Love
is the most powerful attracting force in the universe. It draws us
together to be in each other’s presence. It compels us to share our
time, our thoughts, our concerns, even our possessions. Love fills us
with a desire to bring each other happiness, peace, and joy. Sometimes
love compels us to create together, to create relationships, homes, even
life. Love is universally honored and appreciated as a force for good,
and the purest of motives. It is acknowledged as the only force more
powerful than our instinctive will to survive, a force so great that we
would sacrifice our own lives to preserve the happiness and security of
those we love. So why would anyone want to stop two people who love
each other from being married?
In order to understand the answer
to that question, we must first understand what marriage is and what
marriage is not. We must also understand why society embraces marriage,
and why two people would want to be married.
For as long as
humankind has kept written records, humans have acknowledged marriage as
a multiparty agreement between a man, a woman, society, government, and
even God. While many variations of this agreement exist, the general
terms are often similar and fairly simple. American society generally
accepts the following terms as part of the marital agreement:
1. The man and the woman agree to share property, privacy, and privilege.
2. Government agrees to treat these two individuals as if they were one with respect to their property, privacy, and privilege.
3. The man and the woman agree to mate with each other.
4. Society agrees to condone the mating of the man and the woman.
5. Society also agrees to disqualify the man and woman as prospective mates for others.
6. In the religious tradition, deity sanctions the mating of this couple as an appropriate use of creative power.
Thus,
the marriage agreement generally involves two aspects: sharing and
approval. When we look a little deeper, however, we can see that the
approval aspect of marriage is not related to friendship or love. While
marriage
is an agreement that provides approval of sexual behavior, it
is not
an agreement that provides an approval of love. Such an approval is
unnecessary because love is universally approved, as is friendship.
Sexual behavior, on the other hand, is scrutinized and evaluated for its
impact on society. The approval of society accompanies marriage
because marriage is viewed as an agreement designed to maximize the
positive impact of sexual reproduction while minimizing the negative
impacts on society. Specifically, marriage is embraced and used by
society to protect the family.
There are many organizational
units in society, which produce or provide components of a healthy
civilization. Some produce goods and services, and we call these
companies. Others produce ideas and philosophies. We call these
political parties and churches. Some provide safety and security. We
call these armies. Ultimately, however, all of these units and the many
others that exist in civilizations are composed of people.
People
are the building blocks of society, and only one unit in society
produces those building blocks. We call it the family. The family is
considered the fundamental unit of society because no other unit can be
built without the building blocks produced by families.
Societies
have always given special attention to the formation of families
because families play such a central role in the development, growth,
sustained existence, and prosperity of civilizations. Many dangerous
structural weaknesses can threaten family stability. If a family is not
formed properly, it may easily break down and cease to produce good
members of society. Without good members of society from which to build
companies, political parties, churches, and armies, society itself loses
stability. When families fail, society fails; therefore, societies
have used marriage as a means to ensure the integrity of the family
unit.
The general terms of the marriage agreement are designed
to ensure that the building blocks of society produced by families are
properly nourished, protected, educated, and prepared to become
productive members of society. Scientists and researchers agree that
children raised by both a father and a mother are more likely to be
properly nourished, protected, educated, and prepared to become productive members of society.
Accordingly, societies have historically disapproved of fornication,
adultery, and divorce, as these practices often result in teen
pregnancies, single mothers, deadbeat dads, and confused, neglected, and
insecure children. While some do succeed in raising healthy children
under these circumstances, statistically, those cases are the fortunate
few.
Because people have a tendency to seek approval and
acceptance from others, social disapproval has proven to be an effective
deterrent to the unstable formation of families. Since marriage
provides the approval of society, government, and religion; most devoted
couples will seek to be married before they begin to create a family,
and they will commit to fidelity and mutual support in order to enter
the marital agreement. Both fidelity and mutual support facilitate the
creation of a stable environment in which to raise productive members of
society.
So, we have outlined what marriage is and what it is
not. We have examined why society embraces marriage, and why a couple
would want to be married. With these ideas in mind, we can now address
the original question. Why would anyone want to stop two people who love
each other from being married?
First we must reemphasize that
love is not under consideration in marriage because love is universally
approved. Sexual behavior is scrutinized and evaluated for its impact
on society. Society does not disapprove of love between a man and a
woman, nor does society disapprove of one man loving another man or of
one woman loving another woman. This is called having a best friend.
Many of us have our guy friends and our girlfriends of the same gender.
