution in which a male and female identify themselves as union. Marriage can never consist of a man and a man or woman and a woman it is a biological impossibility. Same-sex unions do not discriminate based on sex as the United States Supreme Court rulings will show. Marriage always has and always will be defined as a union between one male and one female. Although this fact may be true we are living in an increasing depraved society where majority rules. If we are not careful this institution may demean marriage to a simple contract agreement with no more significant than signing off to buy a new car. It behooves all of those who live in this society to stand up and protect marriage as it is a union between one male and one female.

No comments:

Post a Comment