The M Word, the H Word, and the Demand for Public Acceptance

If you followed the debate in the comments to the previous post, you've seen that we definitely have a controversy on our hands regarding gay marriage. And we have been brought to this point by the astonishing success of the homosexual movement over the past three decades. Traditionally, sodomy was viewed as an act, and was condemned as unnatural and deviant. A hundred years ago, homosexuality was viewed as a condition afflicting people who are prone to engaging in such unnatural and deviant acts. Today "gay" signifies not so much an act or condition as the identity of people who say that they most essentially are what they do and want to do sexually. (You might ask yourself what gives you your identity? Your hometown? Your sexulaity? Your race? Your beliefs?) The movement has been from act to condition to identity, bringing us to the present demand for same-sex marriage.

From one to ten percent of the teenage and adult populations (the actual figures are highly disputed) are said to be a minority deprived of their rights. In particular, they claim to be discriminated against in that they are "excluded" from the institution of marriage. They are not asking for tolerance of their private sexual practices and of the gay subculture constituted by such practices. They are demanding, rather, public acceptance and approval. That is the whole point of focusing on the status of marriage, which is a quintessentially public institution.

There are some gays who express admiration for traditional marriage and say they simply want to be included in its benefits. They claim they are now excluded. And they are right. But they are not excluded by others; they are excluded by their identity as gays.

Sexual temptations, like other temptations, can be resisted. In the "permissive cornucopia" which is our modern American culture, sexual orientation seems to flip-flop among the confused, as kika has noted among some of her acquaintances. In other cases, sexual orientation can be changed. Human weaknesses notwithstanding, chastity is a possibility for all. Yet we are faced with a not-insignificant number of people who say that gay is who they are, whether by choice or by fate, and that they are unfairly excluded from the companionship, stability, and other goods of marriage.

The M Word. But were the powers that be to do their bidding tomorrow, however, they would still be excluded from marriage. Throughout history and in all major cultures, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. A man and a man or a woman and a woman may have an intense but chaste friendship, including shared living arrangements. It is not the business of the state to certify or regulate friendships. As for those who choose a sexual relationship, we may well understand their yearning for public approval of their choice. But same-sex marriage is not marriage. It is at most an attempt to create a semblance of some features of marriage, a pretending to be something like the relationship between husband and wife that is marriage. The reality is not changed if the state collaborates in the pretense and calls it marriage.

Some may respond that it is a harmless pretense. If a minority so desperately want to be legally designated as married, even though everybody knows that their relationship is not really a marriage, why not let them? It seems the generous thing to do. And besides, it may reduce the typically wild promiscuity that is characteristic of the gay lifestyle. Nobody can know whether same-sex marriage would, in fact, help domesticate the gay subculture. We do know, however, that it would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience. Marriage and family law reflects the historically cumulative complexities of public concerns about property, inheritance, legal liability, and the legitimacy of children—the latter entailing a host of responsibilities for which parents, and especially men, can be held accountable.

The H Word. Many oppose same-sex unions and the consequent revolution in marriage and family law because they believe homosexuality is a disorder and homosexual acts are morally wrong. That is not a private prejudice. It is not, as the Supreme Court has claimed, an "irrational animus." It is a public moral judgment grounded in reason and historical experience, and supported by the authority of the biblical tradition. Nobody should apologize for publicly advocating a position informed by the foundational moral truths of Western Civilization.

Of course, those who do so will be accused of "homophobia." But as I've said, "homophobia" is a recently created term meant to stop all conversation on this serious matter. Support for the civilizational tradition in this regard is not a phobia; it is not an irrational fear. Concern about the legal establishment and normalization of sexual deviance is fully warranted. What is called "homophobia" is more accurately understood as a positive judgment regarding the common good and, most particularly, the well-being of children.

It should not be, but it still is, necessary to add that hatred of gays or denial of their human or civil rights is evil and must be unequivocally condemned. But as I've written in an earlier comment, the "right of gays to marry" is not a civil right. It would be a redefinition of marriage. And many of us who are concerned about the common good and the well-being of children are reasonably alarmed by the consequences in our society of such a redefinition.