We love and care for these people very much. We want to be with them.
We want to share with them. We want to make them happy. Usually we do
this by showing our concern, by listening to their problems, and by
providing advice or encouragement. Often we assist them with their
labors or provide other temporal support. We loan them our resources;
we give them gifts; we open our homes and our families to them.
Sometimes we love our friends so much that we would even give our lives
for them.
Regardless of the gender of our friends, none of
these acts are considered homosexual. The soldier who loves his friends
so much that he throws himself on a grenade to save them is not
homosexual because of his love. The definition of homosexuality is not
to love someone of the same gender, no matter how strong that love is.
Friendship does not become homosexuality until two people of the same
gender engage in sexual acts with each other.
With marriage,
love is not being submitted for approval; sexual behavior is being
submitted for approval. For heterosexual couples, this approval is
easily granted because their sexual activity may produce children, and
they are promising to also create a stable environment for those
children, so the children may someday become good members of society.
With
homosexual couples, this approval is not easily granted for several
reasons; primarily, their sexual activity can never create children.
The couple cannot produce the building blocks of society; therefore,
they are not the fundamental unit of society, and their sexual behavior
is not approved.
We must note here that sexual activity of any
kind is rarely used exclusively for reproductive purposes; however,
social approval is not so much based on the
intent of sexual partners as it is based on an evaluation of the possible
impact
on society. Society considers many impacts in addition to the
production and development of people, including changes to the pool of
potential mates, reproductive health and the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases, unplanned parenthood, abortion, broken families,
children in foster care, and many others.
This evaluation of
social impact (not sexual intent) is reflected in society’s historical
disapproval of unmarried heterosexual partners and in the general
acceptance of sexual activity within the bonds of marriage. Married
couples may not intend to have children or may not be able to have
children; nevertheless, if they do have children, those children are
statistically more likely to be raised in a stable environment and
prepared to become good members of society. Production of children is
not mandatory for approval; rather, the potential for that production
within a stable environment is the perceived benefit that leads society
to accept marital sex.
The evaluation of social impact is perhaps
the most rational reason for the disapproval of homosexual behavior;
however, an honest investigation into people’s opinions and feelings
about homosexuality will produce a variety of less rational, yet no less
real, emotional and mental barriers to approving such behavior. While
many of these sentiments are openly discussed, others are quite taboo.
Still, we must eventually address all of them if we are to come to a
mutual understanding and find an answer to our original question. Those
sentiments that are more sensitive must especially be discussed because
they are the feelings that frequently lead to heinous hate crimes,
prejudice, and discrimination. For the sake of clarity, they are
presented here in a scientific and straightforward manner.
First,
homosexuality is commonly seen as a perversion and an abuse of the
power to create life. Many view this power as a sacred gift granted by
God. Even those who do not believe in God typically feel a profound
respect for the intimate and marvelous ability to create life. Misuse
of this power for any purpose, whether for masturbation, fornication,
adultery, homosexuality, or bestiality, is often considered perversion.
To pervert is to change, alter, or distort something. In that sense,
all of these acts are indeed perversions – changes, alterations, and
distortions of human reproduction. Thus, the sexual behavior is not
approved.
Second, many of the sexual acts listed above are
considered sinful, which means contrary to the will of God. Many
believe that God gave mankind the power of procreation and gave
guidelines for the appropriate use of that power. They also believe
that God created the institution of marriage. Naturally, their belief
system would not allow the possibility of changing that institution to
incorporate those who cannot procreate together and who are practicing
sexuality in a way that has been forbidden by many religions. Thus, the
sexual behavior is not approved.
Third, many sexual acts
considered sinful, such as masturbation, homosexuality, and bestiality,
cannot create life; rather, they are used to self gratify. They have no
useful or meaningful purpose other than to release dopamine and cause
physical pleasure. Many do not consider the case in which two
homosexual partners seek only to bring happiness to each other; instead,
they see homosexuality as a willingness to do anything for self
gratification. Self gratification, or selfishness, runs contrary to
friendship and love. Usually selfishness is the cause of divorce or
broken friendships, and selfish people are rarely accepted by others.
Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.
Fourth, homosexuality
fails many ethical tests. For example, Kant’s Universality Test of the
Moral Imperative requires that we imagine a universe in which everyone
was required to follow the maxim or perform the action in question. We
assume that what is truly good for one must also be good for all. If
homosexuality were to replace heterosexuality, all human life would
cease within a generation. Only the practice of artificial insemination
could prevent the extinction of humankind.
