Homosexuality has indeed moved out of the closet and into the mainstream. This is demonstrated in the proliferation of homosexual characters on television, in movies, and the current violent debate and manifestations about gay marriages in France. This issue has even affected Christianity in that many homosexuals are seeking acceptance from Christian churches and even positions of leadership within Christian organizations. Not only that, many within those organizations are seeking to facilitate the acceptance of homosexuals by attempting to mitigate or remove the Scriptural barriers against its acceptance. Although I’m not concerned about the law that will allow marriage for gay people, in so far as it does not remove or change any of my rights, I’m definitely against this law for many other reasons. Before starting my argumentation, I want to state the obvious fact that I’m not homophobic before being suspected of being so. Indeed, nowadays we cannot be against this law without being insulted by the advocates for this bill by labeling those who oppose them as “hatemongers” and “homophobes”, which naturally prevents dialogue and further debate. Having clarified this point, let’s go back to the topic.
While it is true that homosexuality in various forms has been accepted in many cultures in the history of the world, even significant cultures such as the ancient Greek one, whose impact on modern western culture is unmistakable, did not attempt to redefine marriage. (Incidentally, this means that the arguments of proponents that the teachings of Scripture are nothing more than the products of morally narrow cultures are not true.) Perhaps it took the entitlement culture of the 21st century United States or perhaps it was simply a newfound boldness resulting from homosexuality’s acceptance during the last few decades; either way, these recent events mark the first time that so fundamental an institution as marriage has been redefined by a special interest group.
Contrary to what many activists repeat, the issue of gay marriage is not one of equal rights since unmarried partners have more options and freedom than do married partners. For example, unmarried partners, whether gay or straight, may divide their property however they choose and if the relationship dissolves, they may split their property however they choose, without requiring the courts to get involved (Courttv.com). Many homosexuals have recognized this and do not seek marriage for this and other reasons, although it is difficult to know how many homosexuals want to marry even though the activists are pushing hard for them (Sowell).
Thus, we mustn’t put all homosexuals in the same bag. Indeed, most of them don’t want to marry (as much as heterosexuals) and are against this project. Therefore, the purpose of the gay lobby, which represents a minority of the heterosexual population, is to show that heterosexuality is not the standard anymore, and has been replaced by the gender theory where everyone chooses their sexuality (Martinet). However, this is completely false because it is not the reality with children and families because in traditional marriage, which nobody cares about, there is inevitably assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy, which are not yet in the current law project. Regardless, we have to stop this confusion that has already happened once in 1998 with the PACS, which is a contract between two adults of opposite sex or the same sex, in order to organize their lives and get the same benefits of marriage. At this time, it was said that marriage for homosexuals would never be allowed because marriage is the link to the affiliate and previous generations. Then 15 years later, they said that society wasn’t ready to hear that. Thus now, the same move is made twice and 6 months or 2 years later, they will say that society wasn’t ready for assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy. Hence, marriage for gay people isn’t a matter of love or equality because they already have the same advantages of marriage with the PACS. Furthermore, from the moment one says that love is the only criterion for marriage; we can intellectually accept anything like polygamy, incest, marriage between members of the same family, etc. In fact, it is the first step before assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy.
Moreover, homoparental families don’t actually exist; it is an ideological myth because all gays had children with a woman and all lesbians had children with a man whether they wanted to or not. Concerning education, which is not the substance of the debate but is linked to it, everybody is obviously capable of educating children whether two women or two men. On the other hand, the matter is an almost philosophical or symbolic link with previous generations, which contemplates only two persons of different sex. For same-sex couples who deny reality and would have an educational or affiliation project thanks to these techniques, as some heterosexual couples who cannot have children used, they must not forget that these couples are suffering from conditions like sterility. Given these facts, one must decide that either one should not have these conditions to use these techniques, or it is necessary to consider that homosexuality is a disease, and there will be a new controversy!
Consequently, this project which is called “marriage for everyone” in France is actually a trick to satisfy the whims of people who do not accept the laws of nature. Besides, it will create a new business with women renting their womb, transforming children into consumer products, which is very disturbing morally.
Works Cited
Courttv.com. “Judge Refuses to Marry Two First Cousins.”
Martinet, Laurent. ""Il est très peu question d'amour dans le mariage"." L'EXPRESS. N.p., 23 Nov 2012. Web. 12 May 2013.
Sowell, Thomas. “Gay Marriage Rights.”
