I am the new girl in the blogosphere so I spend a fair amount of time reading other blogs. When I search the term “gay marriage” the blog results are overwhelmingly in favor. It’s been an eye opening experience. I’ve read some thoughtful blogs from gay marriage supporters who are making an even-handed case for their convictions without sensationalism. However, I have been astonished by the number of bloggers who are downright venomous in the pursuit of their cause.
One of the more notable revelations has been the use of the term “breeders.” No, I’m not talking Chihuahuas and poodles. This is the term some in the LGBT community use to refer to heterosexual couples. In most cases, not surprisingly, it is used with condescension and disdain. I understand the desire for it to be insulting but its use actually makes my point beautifully. “Breeder” illustrates exactly the distinction between the two ideas of marriage being debated in this election. It helps to debunk some of the foundational assumptions on which the pro-gay marriage campaign is built.
So let’s talk about sex. Our bodies can move with another person in many different ways, using different parts, to bring about sexual climax. But heterosexual intercourse is distinct. Robert George puts it this way:
In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction… Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.
Gender is a relevant part of marriage because sex is relevant to marriage. Sex is relevant because only one kind of sex produces children. The nature of heterosexual sex carries more responsibility– the bearing and raising of children. It is entitled to more protection and benefits because of that increased responsibility.
This following video succinctly states these differences:
The video provides a rebuttal to common objections from the pro-gay marriage camp:
Q. But what about equality? A. The law already treats everyone equally. Every citizen can marry someone of the opposite sex.
Q. But is it fair to promote natural marriage but not promote same-sex marriage? A. Yes. The law treats all people the same, but it does not treat all behaviors the same. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes. So the law rightfully treats them differently.
Q. Isn’t this discrimination against homosexuals? A. No. This discriminates against behaviors, not people.
Gay marriage supporters often cite “Loving vs. Virginia” in their reasoning for why marriage should be redefined. The landmark case that decriminalized interracial marriage didn’t change any of the foundational components of marriage—one man, one woman, exclusivity, not too young, not too closely related, life-long commitment, and everyone involved had to be human. Miscegenation laws were put in place to prevent… breeding! It wasn’t that people didn’t think that black people and white people couldn’t be married; it was that they didn’t want mixed race children. Loving vs. Virginia reinforces the concept that children are at the center of true marriage.
Does any of this invalidate the genuine affection, ability to sacrifice, and aptitude for commitment that gay couples have for one another? You would be a fool to say so. Many of the people in my life who identify as gay might be more tender-hearted and lend themselves more easily to earnest affection than some heterosexuals. My mother and her partner have demonstrated commitment through great life transitions and challenges. But we come back to the central question of “What is marriage?” Breeding is, and always has been, an intrinsic part of this institution.
The laws of nature support the concept that at the heart of our human existence there are some basic design elements that favor the male/female model in a familial relationship. The law of man should promote this biological fact. For those of us who worship the Author of Creation, it’s no wonder that the law of God affirms and encourages this design. Observations and experience over thousands of years haven’t changed the complimentary nature of men and women. Neither has the new prevailing winds promoting homosexuality changed the reality that children are born of, desire to be known by, and do best when raised by, both a father and mother.