In what follows I propose an explanation of why "homosexual marriage" is not only immoral, but also not good for society to recognize. Also, I give an account of why "homosexual marriage" is a nonsensical term used by those who have an agenda to make the homosexual lifestyle a social and moral norm in our society and the errors at work in the principles of this group of people. This explanation contains nothing that is taken directly from religious beliefs and so is proposed entirely on the basis of reason. Those who wish to skip over the sections which explain the immorality of homosexual acts based on a philosophy of natural rights and natural law, perhaps because they deny the existence of human nature, may do so by moving to the last section in which a modern, personalist account of human sexuality and sexual ethics is presented, in opposition to a false humanism - Cartesian dualism. The middle sections will still need to be read if one wishes to read about why "homosexual marriage" is not good socially and politically, let alone personally.
Basic Explanation of Natural Human Rights
Is there a human right to murder another? No. Is there a human right to defend one's own life by killing his attacker? Yes. Is there a human right to private property? Yes. Is there a human right to deprive others of the things needed for survival (food, water, shelter, etc.) in the name of one's own wealth? No. The point is that human rights are not arbitrary conventions that vary from one culture to the next. On the contrary, they are inscribed in our nature as human beings. It will never be just to murder another person, nor will it ever be just (or possible for that matter) to force someone to believe what he does not want to believe. Why? It is because human rights flow from our natural inclinations as human beings. We have natural inclinations to the good known through reason, to self-preservation, to marriage and the rearing of offspring, to the knowledge of truth, and to living in society. There will never be a human right to destroy the life of another, to keep another from seeking the truth, etc. Why? Because man naturally inclines to these goods and they are due to him, i.e., just for him to possess on account of his nature as a human person. Thus, in general, a natural human right is what is just for us on account of the dignity of our nature as human persons and these are distinguished according to our natural inclinations.
These natural inclinations form the foundation of our natural rights. If there is a natural inclination to one of these goods, there is a natural right to that good. Furthermore, if it is necessary for someone to possess another good to which he is not directly naturally inclined in order that he can possess one of the goods to which he does naturally incline, then, by extension, it can also be said that there is a natural right to such a good. For example, it is necessary to man to possess private property if he is to preserve his own life and raise a family. Therefore, just as there is a natural right to life and to a family, so also there is a natural right to possess one's own property, without which one would not be able to sustain his own life or the life of his family.
Discerning whether or not there is a natural right to homosexual marriage is simply a matter of looking at that to which we naturally incline as human persons, for as we saw above, the human rights that belong to us by nature correspond with that to which we incline by nature. While there is a natural inclination to sexual union and the rearing of children, there is not a natural inclination to homosexual union. This point is deduced from the fact that our sexuality is instrinsically ordered inseperably to both spousal unity and to procreation, neither of which are involved in homosexual relationships. Since the act which distinguishes a homosexual union from any other kind of personal union, such as friendship, business partnership, or marriage, is not an act to which the human person inclines by nature, like knowing the truth or eating, nor is such an act something necessary for any other natural inclination to be fulfilled, like the possession of private property, there cannot be a natural human right to these acts or to the union that is defined by them. In other words, because it involves an intrinsically disordered use of human sexuality, that is, one that is opposed to the natural ends and meanings of the sexual act, there can be no natural right to homosexual marriage. Nor can the state grant such rights since it has no authority to do so, such an act being beyond the power of those who did not make human nature what it is or bring it into being in the first place. And since this sort of relationship does not offer the same contribution, or even a comparable contribution to the common good of the society, there is no reasonable cause for it to be granted a similar status in law.
Men and women have the right to marry and to raise a family. Conversely, men and women do not have a natural right to promiscuity, adultery, or homosexual marriage, because all of these are in fact opposed to what our sexuality is naturally ordered, namely, to the goods to which we naturally incline sexually: spousal union and the procreation of children. Some may object to this saying that the natural inclination to sexual union is not ordered towards spousal unity and the procreation of children, but rather, it is only ordered to pleasure and a feeling of closeness to another, whoever and whenever. This objection is refuted simply by understanding the sexual act as a personal act. If there are objections or questions to this point, I will be happy to take them up at another time. Let us now return to our subject matter.
