Marriage Equality fiction

When interracial couples won in court and could thus marry, there was nothing white couples, or for that matter black couples, were able to do that interracial couples could not do, and therefore equality was achieved without the need for any alterations on anyone’s part.

But now, with the granting of single sex marriage, we have a situation where real equality could only be achieved by having the heterosexual couples be forbidden from having their own children and from partaking of a form of sexual activity that the homosexual couples are unable to do, namely penis-in-vagina intercourse.

What’s worse, though, for those with a fixation on equality, is that a brother and a sister remain unable to get married. Surely two brothers or two sisters can now get married, since same sex marriage should not have the concern over the problem of incest. So in the name of equality, we have introduced a new form of inequality.

Are those who swiftly came to support the latest marriage innovation prepared to abandon the prohibitions on incestuous marriages in order to address this new inequality? Did no lawyer or Supreme Court justice even hint at this angle? If so, even the conservative press seems to have missed it.

The recognition of the right of interracial couples to marry never introduced a new inequality. That advantage is due to the fact that the definition of marriage underwent no substantial change.

Not true of single sex (read undiverse) marriage.

(And what of the seeming fixation on penis-in-vagina intercourse? Well, the popular misconception is that the Catholic Church puts a priority on reproduction and wants nothing but large families. The reality is that a marriage is not a marriage until it is consumated. Even if the groom (or bride) is known to be sterile, the Church has no problem with the validity of such a marriage. But if the groom were permanently  impotent or otherwise was unable to have sexual intercourse, the Church would not view this as a valid and sacramental marriage. Therefore, the Church, in this way, places the priority on the unitive aspect over the procreative.)


Marriage Equality has NOT been achieved, but we can get there

If you are a heterosexual supporter of single sex marriage, you should realize that marriage equality has not been achieved — and there is something you can do to move the cause forward, which if not done, renders you a hypocrite.

As long as heterosexual couples continue to engage in a form of sexual intercourse, namely vaginal, that is not available to homosexual couples, those homosexual couples remain unequal.

Heterosexual couples, in a show of solidarity, ought to voluntarily renounce their ability to engage in vaginal intercourse. Anything less is to continue to exercise hetero privilege. A change in lifestyle choice is in order to help bring to completion the dream of marriage equality.

What’s more, heterosexual couples will need to adopt children from???

Once marriage equality has been achieved for homosexual couples, next we will need to turn our attention to Mormons and help them by taking less wives than we would otherwise prefer.

(The above may sound somewhat harsh, until you realize it is a work of satire.)

Sloppy thinking in support of same sex “marriage”

The argument in favor of same sex “marriage” that originates in the observation that traditional heterosexual marriage is in bad shape needs to go into oblivion where it belongs.

The debater who appeals to this argument should be embarrassed by the degree to which he displays an utter lack of principle.

How so? Imagine his answer if he was asked, “So, if traditional marriage had a near zero divorce rate, the legitimacy of homosexual ‘marriage’ would be therby diminished?”

It’s not hard to imagine the immediate protest, “Of course not!”

“Oh, so you admit that your argument neither stands nor falls on the divorce rate? Then why use that in the first place?”

The charitable interpretation is that this is simply the product of a sloppy, undisciplined mind engaging in unexamined groupthink.

The less charitable interpretation is that this is not really meant as argumentation as such, but it is rather a shaming tactic in order to attempt to shut up the opposition and avoid anything resembling a principled debate.

Anyone appealing to this bogus argument is the one who ought to feel shame. They need to go away and do the hard work of thinking before they re-enter the realm of respectable debate.

Blood relatives and marriage inequality

Please realize that if you are in favor of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in the name of “marriage equality”, you might have to also be in favor of dropping the prohibition against incest–or you may find yourself unknowingly promoting marriage inequality.

How do I support this claim?

I once got to thinking about this a few years ago. My question was “If same sex marriages become legal, is there any valid reason to prohibit, say, identical twins from being married?”

The usual prohibition against siblings marrying is at least in large part due to inbreeding concerns. With identical (i.e., same sex) twins, those concerns are moot. With fraternal, opposite sex twins, the old concerns remain.

So is an identical pair in a marriage-like relationship committing incest? A fraternal, opposite sex pair certainly is.

This creates a dilemma. Or even perhaps a trilemma. You either (a) allow traditional couples and same sex couples to marry, while restricting said fraternals or (b) allow all three types to marry or (c) keep the traditional approach in place.

If your highest value is on the ever trendier idea of “marriage equality”, you cannot opt for either (a) or (c). That leaves you with (b), which now would put you in the position of allowing incestuous marriages. Obviously, to preserve equality, you would need to open it up for non-twins. At that point how do you justify prohibiting mother and consenting adult son or father and consenting adult daughter?

So is it possible to have “marriage equality” without allowing for incest? What if we allow those marriages to take place as long as at least one marriage partner gets sterilized? Doesn’t that introduce a sort of inequality in the name of achieving equality?

Believe it or not, there are some people who say the prohibitions against incest are antiquated taboos and should be done away with. The only remaining question I have is, “Are you willing to be one of them?”


Why same sex marriage is nothing like interracial marriage

Gay marriage is not anything like inter-racial marriage. Any resemblance is superficial at most.

I admit that it must be a tempting comparison, but it’s an illusion.

Let me explain.

Let’s look at a working definition of marriage from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which would have been the assumed definition for the vast majority of Americans at the time that the ban on inter-racial marriage was struck down.

There’s probably no better place to look than in Matthew 19 where Christ affirms Genesis 2:  a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.

 That ought to be familiar to most Americans, certainly anyone who takes their faith even half-way seriously. In this formula of sorts for the prevailing idea of marriage, we see “leaving father and mother”, which implies you don’t marry your sister. So that’s one restriction. Then we have “be joined to his wife” which pretty much implies “no men marrying other men” and no polygamy. And finally we have “they become one flesh”, which ideally points to a permanent union, which most people who enter into marriage at least aspire to.

Notice: there is nothing about the respective races of either spouse. It was never a part of the proper understanding of marriage. Ever. The folks that attempted to forbid inter-racial marriage were indeed bigots. Their tampering with the definition of marriage to suit their prejudices revealed their agenda — and their lack of respect for the essentials of marriage as understood for centuries.

Now we have another attempt to tamper with the definition of marriage, but this time it is not in the direction of arbitrarily restricting who can marry in a naked attempt to suit one’s prejudices. It’s in the opposite direction of redefining marriage to become something so broad that it threatens to define it into unrecognizability with respect to civilization’s historical understanding. This time, though, the people who would argue in favor of retaining the standing definition of marriage have been now likened to the racists of yesteryear.

This is simply wrong. There is no sudden nor long-standing ill will toward people of same-sex attraction. Yes, many of these people of faith consider homosexual acts immoral, but in relation to marriage itself, people of faith are not debating anything on the grounds of morality per se, but on the nature of a thing to be what it is and has been. No less than anyone who was rightly convinced that restricting marriage between the races likewise did violence to the nature of marriage. It’s certainly probable that the bigots of yesterday appealed to a false sense of morality, but they were wrong not merely in their warped premises of morality, but also at least as much in their very idea of what the nature of marriage is and the true definitional restrictions that help to identify where a valid marriage takes place.

If one does not consider himself a member of a Judeo-Christian tradition, and might perhaps even long for the ever more trendy “post-Christian” society, these considerations will have little persuasive impact. But for a person of faith, there is no need to buckle under accusations of bigotry if one is inclined to maintain an understanding of marriage consistent with the words of Christ — and with the last 2,000-plus years of Western civilization.

Objectively disordered?

Disclaimer up front: This will not be about the legal considerations related to same sex marriage. This will be an attempt to help elucidate the teaching of the Catholic Church with respect to marriage and homosexuality. While some may think that a religion ought not to get involved in such matters, the Church believes that Christ not only revealed God to man, but also man to himself. Therefore, what has been called theological anthropology is what makes such matters in-bounds for the Catholic system of belief and thought.

There is such vitriol directed at the Church for its pronouncements that homosexual activity is “objectively disordered”. Many reactions are confused: they equate it to mean that the Church has declared that homosexual persons themselves are disordered. Not true. We are talking about acts, not persons.

Let’s say Harry and Sally are looking to be married. They are a little different than a typical couple. For whatever reason, both have a complete lack of interest in conventional intercourse. There is no way to put this delicately: they intend to never engage in penis-in-vagina sexual relations. They have both agreed that Harry will only do anal intercourse with Sally. Additionally, Sally will only be fisted by Harry. This will be the extent of their sexual activity, with some oral and other activity thrown in, but no P-in-V whatsoever.

Now this couple goes to their local Catholic priest and seeks to be married in the Church. If they say nothing about their intended sexual plan, the priest is none the wiser. Yet Harry and Sally for some reason feel compelled to tell their pastor about their plans for the bedroom. The priest objects and says there is no point in performing a marriage ceremony for a couple that has no intention of consummating the marriage. Harry and Sally cry foul.

The priest patiently explains that what they are describing  is a situation that would be a slam dunk annulment case down the road had this been hidden and later came to light. Since it is out in the open now, the marriage is known to be null from the start and it cannot proceed, as it would be a sham.

Some might say that this scenario is absurd on the face of it. Yes, it is. Intentionally so. Yet it is basically the equivalent of the case regarding same sex marriage. Is it a stretch to imagine a couple that would be inclined to forego P-in-V sex? Absolutely! Our instincts tell us that this is a very dysfunctional–or you could even say “objectively disordered”–approach to sex for any couple, especially one who seeks to be married.

Yet this is exactly what same sex couples are doing–by definition. Harry and Sally had the option to keep their plan a secret. Harry and Tom have no such luxury. Nor do Sally and Patty. Their very biology exclaims what they plan to do with respect to sexual engagement.

In this regard, Harry and Sally have a built-in advantage. It is not an advantage given by the Church nor is it a disadvantage foisted upon the same sex couples by the Church. It precedes the meeting with the pastor. The priest does not create the distinction, he merely recognizes it. To not recognize it would be to voluntarily not exercise his capacity for rational thought. Or to put it plainly, to pretend. (Therefore, marriage inequality already exists, but it is not the Church bringing this inequality about. It is the facts of biology that are responsible.)

All moral considerations aside, this is more about truth and falsehood. A same sex couple is openly declaring their intention to do something that falsifies the Church’s pre-existing understanding of marriage. The Church is not suddenly acting with bigotry.