This may seem slow in response. However, I feel this is an important subject that requires a high degree of clarity, so I decided to be as precise, deliberate and methodical in how I communicate my intellectual reasonings.
MY PRECURSOR:
While it appeared as though the entire world celebrated a great “victory" on the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on so called same sex marriages, yesterday was a sad day for me. This is a letter from my heart to whoever cares to read it. I’m NOT trying to persuade minds with arguments, to condemn or to provide religious guilt (in fact, this isn’t a religious discussion at all. If you’re a Christian both Scripture and Tradition are explicit on the matter), I’m simply presenting reasons as to why I hold a particular opinion (secular opinion), which I ask that those who do not hold, would respect (as I respect theirs). I used the word respect, because the word “tolerate” has been perverted in our society to imply that everyone must “accept” other people’s beliefs and opinions. I don’t agree with that.
Before I proceed with my perspective, I’d like to precursor my comments. It appears as though anyone who holds a differing opinion on same sex unions are typically categorized and then disregarded as two types, either: “homophobic”, or “judgemental”.
I am far from perfect, ask my wife, though I am striving to be neither homophobic or judgemental. In fact I have friends and family whom openly admit and practice same sex attraction. I love these individuals and give them the utmost respect and dignity that they deserve as a person. They have made life choices and live a lifestyle that though I do not agree with, for reasons forthcoming, are still theirs to make. Though this is not a religious debate, I admit I am a man of faith, and because of that I believe that I was made to love all of humanity, no matter what skin colour, heritage, or sexual orientation, etc.
Similarly, though I hold certain moral convictions, I don’t hold others to the same lifestyle choices I have made. This doesn’t mean I agree with theirs, but I still give them dignity and respect as a person. I also have to believe that sharing a different opinion with another, done so in charity (love), must be possible without it being dismissed as “judgemental”. For example (and I’m NOT equating this example with same sex unions), if someone is riding the waves on a surfboard, and another from the beach notices a shark fin, it should be the responsibility of the other to warm them. Perhaps the surfer might dismiss their warning as being “judgemental". However, a person not willing to shed light on a dangerous situation would be negligent, rather than tolerant.
I’m not a judge, and I don’t want to be. Ultimately people are going to make choices, I’m just writing this letter to shed some light on the consequences of those decisions. I’m not here to weigh in on their culpability, guilt or sentencing. I’m merely documenting observations. Though I may not be as charitable in situations as I should be, I’m striving to let true love win.
This ends my precursor, now onward to why I can’t join this rainbow celebration...
WHAT IS LOVE?
I’ll have to admit, though this ruling was not surprising, what was surprising was the positively orchestrated and exceptionally timed ad campaign to promote this as a “win” and “celebration”.
I found President Obama’s speech to be oddly delivered, with social media quickly using hashtags “#lovewins” and “love is love” (quoting Obama’s speech).
My question is, "what is love”? Haddaway asked that question in 1993 with a catchy hit song, and that question still rings today. Is love gratification? Or is love sacrifice? We’ll come back to this in a moment…
People who have no investment in this fight (and sadly this has become a fight, on both sides), are seeing the superficial reasons as to why this U.S. Supreme Court ruling is “good”. Many being convinced that, “this doesn’t affect anyone else except the two getting married, so why shouldn’t they be able to”.
Fundamentally here are my three (non-religious) reasons I cannot celebrate this as a “win”:
ONE - A CASE OF DEFINITIONS.
2+2 does not equal 3. Traditional marriage has ALWAYS, since the beginning of humanity, been between man and woman. This definition is historical and long standing, no one can deny that. So if the word “marriage” defines the legal union of a man and a woman, enabling it to include the union between two men or two woman dilutes the definition. I’d suggest a more prudent solution would be to label these same sex unions something different. A union between a man and a woman is not the same thing as a woman and a woman (or man and man), so why would we attempt to call it the same thing?
A great example of this is polygamy, the next logical step in the dilution of marriage. When Obama was presenting his victory speech, I couldn’t help but ask the question, “Why can’t three people who love each other, marry?” Are we not depriving three people of “true” love by not letting them marry? The problem is, polygamy is different from traditional marriage, it’s a whole other word, with a whole other definition. So let’s not try to call it the same thing. The consequence is a dilution of the meaning of the word.
TWO - A CASE OF NATURAL LAW.
Biologically, humanity has two genders, male and female. These two genders are ordered towards union with each other for procreation. This is important to remember, because without this recognition, sex is just gratification. If you want to test this theory out, next time you are about to be intimate with your "significantly union-ed other” (aka “spouse”), tell them, “I am seeking this sexual intimate encounter with you for MY sole physical pleasure only”. You might get a slap in the face. The sexual act has two objective natural ends: unity and procreation. Pleasure, both physical and emotional is (sometimes) a welcomed addition to this act, but not always. Attempting to isolate one natural property of the sexual act, apart from it's two primary ends, is objectively and naturally disordered.
