My answer is simple - "No, same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry" because of the variety of reasons. The main of them is the consideration of marriage as a natural phenomenon, a union between a man and a woman. Mostly, supporters of same-sex "marriages" say that marriage is a civil union, which is not related to religion and religious laws. Non-believers do not have to obey the precepts of religion and, thus, share the views of the Church on marriage as an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Is this true? The problem is that we are offered a false choice in advance - either civil or religious institution on the one hand, or a mystical union on the other. Meanwhile, marriage is not merely a civil or religious institution. Marriage is a natural reality rooted in creation itself, not in the book of the Revelation or state laws. Wherever we find people with all their diversity of customs, laws, and religions, we find marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Even though there were a few cultures where the same-sex cohabitation was not condemned (for example, ancient Sparta), and sometimes even welcomed, no one considered such cohabitation a "marriage."
Marriage between a man and a woman is not a statutory or religion - it is a natural phenomenon that exists among all peoples, a reality that simply cannot be changed by law. The government only recognizes this reality, but does not set it. For example, according to law, a man cannot get a maternity leave. Is it an act of a legal discrimination? The answer is “No”, since the law in this case only recognizes the natural reality that is a man cannot be pregnant. If we believe this is an outrageous discrimination, we should understand that such discrimination is generated not by the state or society, but by nature. Similarly, two men or two women cannot form a marriage. Such is the natural reality – marriage needs a man and a woman.
Gay activists demand the recognition of equal rights. However, in fact, their requirements are different. They want to ensure that the concept of marriage has been revised, and so radically that the very meaning of the term "marriage" would be lost. Let us analyze the following example. If we consider the male beer belly equal to pregnancy, we, thus, inevitably recognize that pregnancy is not more important than the beer belly. If we regard the union of two gays as a "marriage", we thus recognize that the marriage itself is something not more important than the union of two homosexuals. Meanwhile, such an alliance is a radically different phenomenon. The fact that in reality homosexual "marriage" does not imply fidelity is a statistical fact. According to a research by sociologists, such couples determine the notion of faithfulness “not in terms of sexual behavior, but rather in terms of emotional attachment” (McWhirter & Mattison, 1985). Such a union, according to the same researchers, involves "open relationship" and "lack of possessiveness towards the partner" (McWhirter & Mattison, 1985). Other researchers indicate that infidelity in male same-sex partnerships is 100% (Kirk & Madsen, 1989).
|You can chat with our custom service representative|
During all the human history, marriage meant a union between a man and a woman, in which they are loyal to each other, give birth to their children and bring them up. Nowadays we are offered to redefine it as a union that does not assume any men and women, loyalty, or children. What is left from marriage in this case? Moreover, statistics shows only a very small number of gays register their relationships. The whole struggle for the "marriage" is symbolic. In fact, all of the legal problems in these cases – inheritance, community property, etc. – can be resolved without the introduction of these "marriages". Actually, the struggle for the recognition of same-sex relationships as a "marriage" has other purpose: the society is asked to (including legally) recognize the same-sex relationships as an equivalent to the relationships between a man and a woman.
By nature, the human race is composed of men and women between whom there are some natural differences and natural complementarity, which find their expression in marriage. Therefore, we must recognize the right of men and women to marry. Is there such a complementarity between people of the same sex? The answer is obviously “No”. Even at the physiological level the male body is not adapted to the receptive role in the sexual intercourse, and the woman cannot play the role of a man even if she wants to. We can enact legislation that will balance the rights of a woman's womb and male anus, but we cannot change the very natural reality. We can only ignore this natural reality to the undoubted detriment of everybody.
To sum up, there is nothing specifically religious in the recognition of the fact that only a woman can be pregnant, and only a man and a woman can form a marriage. The acceptance of this fact does not require a deep faith in the Divine Revelation. All it requires is a little bit of common sense.