Because of these
ethical tests, many non-religious people are opposed to homosexuality.
They find that even outside of the constraints of religion – entirely
within the boundaries of metaphysics and ethics – homosexuality is still
viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. Thus, the sexual behavior is
not approved.
Fifth, many are appalled by the thought of
homosexual intercourse. They view the specific techniques of homosexual
intercourse as unsanitary, particularly in the case of male
homosexuality involving anal intercourse. While this is not the only
method of homosexual intercourse, it has become the most salient, and it
continues to shape perceptions about homosexuals.
Anal
intercourse, whether it is practiced by homosexual or heterosexual
couples, is revolting to many. The human rectum is an orifice of the
digestive system, not the reproductive system. It is the passageway of
human waste and excrement. This excrement is considered to be the
filthiest of all materials. It is foul smelling and naturally
repugnant. Furthermore, anal intercourse is damaging to the tissues of
the colon and rectum and often causes bleeding, which brings infection
from excrement and facilitates the introduction of sexually transmitted
diseases. Accordingly, the thought of homosexuality is naturally
appalling to many people. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.
Because
of these reasons and perhaps others, many in society will never accept
or condone homosexuality. Unlike the primary reason for disapproval,
these last five are fraught with logical fallacies. However, regardless
of whether or not any of these reasons are logical or justified, they
are certainly real; they are extremely significant, and they must be
considered because they continue to hinder the social approval of
homosexual behavior.
Remember that the marriage agreement
involves two aspects: sharing and approval. While many do not approve
of the sexual behavior of homosexuals, they are willing to participate
in a multiparty agreement involving only the sharing aspect. This means
that the couple will share property, privacy, and privilege, and the
government will recognize their right to do so and treat them as one
person with regard to those things. We call this a civil union.
Still,
civil unions are not good enough for some homosexual couples because
they want the one thing that only the word “marriage” provides, and that
is social acceptance and approval of their choice to engage in sexual
acts with a partner of the same gender.
Why do you need to
“marry” the person you love? If your answer is that you want the legal
rights and legal privileges of marriage, then a civil union will provide
all of those. If you simply want society to honor and accept your
love, then friendship will suffice. If, however, you also want social
acceptance and approval of your sexual relationship, then you must be
married.
Unfortunately, that is the great illusion that has
led so many homosexuals to seek government sanction of same-sex
marriage. They are under the false impression that receiving a title of
marriage will provide acceptance for them as it has for so many
heterosexual couples. This sad misunderstanding demonstrates their
failure to see the mechanisms of civilization that have embraced
marriage and made it a central institution in society.
Remember, marriage is a multiparty agreement:
1.
From an individual standpoint, marriage represents an agreement to
share property, privacy, and privilege. It also represents a commitment
of fidelity.
2. From a government standpoint, marriage represents recognition of the right to share property, privacy, and privilege.
3.
From a social standpoint, marriage represents a sanction of the proper
formation of a family, a fundamental unit with potential to create good
members of society.
4. From a religious standpoint, marriage represents an approval of the proper use of creative power.
If
these are the parties of the multiparty agreement, only two can be
satisfied with same-sex marriage. The civil union agreement only
requires the participation of these two satisfied parties, but the
marriage agreement requires the participation of all four.
Too
many in society are not willing to sanction same-sex marriage as the
proper formation of a family, a fundamental unit that will produce good
members of society. Too many in the various churches throughout this
nation are not willing to use their religious authority to approve
homosexuality as a proper use of creative power. Should we force these
two parties into the contract? Or, should we allow them to make their
best judgment in this issue and let the other two parties create their
own contract?
In the end, “married” is just a word. It is a word
that indicates the formation of a specific unit in society, the family –
producer of people. Still, it is just a word. There are many words
that represent the formation of societal units, words like
incorporation. Incorporation is also just a word, and articles of
incorporation are just paper; however, they represent a multiparty
agreement that has actually taken place. You can call a company
incorporated, but if the relevant parties have not actually agreed to
the contract, what does it mean?
The word “married” is like a
stamp of approval. A stamp of approval is created to express a
sentiment that already exists. The stamp itself is just an image, but
it represents a careful process of evaluation and judgment. You can
create and apply a similar stamp without completing that process, but
what does it mean?
Just calling yourself incorporated does not
make you a legitimate business, a legal producer of goods and services.