Heterosexual union is the basis of society, the fundamental unit or cell of the social body. Homosexual union is not the basic cell of society, nor can it become so, since natural limitations do not allow for this. Furthermore, the attempt through scientific or technological means to make homosexual union the basic unit of society would destroy the family. The reason that marriages and families receive benefits that those in other relationships do not, e.g., friendships, business partnerships, homosexual unions, is that the contribution of marriages and families to society is irreplaceable and irrepeatable. If homosexual unions ceased to exist, society would continue to grow and develop. If marriage ceased, society and human development would shortly follow suit, ending before another generation could be born.
Given these differences, it is a political absurdity to conflate these essentially distinct relationships and their contribution to society. I do not have a right to the same recognition and benefits of a single mother because I am not a single mother. Why should homosexual couples have a right to the same recognition and benefits of married couples when they are not married couples? Again, even if you call homosexual couples "married", as some states do already, in reality, these couples are still different from heterosexual couples. This conflation is already a reality in many states, but it does not change the fact that there is no natural right to being recognized as something that you are not, just as there is not a natural right to receive all of the same benefits that others receive from the state, provided of course that these are not benefits which one's being deprived of would constitute a violation of one's natural rights - which as we have seen is not the case here.
The Confusion Behind the Demand for Marriage Rights and Redefinition
There are two kinds of confusion that come together in the pursuit of the redefinition of marriage and the recognition of this newly defined "marriage" and the "rights" that come along with it by the state:
(1) the idea that the nature of a thing is determined by the one who defines it, and (2) the idea that the state is the source of human rights.
To address the first: the definition of a thing follows upon its nature, not the other way around. The demand to control and manipulate nature that is so prevalent in our modern society lends itself to the tendency to define things based upon the purposes for which man uses them. This is all well and good in the case of artifacts, but when it carries over to natural things it is out of place and mistaken. For instance, those who look at sexuality as something to be controlled and manipulated for the purposes of pleasure will define it and the morals surrounding it in terms of their purposes, whereas those who look at human sexuality as a natural attribute of the human person, will define it in terms of its natural purposes and base their sexual morality on human nature instead of human artifice.
To address the second, the state is not the giver of human rights. Human rights belong to men by nature and not by governmental decree. Hence the term "inalienable rights" that is written in the American Declaration of Independence. This does not mean that governments will not try to define human rights on their own terms. History has shown that governments sometimes do the same thing with human rights that individuals sometimes do with their own morality, that is, they define them based upon their own purposes instead of defining them based upon the nature of man.
Thus, the first problem, that of defining things without reference to their nature, and the second problem, that of confusing the foundation of human rights, both follow upon the same denial of the truth about the natures of things as they are - prior to the intervention of human manipulation and motivation - and the assumption of the power to control and manipulate nature according to one's own pleasure regardless of its consequences on natural beings (e.g., human persons). If the nature and the real definition of a thing depends solely upon the one defining it, then there is no reason to stop the redefinition of marriage or the appropriation of the rights of married persons by those that would qualify as "married" once the new definition was accepted. But, for those who know that the natures of things are of consequence, and who acknowledge the truth about man's nature and his natural inclinations as the basis of his natural rights, then for them the attempt to redefine marriage is laid bare as an attempt to accomplish an agenda having nothing to do with the truth about man or his rights. What is more, insofar as the truth is a good to which man naturally inclines and to which he therefore has a natural right to know and pursue, if the state were to pass legislation that redefined marriages and began to teach the indentity of homosexuality and heterosexuality in its schools as a matter of law, then such a state would in fact be guilty of violating the natural rights of its citizens by willfully and forcibly witholding the truth from them.
In fine, my thoughts are based upon the following principles:
(1) There is a real human nature.
(2) The truth about human nature can be known.
(3) Natural inclinations are ordered towards the good of that which has the nature.
(4) The good or end of a natural thing is one, not many. (Acorns do not become fish, they are ordered towards becoming oak trees, so also with all natural things, they tend towards the natural good of that what they are.)
(5) The account of the good of the human person must take include the physical, moral, and spiritual aspects of his nature or else it will fall short.
From these principles it follows almost immediately that the sexual act to which we incline by nature is itself naturally ordered towards spousal unity and the procreation of children, and that the unitive and procreative meanings cannot be separated from this act on account of its nature. These meanings can be violated and these ends thwarted, but it does not change the fact that sexuality is ordered towards them by nature, and therefore that it is truly spousal union and children to which we incline through our natural sexual inclination. One need only consider the difference between love and lust to know the difference between sexual union that is morally good and that which is morally evil.
Is there a human right to murder another? No. Is there a human right to defend one's own life by killing his attacker? Yes. Is there a human right to private property? Yes. Is there a human right to deprive others of the things needed for survival (food, water, shelter, etc.) in the name of one's own wealth? No. The point is that human rights are not arbitrary conventions that vary from one culture to the next. On the contrary, they are inscribed in our nature as human beings. It will never be just to murder another person, nor will it ever be just (or possible for that matter) to force someone to believe what he does not want to believe. Why? It is because human rights flow from our natural inclinations as human beings. We have natural inclinations to the good known through reason, to self-preservation, to marriage and the rearing of offspring, to the knowledge of truth, and to living in society. There will never be a human right to destroy the life of another, to keep another from seeking the truth, etc. Why? Because man naturally inclines to these goods and they are due to him, i.e., just for him to possess on account of his nature as a human person. Thus, in general, a natural human right is what is just for us on account of the dignity of our nature as human persons and these are distinguished according to our natural inclinations.
These natural inclinations form the foundation of our natural rights. If there is a natural inclination to one of these goods, there is a natural right to that good. Furthermore, if it is necessary for someone to possess another good to which he is not directly naturally inclined in order that he can possess one of the goods to which he does naturally incline, then, by extension, it can also be said that there is a natural right to such a good. For example, it is necessary to man to possess private property if he is to preserve his own life and raise a family. Therefore, just as there is a natural right to life and to a family, so also there is a natural right to possess one's own property, without which one would not be able to sustain his own life or the life of his family.
The Question of the Natural Right to "Homosexual Marriage"
Discerning whether or not there is a natural right to homosexual marriage is simply a matter of looking at that to which we naturally incline as human persons, for as we saw above, the human rights that belong to us by nature correspond with that to which we incline by nature. While there is a natural inclination to sexual union and the rearing of children, there is not a natural inclination to homosexual union. This point is deduced from the fact that our sexuality is instrinsically ordered inseperably to both spousal unity and to procreation, neither of which are involved in homosexual relationships. Since the act which distinguishes a homosexual union from any other kind of personal union, such as friendship, business partnership, or marriage, is not an act to which the human person inclines by nature, like knowing the truth or eating, nor is such an act something necessary for any other natural inclination to be fulfilled, like the possession of private property, there cannot be a natural human right to these acts or to the union that is defined by them. In other words, because it involves an intrinsically disordered use of human sexuality, that is, one that is opposed to the natural ends and meanings of the sexual act, there can be no natural right to homosexual marriage. Nor can the state grant such rights since it has no authority to do so, such an act being beyond the power of those who did not make human nature what it is or bring it into being in the first place. And since this sort of relationship does not offer the same contribution, or even a comparable contribution to the common good of the society, there is no reasonable cause for it to be granted a similar status in law.
Men and women have the right to marry and to raise a family. Conversely, men and women do not have a natural right to promiscuity, adultery, or homosexual marriage, because all of these are in fact opposed to what our sexuality is naturally ordered, namely, to the goods to which we naturally incline sexually: spousal union and the procreation of children. Some may object to this saying that the natural inclination to sexual union is not ordered towards spousal unity and the procreation of children, but rather, it is only ordered to pleasure and a feeling of closeness to another, whoever and whenever. This objection is refuted simply by understanding the sexual act as a personal act. If there are objections or questions to this point, I will be happy to take them up at another time. Let us now return to our subject matter.
