Why "gay marriage" is an oxymoron

There can be no such thing as homosexual (same-sex) "marriage." For someone (especially the state) to call a domestic arrangement between two practicing homosexuals a "marriage" is to obscure and distort the English language. It would be as if the state attempted to modify the meaning of the word "blue." We use the English word "blue" to describe a certain reality, i.e. light within a certain frequency range and certain shades of pigmentation. Some objects are blue, and other objects are not. Suppose for a moment that the Iowa legislature, for example, were to pass a resolution, and the governor were foolish enough to sign it, that several shades of pink and other shades of yellow were now to be considered "blue." Would that actually change what blue is? Of course not. Blue would still be blue, pink would still be pink and yellow would still be yellow, regardless of the legal fiction created by the new "law." If lawyers, legislators and judges started referring to pink and yellow objects as "blue" the only result would be confusion. It is in the interest of everyone that the courts and other institutions of the state to simply recognize the reality that is BLUE and not attempt to be "more inclusive" by expanding its definition to include other hues that are NOT blue.

Likewise, a marriage is a permanent committed relationship (recognized in contractual form, but not the same thing as the contract) between one man and one woman. Permanent means that it lasts as long as both parties are alive, whether or not they actually live together in the same household. Certain conditions must be present for a marriage to occur in fact, such as both parties must be mature enough to understand what they are getting into, have complete freedom of will (not being coerced in any way), and must be free from other situations which by their nature invalidate the attempted marriage bond (called impediments--e.g., a solemn vow to the Catholic priesthood or a prior marriage).

Marriage is not a social construct., but rather flows from human nature itself. It should be obvious (but it seems it is not obvious to some) that sex is about reproduction. That's what it's for in animals, and that's what it's for in humans. The fact that it is pleasurable merely provides motivation to engage in it, and thus to propagate our species.

Sex is about babies. Babies are absolutely helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention and a long time to grow to maturity. It's a full-time job, more than one person can handle alone, requiring an intense commitment of many years. If there are several children, the necessary commitment is prolonged.

Raising children is a multi-decade task that requires the involvement of both parents in a stable union. (This in no way denigrates the heroic efforts of those who of necessity shoulder the task alone.) Once the children are grown, the parents will be in their declining years and will have to be taking care of each other (hopefully also receiving help from their grown children).

So here is the logical progression in a nutshell: human nature leads to sex, which leads to offspring, which leads to childrearing, which leads to marriage--an institution found in every human culture and understood in the way just described.

Given that marriage is a reality of human nature, we cannot change it because we cannot change human nature. Making "laws" that coerce people to treat homosexual couples as if they were married, that would not give them the reality of what marriage is. All society would be doing is playing a word game.

The reason societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently than other unions is that doing so is to society's benefit. Marriage alone is capable of both producing and bringing to maturity new members for society, thus ensuring its survival. Society wants to encourage this, so it extends to the institution that provides this unique service special recognition and benefits. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger the society will be.

The effect of extending similar recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would be to encourage them. This would result in more people engaging in this dangerous and destructive behavior that is a net cost to society. The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and always was, even before AIDS). The lifestyle results in more diseases, psychological problems, suicides, and general misery than heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality hase not changed this--it is intrinsic to the behavior. Homosexual unions are also notoriously unstable. The cost society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.

Like other self-destructive behaviors, such as alcoholism or drug addiction, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, without returning a tangible benefit in the form of new members. Obvious are the burdens on society due to the devaluation of marriage that has already ocurred by the wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquencies, and misery for many. Adding recognition to homosexual unions would only further these trends.

Social policy needs to be in line with reality. Treating homosexual unions as something they are not will only defeat that goal.

[Most of these points are made by Jimmy Akin, director of apologetics and evangelization at Catholic Answers in San Diego, California, in the November 2004 issue of This Rock magazine, pg.32-35.]