There are two other reasons for the current unprecedented advocacy of gay marriage. The first is the decline of any public recognition of sexual difference and so the significance of sexually asymmetric unions, which I’ve already alluded to. The second, and arguably most important factor, is the technologisation of childbirth, allied to the increased acceptance of the adoption of children by gay couples….
In the realm of public discourse, assertion of sexual difference has become practically unspeakable, despite the fact that it is implicitly assumed and indeed spoken of by most ordinary non-intellectual people in the course of everyday life….
The comments to the article are interesting as is their uniform hostility.
Most assume the value of marriage as the union of two people, but you have to ask “Why?” Of what possible interest does the state have in granting special status and legal recognition to two people? What is it about a two person union that warrants state recognition?
Let’s assume you have a sterile population. It will die out in one generation because it cannot procreate. There are no children and there never will be. With procreation off the table, why should the society give any recognition to two person unions? Why would the society want to?
I was sorry he did pursue further his early comment about the “technologisation of reproduction.” It seems to me that is one of the most important trends at work, the end point of which must surely be something like the state-run labs for test tube babies in [i]Brave New World[/i]. That would certainly make “gay marriage” a whistle-stop on the short route to the end of all marriage as such, very much in the service of the omnicompetent State. That Huxley, he were a prophet.
Frank, I think you are spot-on. The “technologisation of reproduction” appears to be driving the view that human sexuality is simply a malleable feature of our existence and rooted only in “free choices.” In my opinion, this is nothing less than an attempt to displace Natural Law. If the larger goal of science is to pursue the truth of reality as a good, then playing with it – as a tool for tampering with such things as sex-selection and worst – is nothing more than technological witchcraft. But this reveals more about the human heart than the reality that good science tries to understand. Good science has given us such things as medication to treat disease and pain, but recently I learned that the number one cause of accidental death among youth in America is now illicit prescription drug overdose. It seems to me that because we are now living in the historical/cultural milieu of a post-Christian society, where Scriptural prohibitions mean little or nothing to so many, perhaps it is time for the Church to re-engage society with arguments from Natural Law both on human sexuality and many other ethical situations besides.
This was a pretty amazing essay, one that was theologically astute, but without the tone and politicization of the contemporary culture wars. Very helpful, indeed!
Just as in Brave New World, I believe that this detour down Gender Lane was a crafted diversion to take reasonable people’s eyes off the troubling picture of our society that has developed. Pretend that everyone is marching to the beat of Equality and Tolerance in the creating of a beautiful, egalitarian society and the rubes don’t notice the freedom, individuality, and even basic common sense that has been lost. Nor will they notice until it’s too late that the penalties for dissent or even simple disagreement have become increasingly punitive and indefensible.
It’s remarkable, when you think about it. Sixty years ago, if you told folks that society would refocus angst, disillusionment, and unhappiness on one’s gender and genitals, you’d be considered mad.