Here’s an example to explain what I mean. An 18 year old girl perceives that she is overweight, even though in reality, she is severely underweight, deprived of nourishment, with her skin hanging off of her bones. So what does she do? She eats food. Not only that, but she enjoys food, very much so. Eating food gives her GREAT pleasure and gratification, even fulfillment.
However, the primary function and natural end of food is that it provides her body with nourishment. But she also proceeds to force herself to throw up her food immediately after she consumes it. This 18 year old bulimic is living a disordered lifestyle. Not for religious reasons. Not because she is fat or skinny. Rather, her actions are disordered because they violate natural law. The actions are unnatural and disordered. The same reasoning applies to acts of intimacy by same sex couples. The actions are unnatural and disordered as they go against their intended design, regardless of gratification or preference.
Yet some might claim, “these feelings come naturally to me, therefore these actions must be natural”. Try applying that same logic to any other disordered action and you see where the system breaks down. Whether it is bulimia, polygamy, beastiality, alcoholism etc. (and no, I’m not equating same sex acts to any of these listed.)
True love demands that we tell this 18 year old bulimic girl of her true beauty and dignity as a human person. She herself might argue, “I like how I look, it’s my body and my right to be able to force my body to do whatever makes me feel good and liberated as a person”. If we don’t tell her of the consequences of her actions, that her teeth will rot, that she will be malnourished, that she is suppressing emotional issues (through love and charity of course) we become negligent. This is why I’m writing this letter. This is why I cannot celebrate this so called “victory” for America. It weights on my heart like a parent whose child has run away from home.
The institution of marriage is designed to foster the natural end of the commitment: unity and procreation. This is not possible for two men or two women. Ultimately we need to ask, "what is sex for"? If it’s just mutual self gratification (either physical or emotional) than why does this need to be in the confines of “marriage”?
THREE - A CASE OF SOCIETY.
This addresses the misconception that same sex unions only affect the two who engage in them (pun intended). Take a moment and consider WHY a government would traditionally provide incentives and benefits for those who have families? Why would they give tax credits to people who are married? Why would they give additional tax credits to those with children? The short answer is because it benefits the society as a whole economically.
Families are the bed rock of society. When a man and a woman come together in marriage they make babies. These babies are nurtured and educated to be contributing members of this society. Same sex unions are sterile of this ability. Even if they adopt, you’re not creating additional contributing members of society, rather you’re simply moving members around.
Furthermore, by giving the same benefits to same sex unions as traditional marriages, the societies economy is being diluted from the purpose of the incentives, without the outcomes: future contributing members of society. Plainly put, the government is giving money to these unions which would not bear the fruit of their financial investment.
Lastly, we need to recognize that even if same sex couples decide to raise children, either by adoption, or through various alternative conception methods, they are DELIBERATELY depriving their child of either a mother or a father. Statistically, this has ramifications to the outcome of the child. For example, not having a father present, correlates to unwed/unwanted pregnancies, convictions, drug use etc. (To learn about this these sociological studies check out - http://dailysignal.com/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggests-differences-matter/)
ARE WE DENYING “TRUE LOVE”?
In closing, I feel we need to address the following misconception that suggests by denying same sex unions the title of marriage we are depriving them of “true love” and sentencing them to a life of loneliness. But how far are we willing to take this reasoning, if we follow it to it’s logical end? (And I am by no means comparing these examples or equating them as the same degree).
For example, a father and a daughter share a truly unique bond together. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry if they “truly” love each other? What about someone who hasn’t been able to find “true” love with another human, but is in “love” with their pet? Should we DENY them the opportunity for “true” love with their pet dog, or horse or goat, etc.? Aren’t we sentencing these people to loneliness by denying them “true" love? How far will we take this?
The problem is not the person, it's a problem of perception. Similar to the bulimic that perceives he or she looks fat, all the while is dangerously undernourished, we need to be guided by not simply gratification of desires, but fulfillment and dignity in our personhood, no matter what orientation we possess.
So, “what is love”? Is it taking our desires, no matter how disordered to their logical end? Even if it means marrying a bridge, or a car, or a flashlight? Perhaps we should celebrate alcoholics who choose to get drunk every night as their right to live that particular lifestyle. After all, it’s not affecting anyone else, and they may even enjoy it... Or is “true” love more than gratification. I come from the camp that suggests that true love is more than mere gratification, but true love is sacrifice.
Many will hate me for this post, become violently upset and emotionally enraged. I may even lose friends over this (not my intent). What I’ve written, I’ve done so in love with the best intentions and so we are clear, just because I don’t agree with someone who holds a differing perspective or opinion, doesn’t mean I hate them or am angry with them.
If you hold a different opinion or perspective I welcome you to share your intellectual reasonings. However, hate speak, on either side of this camp will not be tolerated.
With great love and charity, peace be with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment