A Secular Argument Against Homexual Marriage

Homosexual Marriage

            Nature and Creation have defined marriage as the union of man and woman for the purpose of conceiving children. With rare exception, life is perpetuated by man and woman. In the natural world there are a male and a female: while the female guard the clutch of eggs, the male is searching for food. This distinction between man’s masculinity and woman’s femininity extends beyond autonomy—they are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, each fulfilling their natural difference. This natural distinction makes man and woman complementary partners for the commitment involved in the structure of marriage. Traditional marriage presents the foundation to establishing the perfect family unit in the home.

The natural design has been questioned far too much in society today, the consequence of which has been a low estimate of marriage. For several reasons homosexual marriage contradicts the nature of marriage: it is not based on the complementary union of man and woman, and the purpose in a natural marriage cannot be achieved in a homosexual union.

             Our Founding Founders would never have supported same-sex marriage, Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality “should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter at least.” As a secular argument, homosexual marriage has been a debate on equal rights rather than legal rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. Homosexuals are not the only people denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. Roughly half the states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and in all states it is illegal to marry more than one person (Kolasinski, 2004). Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the peoples interest of a stable and self-perpetuating propagating society. Homosexual couples cannot biologically conceive children, such a fact justifying the laws which forbid their marriages (Vermont House and Senate Judiciary, 2000.) Homosexual marriages would have to prove what state interest these marriages might serve if it were to be legalized (Kolasinski, 2004). So far, no proof has been met.

Many argue that homosexuals are capable of creating “artificial insemination,” so the state has declared interest in legalizing lesbian marriage. Even so, a homosexual union cannot supply both the male and female roles of mother and father which have been proven to be critical to the healthy development of a child (Adam, 2004). It is so essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if they are to learn to function in a society made of both sexes.

 The most harmful damage homosexual marriage presents is the legalization of sexual love. If the state must recognize the marriage between two men because they “love” each other, then the state could not logically deny the recognition of any other marital union. If, to the state, the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction, the question of legalizing homosexual marriage is answered. If sexual love is become the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage looses its logical base, leading to marital chaos.