The Question of the Natural Right to the State's Benefits and Recognition of Homosexual Marriage
Heterosexual union is the basis of society, the fundamental unit or cell of the social body. Homosexual union is not the basic cell of society, nor can it become so, since natural limitations do not allow for this. Furthermore, the attempt through scientific or technological means to make homosexual union the basic unit of society would destroy the family. The reason that marriages and families receive benefits that those in other relationships do not, e.g., friendships, business partnerships, homosexual unions, is that the contribution of marriages and families to society is irreplaceable and irrepeatable. If homosexual unions ceased to exist, society would continue to grow and develop. If marriage ceased, society and human development would shortly follow suit, ending before another generation could be born.
Given these differences, it is a political absurdity to conflate these essentially distinct relationships and their contribution to society. I do not have a right to the same recognition and benefits of a single mother because I am not a single mother. Why should homosexual couples have a right to the same recognition and benefits of married couples when they are not married couples? Again, even if you call homosexual couples "married", as some states do already, in reality, these couples are still different from heterosexual couples. This conflation is already a reality in many states, but it does not change the fact that there is no natural right to being recognized as something that you are not, just as there is not a natural right to receive all of the same benefits that others receive from the state, provided of course that these are not benefits which one's being deprived of would constitute a violation of one's natural rights - which as we have seen is not the case here.
The Confusion Behind the Demand for Marriage Rights and Redefinition
There are two kinds of confusion that come together in the pursuit of the redefinition of marriage and the recognition of this newly defined "marriage" and the "rights" that come along with it by the state:
(1) the idea that the nature of a thing is determined by the one who defines it, and (2) the idea that the state is the source of human rights.
To address the first: the definition of a thing follows upon its nature, not the other way around. The demand to control and manipulate nature that is so prevalent in our modern society lends itself to the tendency to define things based upon the purposes for which man uses them. This is all well and good in the case of artifacts, but when it carries over to natural things it is out of place and mistaken. For instance, those who look at sexuality as something to be controlled and manipulated for the purposes of pleasure will define it and the morals surrounding it in terms of their purposes, whereas those who look at human sexuality as a natural attribute of the human person, will define it in terms of its natural purposes and base their sexual morality on human nature instead of human artifice.
To address the second, the state is not the giver of human rights. Human rights belong to men by nature and not by governmental decree. Hence the term "inalienable rights" that is written in the American Declaration of Independence. This does not mean that governments will not try to define human rights on their own terms. History has shown that governments sometimes do the same thing with human rights that individuals sometimes do with their own morality, that is, they define them based upon their own purposes instead of defining them based upon the nature of man.
Thus, the first problem, that of defining things without reference to their nature, and the second problem, that of confusing the foundation of human rights, both follow upon the same denial of the truth about the natures of things as they are - prior to the intervention of human manipulation and motivation - and the assumption of the power to control and manipulate nature according to one's own pleasure regardless of its consequences on natural beings (e.g., human persons). If the nature and the real definition of a thing depends solely upon the one defining it, then there is no reason to stop the redefinition of marriage or the appropriation of the rights of married persons by those that would qualify as "married" once the new definition was accepted. But, for those who know that the natures of things are of consequence, and who acknowledge the truth about man's nature and his natural inclinations as the basis of his natural rights, then for them the attempt to redefine marriage is laid bare as an attempt to accomplish an agenda having nothing to do with the truth about man or his rights. What is more, insofar as the truth is a good to which man naturally inclines and to which he therefore has a natural right to know and pursue, if the state were to pass legislation that redefined marriages and began to teach the indentity of homosexuality and heterosexuality in its schools as a matter of law, then such a state would in fact be guilty of violating the natural rights of its citizens by willfully and forcibly witholding the truth from them.
In fine, my thoughts are based upon the following principles:
(1) There is a real human nature.
(2) The truth about human nature can be known.
(3) Natural inclinations are ordered towards the good of that which has the nature.
(4) The good or end of a natural thing is one, not many. (Acorns do not become fish, they are ordered towards becoming oak trees, so also with all natural things, they tend towards the natural good of that what they are.)
