The fallacy of same-sex union
Paul Kokoski, On e-mail
Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon. Due to benign interpretations of the homosexual condition itself it is increasingly being viewed as something neutral or even good. Presently, it threatens to destroy the institution of marriage in Canada and the United States.No ideology, however, can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation (Gen 1:27-28. Gen:2:24) . According to consistent biblical testimony concerning homosexuality, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. In fact, all major religions of the world consider homosexuality an objective disorder. The arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are varied and betray a lack of right reason. They are little more than attempts to rationalise without thinking rationally. Some argue that same-sex marriages are about tolerance and equality. As natural law implies, however, sexual orientation does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnicity, gender or age in respect to non-discrimination. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behaviour manifests it. Unlike race, ethnic background, sex and age, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. In suggesting otherwise one is merely exploiting tolerance in the service of a particular ideology. A popular argument is that same-sex unions can in no way be the cause of any injustice to others. As a civil law, however, they cannot help but play a decisive role in shaping both the thought and behaviour of individuals and society. Legal recognition of same-sex unions would act to obscure basic moral values causing a devaluation of the institution of marriage. It is therefore somewhat naive to suggest, as do a number of proponents of same-sex marriage, that religious institutions will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages in the future if same-sex marriage becomes law. If a government can redefine the term "marriage" they can also redefine any existing laws to which the term marriage is related. Where adopted children are involved in same-sex marriages, they are deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood and hence the opportunity for full human development. Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation. Nonetheless, homosexual acts must be considered wrong because they close the sexual act to the gift of life.
|
|