I think gay marriage is obviously immoral; it confuses me and makes me angry. Take this, for example; I can’t look at this picture I drew without finding a rabbit and punching it in the face:
Usually when things make me angry I just keep asserting that they are wrong because my anger has blinded me to common sense, but somebody a bit cleverer than me has managed to sum up exactly why gay marriage is wrong in a religious and secular context, and will hopefully put the minds of gay people to rest. It is a paper called “Homosexual Marriage, Parenting and Adoption”, by Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, and you can read it here.
I have even, because I have a lot of time on my hands, attempted to back up some of his main points with arguments of my own, because people who have made the active choice to be gay may not be intelligent enough to read such an excellently-worded paper.
Firstly, Bernheim invites us to consider that not everyone who falls in love is able to marry the object of their affections, and how, because of this, gay people should not expect to get married just because they love each other:
“From the fact that two people love each other it does not follow necessarily that they have the right to be married…for example, a man cannot marry a woman who is already married…likewise, a woman cannot be married to two men on the grounds that she loves both of them and that both want to be her husband. A father cannot marry his daughter, even if their love is uniquely paternal and filial.”
There is no grey area when it comes to morality, and love is either right or wrong. The above are examples of wrong love, and you can see exactly why homosexuality has been put in the same bracket: the issues surrounding gay marriage are similar to the issues that might come about in a poly-marriage. You see, if you are gay, the shame of being such a thing will LITERALLY tear you apart meaning that you will become like two people, so if anyone attempts to marry you, they will actually be marrying two people, which is overly-complicated legally. What would you do in event of divorce? Death? Insurance? Wills? You didn’t think of that, did you? It is also very much like the love a father has for his daughter, because all gay people are related to each other and could, among themselves, actually produce genetically abnormal children. The bond between a father and a daughter is unique, but is also very much like the bond between two adults of the same sex, and for them to begin a sexual or romantic relationship would be a gross misunderstanding of this bond. Have you ever been married but also quite fancied someone else and thought that you’d like to have the opportunity to marry that person as well? That’s how gay people feel ALL THE TIME.
The important thing here is to immediately react to more unusual types of love with ‘ick- that’s gross!’ without thinking about why it is gross, and realising that perhaps, it isn’t. Sometimes the grossness can be logically explained; for example, it is wrong for a human to have sex with a dog because dogs don’t have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing and to take advantage of this is morally questionable. However, the reasons why some forms of love are just WRONG are not so clear, and rather than examining them closely, it is best to declare them as intrinsically ‘just wrong’ because of the way such things make us feel. To allow homosexuals to marry would not just affect the homosexuals, but would affect everyone who got married, because the whole concept of marriage would become tainted. Most people in the world feel utterly sick at the thought of haggis, which is why haggis has been made illegal. It is not just enough for those who don’t like it not to eat it, because the simple fact that haggis exists taints the whole concept of food in general, and may cause millions to starve to death.
Bernheim then goes on to discuss the definition of ‘marriage’, and how homosexual marriages cannot fall under this definition:
“Marriage is not only the recognition of a loving attachment. It is the institution that articulates the union between man and woman as part of the succession of generations. It is the establishment of a family…marriage is a fundamental act in the construction and the stability of individuals as well as of society.”
As we all know, the dictionary is sacred, and none of the definitions of any of the words in it have changed since it was first written at the beginning of time, which means that when we make laws, they must be constructed around the definitions of words and the ancient ideas these definitions were based on, rather than on utilitarian ideals of happiness and freedom for all, which may change as society evolves. This is the reason why black people are still unable to vote in America and have to use separate public transport to white people. Because marriage, throughout all of history and in every world culture, has been directly connected to religion, the correct definition of what a marriage is will be found in the Bible. In the Bible, marriage has always involved one man and one woman, not one man and many women, which never occurred at all; not with Abraham, King Solomon, Jacob, or anyone. Because marriage, in all of its mentions in the Bible, is only ever defined as between a man and a woman, we are stuck with this definition now and it must remain un-changing, and that is argument enough to prove that GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG.
