And the two shall not become one

“And the two shall become as one flesh.” These well known biblical words, understood by people of all faiths, beautifully illustrate the reality that occurs between a man and a woman who pursue the life of matrimony. The two sexes, being both different and complementary, unite themselves in the sacred marital embrace to create new life and sustain mankind. Since the beginning of creation this act has been the natural course of procreation for all living creatures, and by no accident. As of late, however, the question of whether two persons of the same sex constitutes a marriage has been fiercely debated, attracting universal attention. Living in a democratic society, one assumes all things are permissible, so long as what one does does not hurt anyone else. Yet is it a matter of justice to allow those of perverse sexual propensity the right to sexual freedom when nature does not intend it to be so? This is the concept people rarely consider when judging the credibility of the gay activists push for same sex marriage. In political commentator Andrew Sullivan’s article “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage,” (1989) he justifies the legalization of gay marriage as he feels to do so would be humane, practical and truly conservative. Though his intentions are good, he is greatly misled, as there is both logical and medical evidence to disprove his position showing that legalizing gay marriage will not only hurt individuals, but society at large.

Andrew Sullivan’s promotes the legalization of gay marriage as being conservative from the perspective that it offers the most practical means of avoiding the confusion regarding defining domestic partnerships. He states that domestic partnerships undermine the “prestige of traditional relationships,” (1989) though he simultaneously nourishes the position that same sex marriages don’t. Further, he says the ever increasing gay community will not hurt society, but help it by allowing people to be more accepting of the idea in general. Legalizing gay marriage would encourage same sex couples to remain together longer by placing more responsibility on their relationships and thus lead humanity towards a healthy social trend that would potentially bridge the chasm between the traditional and homosexual family worlds.

As humans, we are born with natural law and moral conscience which reveals truths which do not need to be proven, that is, they are self-evident. For example, one knows not to steal food from the local food store or lie to a police officer in order to avoid personal responsibility. It also tells us that two same sex creatures cannot logically or physically constitute a marriage. Since the beginning of man, it has been understood that the purpose of the marital act was for the sole purpose of creating children; medically speaking, that’s the only end it can achieve. Same sex relations however, cannot do this as much as they may try to simulate that bond. Imagine trying to take two female chickens, putting them in a coup for an hour and then expecting them to create a fertilized egg. It is scientifically impossible for such a reaction to occur. Therefore, because it is not natural in our genetic human makeup to have two same sex creatures unite to produce any offspring, it must therefore not be what nature intended and hence should not be fostered.

Sullivan presumes that because his ideals seek a social justice, his case is “de facto” validated. However noble his intentions may be, it must be remembered that not everything one wants is necessarily what’s best or what’s fair. Fairness cannot be used to excuse the moral error enveloping his claim. When a child wants to taste poison, does a mother give it to them even though they throw a temper tantrum and demand that they need it? Of course not; the mother sees it is harmful for the child and out of love tells it no for the well being of that child. Laws, both natural and man made, are likewise there to protect individuals from falling into similar dangers either moral or physical. While homosexuals may have a passion to have a marital relationship with a person of the same sex, it does not reason that they should, merely because they feel the urge to do so. The improper use of the bodily faculties is an inherent evil as it is contradicting its purpose for existence. No law that works towards the destruction of the common good should be supported. Since gay marriage cannot beget children, the relationship it sterile and not conducive to the furthering of mankind. For if all people were gay there would be no children and hence mankind would cease and this is against the true common good of man. This is why gay marriage cannot be viewed as a justice or fair treatment issue.

Elsewhere, Sullivan states that legalizing marriage would decrease promiscuity among homosexuals. Lisa Schiffren (1996), a conservative writer for the American Spectator, makes the point that if the threat of AIDS doesn’t slap the faces of these people, neither will a piece of paper stating that one is legally married. Just look at the heterosexual divorce rates. What assurance is there that homosexuals, whose men are infamous for their number of partners, will be any more faithful than heterosexuals ? They presume that their relationships will last longer but they have no evidence to support themselves, when in fact, research is available to show the opposite. On the flip side, Mr. Sullivan states that lesbians have less of a problem with monogamy; this, however, only goes to support the point that there is no need for a marital law to secure their relationships, when theirs seem to already be lasting without legal marital recognition anyway. His belief that legal martial recognition will secure, encourage and develop gay relationships makes little sense when reviewing the status of lesbian women’s longevity. Also, the statistics regarding truly long term commitment among lesbians need to be further researched; how many “till death do us part” commitments really exist between such couples?

As far as health is concerned, research is showing that nature is taking its course among the homosexual community making it not the “healthy social trend” Sullivan believes it to be. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Simao, 2004) has recently showed public health records to demonstrate that “homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.” Also, between 2000 and 2003, the increase in AIDS and HIV rose 11 percent in thirty-two U.S. states among gays and bisexuals causing grave concern for its resurgence among health professionals. Is this grounds for a healthy social trend?

Gay marriage is also believed to help “avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility of happier ones.” While there does exists a problem among heterosexual families, this does not conclude that homosexual marriages are the solution or that homosexual marriages will be happier. Consider a little five year old girl going to school for the first time. She’s playing and talking to a playmate about her mommies, when her other friend says “where is your daddy?” What is that little girl to say? Reflecting upon the thought of her wondering where her father is and why she doesn’t have one makes the heart ache. As I myself was raised without the influence of both parents, I know the pain of wanting that other half, that other piece of you. A simulation of the missing parent doesn’t cut it when you know they aren’t the true mother or father you were created from. As in the case of divorce, the legalization of homosexual marriages potentially threatens future generations with deep emotional and behavioral disorders. Although there may be temporary superficial happiness, deep down, as I myself know, there lurks a voice that says “something is not right. Although these consequences not are not intended by the gay community, they will never-the-less effect the future both socially and personally if they demand the same rights as the those of heterosexual couples. For homosexuality is not just another step in diversity, it is a breach from what nature demands and, as with divorce, will result in more harm than good.

Looking at the issue from a common sense perspective, the argument held by Andrew Sullivan shows itself as being naturally unsupported. For it is not a matter of legality, but of humanity. The concept of same sex marriage then, cannot be supported when it does not effect the end for which it was creates. Contrarily, society needs to work at saving the traditional heterosexual family in order to cultivate a truly healthy civilization built upon the natural structure of a mother and a father whose sacrificial love and devotion will ultimately produce the greatest gift the world can possess, this being a newborn child, in the most perfect place for it to grow, a traditional family environment; all else proves fruitless.


References

Schiffren, L. (1996). Gay marriage, an oxymoron. In J.D. Ramages, J.C. Bean & J. Johnson, Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings.(pp.590-591). New York: Pearson
Longman.

Simao, P. (2004). Health consequences of homosexual perversion. Perspectives-U.S. World.Retrieved April 11, 2005, from http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/24314.html

Sullivan, A. (1989). Here comes the groom: A (conservative) case for gay marriage. In J.D.

Ramages, J.C. Bean & J. Johnson, Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings.(pp.586-590). New York: Pearson Longman.