Who Do You Love?

Please fasten your seatbelt, and place your seat in the upright position.

Same-sex marriage appears to be a topic high on a lot of people’s lists. The curious thing is that folks on both sides are incredulous that the other side could have reasoned arguments. Somehow I feel that this issue is central to deeper questions of meaning ... not really sure why.

The obvious irritation for me –- even assuming homosexuality has a sinful character -- is that many religious folk handle this with special zeal. I’ve yapped about that in previous posts. Top executives rob blue-collar workers of their health and retirement, our government finds creative ways to discriminately support genocide, but that’s small potatoes compared to sodomy. I truly think the comparison to racial prejudice is apt.

I have heard people contend that legalization of same-sex marriage implies an endorsement of homosexuality. Of course it does, but that begs the question. At issue is the belief that homosexual unions are wrong. I am personally unable to conclude that certain sexual drives are wrong. They are innate, or at least they can show up without consent. If even the temptation of a man for another man’s wife is not wrong in itself, it hardly seems valid to rearrange this thinking in the context of gender preference. Assuming these drives are at least sometimes innate, why is the natural fulfillment of them considered by some to be wrong?

One interesting idea is “natural function”. Homosexual acts employ the body’s reproductive system in a way that is impossible to fulfill its (arguably) primary function: childbearing. This is simple fact. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, but the same idea applies there. This doesn’t just refer to the frustration of internal squishy blobs and tubes, but the perpetuation or extinction of species. In spite of this, it seems like a weak argument to say, “If all sexual acts were homosexual, the species would die out.” Duh. If every player were a pitcher, the team would always loose every game. In other areas of life, we don’t justify different expressions using this test. Some heterosexual couples are aware prior to marriage that they are unable to bear children. No one would say their union is invalid.

Another concern sometimes raised is the idea that permitting same-sex marriage will weaken the family and/or society. In countries where same-sex marriage laws have been passed, marriage in general becomes far less frequent, although one could argue this would be the case anyway in post-religious culture. Instead, people decide to live together more often, and these informal unions -- due to their temporary nature -- break down frequently, often leaving children in their wake. Assuming some cause-effect relationship exists, and it’s mighty hard to argue otherwise, even this seems to be more of a symptom than a root problem.

I think perhaps the implied (if not practiced) permanence of marriage does serve the end of raising children more than it presents the often-proposed converse problem: bad marriages harm children, not to mention the partners. Reason supports the idea that children are best supported by parents in an exclusive, permanent relationship. Are same-sex unions unable to meet this criterion? I would guess that denying a same-sex couple that wishes to raise children the ability to publicly formalize their commitment might add to the problem.

Then we come to biblical condemnations. Some are tied to old-covenant purity laws. Some seem to be clear prohibitions for all people at all times, but so does head-covering and similar practices. I admit that these are different issues, but I wish it was more obvious.

I believe that life -- not to mention marriage, or any relationship – is best lived by sacrificing self for the best interest of others. That’s it. That’s what I know. Sure wish I could just do it well.