Same-Sex Marriage - Conclusion
Today’s post concludes a series in which I summarize Greg Koukl’s responses to objections made by those who support same-same sex marriages. The last response is to the following objection:
Marriage is just a social construction that we can define as we please.
This objection really does get at the heart of the matter. Just what is marriage? Koukl explains that there are two possible answers to this question:
Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleologyâ€) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.
He goes on to assert that it is not possible that marriage is a social construction. Some have tried to defend the traditional concept of marriage by arguing that every higher civilization has always defined marriage as joining members of the opposite sex. To argue this (while the position is generally accurate) concedes the argument to those favoring same-sex marriage. The role of cultures has not been to define marriage. Marriage is not an entity constructed by culture, rather it is an entity which has been uniformly described by culture. Marriage is not a social convention which is subject to alteration by society, even if the very concept has been stable for centuries.
Culture does not build marriages. Marriages build culture. Koukl points out that families are logically prior to society. Societies are large groups of families. Since families constitute society, society cannot define them, but must merel observe and describe them. Laws are made by society, not to define marriage according to their convention, but to protect families as being essential to the whole.
Why does the government get involved with licensing marriages at all? The answer to this question is central to arriving at the correct position on same-sex marriages. The reason societies care about marriage, and have characterized families as unions of men and women is because men and women are the natural source of children. Children, in turn, allow that civilized culture to persist. Koukl argues that this understanding of marriage is the only one which makes sense of the definition, structure, and government entitlements of marriage. Marriages begin families which are the building blocks of cultures.
Playing linguistic games like trying to redefine marriage as a union between two same-sex individuals can’t change what marriage truly is. By nature, marriage is established as a place for raising children. A same-sex marriage proponent may counter, “But, same-sex couples can adopt children.” While, unfortunately true, this changes nothing. Koukl argues:
This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers and fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.
So, marriage begins a family which will produce the next generation. By our deepest intuitions, we understand this, and this is why every higher civilized culture has recognized families as they have. Governments have no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It affirms marriage in order to protect the future of civilization. As stated in a previous post, marriage is all about the children. That is why same-sex marriages are meaningless concepts. In conclusion, Koukl argues:
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.
Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their “lifestyles” without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.