I have just read an article entitled, "Two Becoming One Flesh: Marriage as a Sexual and Economic Union" by Allan Carson in The Intercollegiate Review (published in 2004 by the Intercollegiate Studies instated) (Hat Tip: Mr. Gomez) . This article is not available online.
Mr. Carson presents a highly intelligent review of marriage from a sociological and anthropological standpoint. He points out that much of the same-sex marriage movement is rooted in evolutionary thought. Here are some excerpts:
It would certainly be going too far to say that modern evolutionary theory and Genesis have converged; significant differences remain over key matters, such as timing. All the same, it would be fair to say that new research guided by evolutionary theory does agree with the author of Genesis that humankind, from our very origin as unique creatures on earth, has been defined by heterosexual monogamy involving long-termed pair bonding (that is, marriage in mother-father-child household) and resting on the special linkage of the reproductive and the economic: where two become one flesh. So the evolution of marriage did occur--but only once, three to four million years ago, when "to be human" came to mean "to be conjugal." All the other cultural variations surrounding marriage are mere details. "Change" must therefore be understood as the mark of cultural strengthening or weakens around a constant human model. And, rather than being the "pinnacle" of evolution, homosexuality and "gay marriage" emerge as obvious evolutionary and cultural dead-ends. Such practices are by definition sterile, and evolutionary theory--on its own terms--depends on reproductive success.
In the name of evolution, the campaign for same-sex marriage openly mocks the religious heritage of Western civilization. It ignores the hard-won lessons of human history. And it rejects the results of scientific inquiry, relying instead on sentiment to make its case. In all these ways, the campaign is radical indeed. Just as recklessly, the same campaign will, if successful, also subvert the one trait--permanent heterosexual pair-bonding focused on reproduction and child rearing--which science points to as unique to human nature and vital to human success, even to human existence, on earth. Advocates for change in the nature of marriage are playing with elemental evolutionary fire.
Most evolutionary thought, where it is Darwinism or Marxism, tends to mechanize humanity, effectively making humans less human. Marxism considers man to be merely a mechanism of the state. No one human possesses an inherent significance. Darwinism considers man to be merely a mechanism of nature, one more cog in the complicated gear of natural selection. He is merely one level of the food chain. Carson calls same-sex marriage a "dead-end," and that is precisely what it is. I said earlier that I do not feel that reproduction is an effective argument for heterosexual marriage, as it is true that many heterosexual couples cannot bear children. It is also true that no homosexual couple (on their own) can ever conceive a child. The only means of "reproduction" for them is adoption or some type of surrogate.
I once saw a sci-fi movie entitled Gattica. It starred Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman. The story was set in the future, where genetic science had advanced enough so that each couple could engineer the perfect child, one who will be ostensibly perfect and beneficial for the state. It is an interesting movie. It attempts to convey the fact that our humanity is something quite a bit more advanced than genetics. If our scientific and social trends continue in their current directions, it would not be too much of a leap to imagine a world like the one in Gattica. If you remove traditional marriage from the picture, you are not left with many other choices.
Although love and commitment are essential to marriage, they are not the totality of it. No one can deny the fact that same-sex couples have the capacity for unselfish love and devotion. No one can deny the fact that many, as many heterosexual couples, can make good parents. Marriage, however, should be about much more than love, as Carson points out above. Love and commitment are not the central issues.
. . . The traditional case points to the needed recovery of a cultural understanding of marriage as the union of the sexual (meaning the reproductive) and the economic, with an insistence that law rest on this human universal. In the short run, this would be vital to the defense of marriage at a time when it faces profound legal and cultural challenges, rooted in misguided evolutionary theories. In the long run, it would be essential to the very health, and survival, of our nation.
A second imperative therefore would be more productive and more vital homes. . . .
. . . In contemporary America, same-sex marriage has won a hearing in part because many see heterosexual marriage in the early twenty-first century as falling far short of the traditional standard binding the reproductive and the economic. Accordingly, any effort to rehabilitate the institution of marriage must not stop with legal bans on "gay marriage." It must also embrace true encouragements to the reconstruction of the function-rich and child-rich homes
If homosexual marriage is biologically and socially irresponsible, as the article posits, then there remains no possibility of gay marriage ever producing "more productive and more vital" homes. The only possible effect of same-sex marriage is a loving environment. It seems doubtful that merely a loving environment can have a lasting effect on society. That is why marriage must be about more than just love and commitment.
No comments:
Post a Comment