Words in the Bible are even more important than other, ordinary words; for example, the Hebrew word for ‘helper’ in reference to Eve’s role in Adam’s life has connotations of importance and power, much like a doctor helps a patient, or how God helped Israel. The word had such connotations of superiority that the writer made sure to precede it with the word ‘suitable’, implying that Eve was ‘fit for’ Adam, and not above him. Christians and Jews have held rigidly to this ideal throughout the thousands of years they have read the bible, which is why women have always held an equal place in society to men. Words, as we know, are not fluid over time and adaptable to people’s individual beliefs and changes in society, but remain fixed, ensuring that humanity remains stifled and trapped by them.
Bernheim then brings up the issue of civil partnerships, and argues that gay people should be satisfied with this rather than insisting on using the word ‘marriage’:
“Even if certain provisions given automatically to the married are not given automatically to those in civil unions, they are nevertheless possible.”
Marriage is a unique experience, and encompasses a deeply sacred and spiritual emotional bond. I can’t understand why gay people would want to be a part of it, when a ‘civil partnership’ gives them ALL of the same rights (not just some of them), and isn’t cold or clinical-sounding at all. Gay people don’t really fall in love in the same way that heterosexual people do, so calling their partnership a ‘marriage’ is unnecessary.
I’m going to take a moment now to explain to those who haven’t read the Bible exactly what it says about the issue: Jesus himself said nothing directly on the subject of gay marriage, but we can ascertain what his views would have been from notable Bible passages. This one, for example, is often used to defend traditional marriage:
Matthew 19: 3-6- “Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Jesus argues that the only proper form of marriage is between one man and one woman; As we all know, in basic logic, if A is true, B, (where B is consistent with A) cannot also be true, so if marriage is between a man and a woman, this means it cannot be between a man and another man. The main point of this passage could possibly be interpreted as Jesus objecting to the ending a marriage for frivolous reasons, but seeing as there is only one way of interpreting the Bible, it follows that Jesus was specifically objecting to gay marriage.
Homosexuality is listed as an abominable sin in the Bible, along with things like eating certain foods, planting two crops next to each other and wearing cotton blends. The heart of Christianity is the sum of all these rules and regulations governing everyday life which have been consistently relevant for thousands of years; it is certainly not found in a throw-away passage like this:
Ephesians 4: 1-16- “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love… Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
Galatians 3:28- “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Next, Bernheim brings us onto, perhaps, the most important issue with gay marriage; that is; child-rearing:
“To love a child is one thing; to love a child with a love that provides the necessary structure is another…all the affection in the world will not suffice to produce the basic psychological structures that address the child’s need to know where he comes from.”
We live in a society where only those who are fit to have children are allowed to get married. To get married, they must present themselves at the ‘Child-Bearing Licensing Office’ and go through months of rigorous physical and psychological testing to make sure that any child they raise will be utterly sane and healthy, after which they get a license and are allowed to get married and try to start making a baby. Are you blind? If so, then I’m afraid you won’t be allowed to have children because they might get hurt without you noticing. How about if you want to be a father but you don’t have any legs? This could be a problem as normal boys need to be able to play sport with their fathers. Have you ever suffered with depression or anxiety? I’m sorry, but your mental diseases may rub off on any children you have, making them depressed and anxious too. Do you want to raise a child alone? That isn’t allowed either, because children raised in single-parent families are never successful. I’m not allowed to have a Child-Bearing-License myself because Foofy and I both have tics, and if we were to have a child, it would have tics too, and, since me and Foofy have had utterly miserable lives, it wouldn’t be fair to bring a child into the world for it to have the same life. It is a very good thing that we have this system in place that only allows for heterosexual, sane, perfectly physically healthy people to get married and have children; it means that we live in a world where no child has ever been negatively affected by the appearance, health, beliefs, or actions of their parents in any way. I was raised by two heterosexual parents, and I have no insecurities at all, and you only have to read the rest of my blog to see how perfectly sane I am.
“Homosexual parenting is not parenting”
Analytically and semantically, this is true. You may not know the definition of the word ‘parenthood’, but he goes on to explain:
“Neither marriage nor parenthood has ever been based on the sexuality of individuals but rather on sex itself- that is, on the anthropological distinction between man and woman…The term “parent” is not neutral; it involves a sexual difference.”