(5) The account of the good of the human person must take include the physical, moral, and spiritual aspects of his nature or else it will fall short.
From these principles it follows almost immediately that the sexual act to which we incline by nature is itself naturally ordered towards spousal unity and the procreation of children, and that the unitive and procreative meanings cannot be separated from this act on account of its nature. These meanings can be violated and these ends thwarted, but it does not change the fact that sexuality is ordered towards them by nature, and therefore that it is truly spousal union and children to which we incline through our natural sexual inclination. One need only consider the difference between love and lust to know the difference between sexual union that is morally good and that which is morally evil.
Why Are Homosexual Acts Lustful and Not Acts of Love?
Any sexual union that is not open to life is deficient inasmuch as that act departs from the natural order that reason discerns in the sexual act. The consequences of this are not simply that children can not and will not be produced from such an act. Rather, there are additional consequences that will affect the totality of the personalities that are directly involved in such relationships and also those personalities who live in their community. Why? Human nature is not some arbitrary concept that moralists use to keep people from expressing their freedom as individuals. Instead, humanity is the name of that which is common to all human persons insofar as the structure of the human person, and the fundamental order present within each personality towards its own good and fulfillment is concerned. Because homosexual acts depart from the purpose and natural order inherent in human sexuality, they are incapable of being an expression of genuine love for another person. The reason for this is that they are acts of lust. How do we distinguish between acts of love and acts of lust when it comes to human sexuality? The distinction is simple. When looked at according to reason, instead of according to passion or a false compassion so prevalent today on the part of those who do not understand the nature of human sexuality, the sexual act is a gift of self. In it, spouses give themselves to the other totally and receive the other totally. Just as in a contraceptive relationship where the totality of the one's self is neither given, nor received, due to the rejection of that most personal attribute of man and woman, namely, their fertility, so also in homosexual relations there can be no total gift of self because the fertility of the other person, which is an essential property of their human personality, is being rejected by those involved. This rejection may not take place explicitly, as though one person would say to another, "I reject your fertility but still want to enter into a relationship with you." But it takes place nonetheless because it is expressed in the actions of the couple. Human actions speak louder than words. Hence, such a relationship is not based on the total gift of self, for the sake of which sexuality exists, but on the satisfaction of the sexual desire, for the sake of which satisfaction another person is used in a relationship that is inherently incapable of providing the context in which the total personal gift of self can take place. One cannot deny that the person with sexual tendencies towards the same sex is not capable of reordering the whole of their sexuality simply by an act of will. The human body is part of the human person. It is not an instrument that the person uses at his own good pleasure for whatever purpose he wishes. It can become such when people fail to recognize that their body is not something other than they are themselves. The problem here is nothing other than a new Manicheism, a Cartesian dualism, which would set off spirit against matter, soul against body, and claim that the physical world is not the sphere of morality, but the sphere of manipulation. The strength of the argument proposed above is that it recognizes the truth about humanity, namely, that the body and the soul form an integrity, one human being, a single person. The nature of the person is such that happiness cannot be found apart from the gift of one's self to others. Thus, in matters of human sexuality, wherein this self-gift finds its fullest expression in a human relationship, it is absolutely necessary to consider the role of the body, and the purposes and meanings associated with the sexual act. For in matters concerning sexuality, in order to know and discern what will lead the person to fulfillment through the true gift of themselves, and what will draw them away from the fulfillment that can only be reached through a true gift of themselves it is necessary to take into account what kind of being the human person actually is, rather than what he might claim to be for the sake of satisfying his desires. And the human person is such as to possess the power of generation, i.e., fertility, within his very self. This amazing power is at the heart of what it is to be man and what it is to be woman, and so, regardless of claims to the contrary, denial of fertility as an essential attribute of the self is tantamount to a denial of the corporeal aspect of the human personality. And so, the gift of self in a marital relationship must be a gift that corresponds to the inmost structure of the person as an integrity of body and soul, namely, a gift that is free, faithful, total, and fruitful, i.e., open to new life, if it is to be an act of love.
No comments:
Post a Comment