Calling yourself married does not make you a family, a producer of
human life. Stamping yourself with “approved” does not force the
evaluation board to approve you, and calling yourself married does not
force society and religion to approve of your sexual behavior.
Again,
if homosexuals want marriage because they want legal rights, then a
civil union will do. If they want marriage because they want approval,
they are gravely misguided. Those that will approve of their sexual
behavior because they are married, likely already approved of it before.
Those in society that do not approve will not be swayed by what they
view as a counterfeit stamp of approval – false articles of
incorporation. A homosexual couple will still be viewed as a mislabeled
organization, an under-the-table business, a false fundamental unit
that cannot perform the fundamental function of a family.
It is
important that we distinguish between the different units in our society
and understand the role that they each play. If we do not, we will
struggle to allocate the proper resources to the development,
utilization, and preservation of each unit. It is even more important
that we continue to recognize the family as the fundamental unit of
society, so that we can continue to place it first on our list of
priorities. No other unit should be allowed to share that position
because no other unit is so crucial to society.
This is why so
many feel that we must retain the specific stamp of approval which has
been created for the designation of a fundamental unit. Certainly, we
must at least understand the consequences of throwing that stamp on
anything that merely approximates a family.
The title, type,
function, and description of organizations are all connected for the
sake of order and clarity. A company is created by incorporation. A
family is created by marriage. An army is commissioned. A labor union
is unionized. Words have meaning. You cannot incorporate an army. Its
primary and intended function is not to produce goods and services.
True, an army can buy goods and services. It purchases weapons and
supplies from many corporations, but it is not a corporation. It has a
different function; it requires different resources; it is governed by
different laws, so we commission it and do not incorporate it.
Likewise,
same-sex couples can never create human life together. They can buy
the seeds of life or buy life itself by adopting, but they can never
produce that life alone, not without the participation of a third person
of opposite gender. While some heterosexual couples suffer tragically
from infertility, most can produce life. The social impact of their
heterosexual behavior is viewed as
potentially beneficial;
therefore, society broadly accepts that behavior and is willing to marry
those couples and recognize them as a family.
No homosexual
couples can ever produce life… not one. They simply do not have the
capability or potential to perform that function. Society does not
perceive the same potential benefits when evaluating the social impact
of homosexual behavior; instead, society perceives many negative
potential impacts. Therefore, many do not consider a homosexual union
to be equal to the family, the fundamental unit of society, the producer
of people. Society is willing to unionize those same-sex couples, but
many are not willing to marry them.
Willing is the key word. Two
homosexuals may be willing to love and support each other; that is
friendship. No one is stopping them. They may be willing to
participate in homosexual acts; that is homosexuality. No one is
stopping them. They may be willing to share property, privacy, and
privilege; that is a civil union. No one is stopping them.
Ultimately,
homosexuals are not really asking to do something. They are asking
others to do something. They are not asking for the right to do what
they are willing to do. When they ask for marriage, they are asking the rest of us to do something that
we
may or may not be willing to do. They are asking society to approve of
their homosexual activity, and they are asking religious institutions
to sanction their homosexual behavior as an appropriate use of creative
power.
Are these other parties
willing? That is the
real question posed by Proposition 8. That is the underlying referendum
being presented to us for a vote. By voting “Yes” on Proposition 8, we
would do more than define marriage as a union only between one man and
one woman. We would answer the underlying question of our willingness
to participate in the marital agreement with homosexuals. By voting
“Yes”... we would answer, “No… we are not willing. We are not willing
to approve the social impact of homosexual activity. We are not willing
to sanction homosexuality as a proper use of creative power. We are
not willing to enter the multiparty agreement. We are not willing, and
we choose to abstain.”
...That is an exercise of
our freedom, not a restriction of
theirs.
Proposition
8 is not about telling people who they can and cannot love. It is not
about telling them who they can and cannot be with. It is not about
preventing the legally recognized sharing of property, privacy, and
privilege. Proposition 8 is about defining marriage. It is about the
right and freedom of society and religion to abstain from a multiparty
agreement deemed unacceptable. It is about preserving the coveted title
of marriage as a stamp of approval for that fundamental institution
which contributes the most to society. It is about protecting the
unique status of the family and ensuring its place as the first and
ultimate priority of civilization. Only the union of a man and a woman
can create the greatest of all resources – human life. For that, we
honor them. For that, we approve of them… and for that, we marry them…
for only they have the power to create our future and the future of all
humanity.
Joshua M. Uda © 2008 - All Rights Reserved
