Gay marriage: an argument against

I would like to thank Ken Davis for his article "The gay marriage debate" because it makes some valid points about what the argument is really about.

He debunks homophobia as the reason for opposition as well as the hysterical arguments about the slippery slope.

Having said that I disagree with him in his conclusion that gay marriage should be introduced into our society.

I do not argue on religious grounds, rather, my argument against gay marriage is based on ontological considerations i.e. of the nature of being. These arguments are not based on evidence as if we could do a sociological survey or perform psychological experiments but on a deeper understanding of what sex and gender signify.

This understanding is deeper than a dictionary definition that may change with time, it is anchored in the depth of who we are as human beings.

The argument for gay marriage is based on the egalitarian argument, that it is unfair not to have gay marriage.

The problem with this is that ontological significations are ignored for the sake of fairness. But ontology cannot be decided on those grounds, male and do female exist, the sexual union of a male and a female is sexual in that it brings forth children.

This understanding of marriage is not based on religious preconceptions although it is supported by them, it is based on the gender division inherent in humanity. Such division cannot simply be erased because gays want to push their egalitarian agenda to the last bastion: marriage.

The threat of gay marriage is that it erases difference that is indelible to the human condition. While political correctness champions the acceptance of difference, and I agree that gays should not be discriminated against, it also erases difference so that we have to ignore gender.

It is obvious that gays are different and the campaign for gay marriage seeks to erase that difference. We are to think that hetero and homo "marriages" are the same but clearly they are not. They may be long term and loving and I applaud that but they are not sexual in the ontological sense even if they are in the erotic sense.

This is the rub. Gay relationships are sterile and cannot be compared with normal marriage. This is the difference that precludes them from being called marriages.

The struggle that gays experience when they "come out" is partly due to the fear of social censure but it is also a matter of them coming to the realisation that they are different in a radical way. Ken Davis is right about sexual orientation, it is not chosen in a way that the other description as "sexual preference" may suggest.