The word ‘parent’ is not even recognisable as a singular noun, so any attempt to look up the word in a dictionary simply failed; here are my fruitless attempts:
Cambridge Dictionaries Online: “A mother or father of a person or an animal.”
Websters online: “One that begets or brings forth offspring OR a person who brings up and cares for another.”
Dictionary online: “A father or a mother OR a protector or guardian.”
Oxford Dictionaries: “A person’s father or mother.”
Definitions aside, it has always been an anthropological necessity for there to be both a mother and father raising a child. I’ve never heard of any tribal societies that raise children a little differently. Single people who raise children can actually not legally call themselves parents, and it would be insulting to proper child-raising couples if they were to; they are simply ‘a person who lives with a child that has either come out of them or someone they have had sex with.’ This is a much simpler concept than the confusion of calling everyone who loves, nurtures and brings up a child a ‘parent.’
“The association of gay and lesbian parents and future parents has proposed several substitutes for the term “parent” depending on the various functions to be performed: Stepparent, co-parent, homo-parent, mother to another, biological parent, legal parent, social parent, second parent, etc. It seems unlikely that a child could manage naturally to find a stable meaning in relation to all such terminologies.”
These are just some of the terms that gay people have invented in order to trick their way into corrupting children; notably ‘biological parent.’ That term was gibberish before gay people began to exist in the 20th century. Besides, it is unfair to have to expect children to learn any terminology involving the world around them; children aren’t very adaptable to new things, shown by the fact that it takes them fifteen times longer to become fluent in a new language than an adult. It is best for every child’s growing-up experience to be identical, as then none of them will face any problems, and the world would be a much better place.
“The right to a child does not exist. The desire to have a child in no way establishes the right to have a child, neither for heterosexuals or for homosexuals…(the right to have a child) consists in particular of giving the child a family in which he will have the best chance to have the best life.”
Nobody has the right to have children, which is why, as I have already discussed above, one requires a Child-Bearing-License in order to have one. When it comes to adoption, although it is obviously wrong for a gay couple to adopt because there have been multiple studies done that show this, because of ‘political correctness’, adoption agencies may feel obliged to allow gay couples to adopt in the fear of being accused of discrimination against gays. Childless heterosexual couples tend to adopt for a combination of altruistic and personal reasons; perhaps they want to use the love they have for each other to make a stable, happy home for a child, or they might feel that raising a child is an utterly unique experience which would be both rewarding and challenging to them. However, childless homosexual couples are only selfishly thinking of themselves and their own desires, not considering the health or happiness of the child. Children raised in gay families would be the target of bullying and discrimination due to their parentage. Because this bullying is entirely the fault of gay people, it follows that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to have children. The alternative, which would involve teaching children to accept and love those around us, to celebrate and take joy in the fact that we are all unique and wonderful creatures with our own desires and to allow good, moral agents to live lives free from harm is simply not an option here.
Finally, one subject Bernheim failed to raise in detail was the issue of natural law. Catholics in particular base their morality on what is naturally in keeping with preserving and protecting the human race, which means that contraception and abortion are definitely immoral. Homosexual love, sexuality and, most of all, parenting are entirely artificial behaviours that come about through choice and a desire to sin against God. We know these behaviours are artificial because they certainly don’t exist elsewhere in the animal kingdom, like in the penguin house of Central Park Zoo. Along with things like noses and breasts and feet and tongues, we have also (quite naturally) been given something called ‘reason’, and we are able to use this to form decisions based on what is right and what is good, rather than relying on our own personal instincts and fears of what is different or unusual. Through using reason, humanity has created some wonderful things, like Radiohead, iPhones and chips & cheese, but through the learning process, some pretty horrible things have happened too. Our reason, however, has prevailed and made us look upon the uglier bits of our history as mistakes, and has helped us to understand that just because something was considered to be ‘right’ two thousand years ago, it doesn’t make it right or good now. However in some cases, such as Gay marriage, it is best to leave reason entirely out of it and do all we can to prevent anything positive coming out of homosexual love, because that is exactly what Jesus would have wanted.