Same-sex union not a true marriage |

Same-sex union not a true marriage

Other Voices
Peter Pohorsky

I see no end to discussions about the "same sex marriage." It is important to realize why these two sides are radically different.

The Bible has a strong word for homosexuality: abomination. Homosexual acts are against nature because they are not procreative. The homosexual lobby realized early that it is difficult to wage war against God who at the beginning created a man and a woman to fill the earth.

In order to gain tolerance and recognition, they needed a softer, more acceptable label. To deflect the pejorative, they decided to use "gay," a euphemism to moderate the thought and image, and that the homosexual union is also a marriage, the only difference is that it's between two people of the same sex.

The next move was to demand equality as a civil right of all human beings. And it worked! Though a small minority of population, the homosexuals took advantage of President Obama's support to unload an extensive campaign on general public to approve and legalize their "civil right" for same-sex marriage. They insisted on legal recognition for same-sex marriage as a "civil right," and thereby obtaining the same privileges for same-sex unions as all people enjoy.

Prof. Donald DeMarco maintains that the same-sex union is not a true marriage. While we all respect the freedom and equality of every person as a human being, equal in our humanity and equal under the law, they are not necessarily equal in circumstance, which covers a multitude of factors ranging from personal talents, physical form, age, mental health, private wealth. etc.

Objectively speaking, equality is not an absolute principle. The nature of marriage involves both equality-in-humanity and compatibility-in-circumstance. You could say that men and women are equal in dignity, yet complementary in mission. In other words, same-sex unions are equal in dignity, but unequal in mission.

Recommended Stories For You

In traditional marriage, both equality and the particular are complementarity become a "two-in-one flesh " reality.

Same-sex marriage can never be justified on the basis of equality because it fails to recognize the crucial difference between equality in humanity and inequality in circumstance. It is precisely due to the complementarity between man and woman that a possibility of procreation exists.

The indisputable fact that same-sex partners cannot procreate makes them radically unequal as husband and wife partners. Overextending equality can easily violate human rights. Individuals are different. Inevitably, some will spend, others will save. Some will invest, others prefer social work for "have-nots."

As Prof. DeMarco suggests, we must find a way in which each person is honored as equal in humanity, and at the same time we respect the natural marriage as the best social union for the future of our country and the world.

Peter Pohorsky lives in Grass Valley.

Go back to article