Same-sex marriage is about love. Who could be against that?
Key Questions: What is the primary reason the state endorses marriage? Are all kinds of sexual contact the same? Is sexual contact ever unhealthy and/or unloving? What is “loving” about medically-destructive sexual contact?
You can’t evaluate whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not unless you know why the government endorses marriage in the first place. It is impossible to judge the means unless you know the intended ends.
So what is the government’s main purpose for endorsing marriage? What ends are they trying to accomplish? Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the government does not endorse marriage because two people love one another. There is no little box on a marriage license that you must check labeled “in love.” In fact, many, if not a majority, of marriages around the world are arranged.
While it is true that we often associate marriage with love, the primary reason the government endorses marriage is because it brings the country as a whole tremendous benefits—it is the best way to produce children and propagate a civilized and stable society. Homosexual unions by nature cannot do that, and equating the two types of relationships diminishes the connection people make between marriage and childbearing.
Yet even if love is seen as a reason for marriage, we must ask, “What kind of love typifies a homosexual relationship?” Are there men who really feel drawn romantically to other men? No doubt. Are there men who really have a deep sense of commitment to other men, wish to care for them, and be intimate with them? No doubt.
But the same might be said of a man and his daughter, a man and a child, or three men and a woman. Should those people act on their sexual desires? If they did, would their actions truly be seeking the ultimate good of the person or persons they were trying to “love?” No.
Sometimes sexual acts can be unloving. In fact, even sexual acts inside of natural marriage can be unloving—when they are medically dangerous for example. This is the case with homosexual acts. They are medically dangerous. What is loving about sex acts that regularly cause bleeding, disease, and pain? When sex is medically dangerous, the most loving thing you can do is not to have sex with that person.
Some may argue, “When two adults consent to engage in homosexual acts, they are each seeking the good of the other. Each person wants it and chooses it.” But if you truly love someone, will you do something that is likely to cause disease and may even shorten their life span dramatically? As we saw in point 3, the life span of gay men may be as much as twenty years shorter than that for heterosexuals.70
With the consequences so severe, if a man really “loved” another man, he wouldn’t engage in homosexual acts with him. Besides, sex isn’t the only way you can demonstrate your love for someone. Men usually demonstrate their love for one another without having sex. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.
Yet even if homosexual relationships were just as healthy as heterosexual relationships, there is a big difference between permitting such relationships and promoting them. The government already permits homosexual relationships. They even permit private same-sex marriages—there is nothing stopping homosexuals from pledging lifelong fidelity to one another. But most states do not promote and provide benefits for such unions by offering government-endorsed same-sex marriage.
Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.
70 See note 22.
Gay Right Arguments - Keep Reading!
Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below.