Spring Break
Strengthening marriage was an Election Day victory
Stephen Ontko
Issue date: 11/18/08 Section: Opinion
Despite a depressing election for Republicans, one issue proved to be a victory. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama from black voters and other socially conservative demographics brought to the forefront one aspect of the social agenda of the Republican platform: traditional marriage.
This double-edged sword of encouraging voter turnout from socially conservative black Democrats was that, even though there was increased support for Barack Obama, there was also more support for California's Proposition 8 (and like measures in other states), leading to the overturning of an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing for legalized homosexual marriage.
But why should anyone be in favor of Proposition 8 and other measures to define marriage as only between men and women, rather than also between homosexual couples? Doesn't this violate their "rights?" Is this discrimination? With all the rhetoric recently, it seems we should look at this issue more closely.
One way to examine the validity of homosexual marriage is through the lens of the natural law moral theory developed by St. Thomas Aquinas and other famous philosophers in the classical tradition.
Aquinas believed that natural law was something that followed from human nature; that there is a naturally knowable rationale for moral action discernible by any human being, not restricted to any revealed religion or social group. The natural law is such that, by learning about human nature, one can discover what constitutes "good" action for a human being - what the goal or purpose of human life is. He concluded, with other classical theorists, that human nature is perfected in virtuous action in accordance with natural reason.
Aquinas held that this over-arching purpose of human life makes a study of what constitutes moral behavior possible in any aspect of human life. For Aquinas, human sexuality and the institution of marriage are intimate aspects of human nature and fall equally under the natural law.
John Finnis, a contemporary natural law theorist, argues homosexuality is inconsistent with natural law due to the absence of procreation and the relationship necessary between the opposite sexes for procreation to take place. Finnis argues that homosexual relationships do not entail the friendship a heterosexual couple experiences because the heterosexual union has the lasting bond of coming together and creating life - one cannot be divorced from the other in human sexuality. Since the natural order is for life to be created through one man and one woman in a stable relationship of love, homosexuality is, on a certain level, an activity that is contrary to the basic meaning of sexual activity.
As this entails a permanent and lasting relationship of friendship, to undermine the meaning of sexual activity similarly destabilizes one of the most important aspects of civilization: the family. The role of the family is to educate and nurture children so that they become aware of the human condition in accordance to natural law and contribute to society. The heterosexual couple is the only possible relationship that is understood as "marriage" - no other relationship, however intimate, fulfills its particular character, nor can there be a "right to marriage" if that does not fit the definition of what a marriage properly is.
Some might object that not all heterosexual relationships are fertile, and therefore the essence of marriage does not include "children." Finnis, however, argues that even an infertile heterosexual union still fulfills the model of marital life and continues to promote societal well-being by properly educating and providing an example for the youth - it is based in the potential for a right relationship to bring forth new life, even if it never actually does so. A homosexual "marriage" is contrary to that basic potential to conceive children.
Most other arguments for allowing homosexual marriage either ask for the freedom to live life the way in which "I see fit," or claim that not allowing homosexuals to marry is discriminatory. Both of these views, however, are shortsighted.
A consequence of living in a civilization is that a code of laws describe various acts as prohibited, but this doesn't mean that those laws restrict freedom. To the contrary, laws are enacted to promote moral standards in society that help its citizens become better people. There is a vast difference between freedom for pursuit of happiness and pure license to any action whatsoever. In fact, most common people would prohibit murder for much the same reason.
It is also to be noted that as a result of failing to define marriage as involving a heterosexual relationship, proponents of homosexual marriage have no real ideological mechanism by which to prevent marriages devolving into conditions of perennial sexual acts with no solidarity among the parties within the marriage, or even any basic justification for preventing polygamy or polyandry. If we accept their reasoning, does it also become discriminatory to say just "two" rather than "14" is the limit to marriage?
Any attempt to legislate "civil partnerships," adoption by homosexual partners, and definitions of marriage, which include homosexual relationships, must be stopped so that future generations will be able to pursue true happiness according to moral law and in order to promote an ever more healthy, stable society based on those principles.
Stephen Ontko is a senior economics major and a columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at sontko@kent.edu.
This double-edged sword of encouraging voter turnout from socially conservative black Democrats was that, even though there was increased support for Barack Obama, there was also more support for California's Proposition 8 (and like measures in other states), leading to the overturning of an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing for legalized homosexual marriage.
But why should anyone be in favor of Proposition 8 and other measures to define marriage as only between men and women, rather than also between homosexual couples? Doesn't this violate their "rights?" Is this discrimination? With all the rhetoric recently, it seems we should look at this issue more closely.
One way to examine the validity of homosexual marriage is through the lens of the natural law moral theory developed by St. Thomas Aquinas and other famous philosophers in the classical tradition.
Aquinas believed that natural law was something that followed from human nature; that there is a naturally knowable rationale for moral action discernible by any human being, not restricted to any revealed religion or social group. The natural law is such that, by learning about human nature, one can discover what constitutes "good" action for a human being - what the goal or purpose of human life is. He concluded, with other classical theorists, that human nature is perfected in virtuous action in accordance with natural reason.
Aquinas held that this over-arching purpose of human life makes a study of what constitutes moral behavior possible in any aspect of human life. For Aquinas, human sexuality and the institution of marriage are intimate aspects of human nature and fall equally under the natural law.
John Finnis, a contemporary natural law theorist, argues homosexuality is inconsistent with natural law due to the absence of procreation and the relationship necessary between the opposite sexes for procreation to take place. Finnis argues that homosexual relationships do not entail the friendship a heterosexual couple experiences because the heterosexual union has the lasting bond of coming together and creating life - one cannot be divorced from the other in human sexuality. Since the natural order is for life to be created through one man and one woman in a stable relationship of love, homosexuality is, on a certain level, an activity that is contrary to the basic meaning of sexual activity.
As this entails a permanent and lasting relationship of friendship, to undermine the meaning of sexual activity similarly destabilizes one of the most important aspects of civilization: the family. The role of the family is to educate and nurture children so that they become aware of the human condition in accordance to natural law and contribute to society. The heterosexual couple is the only possible relationship that is understood as "marriage" - no other relationship, however intimate, fulfills its particular character, nor can there be a "right to marriage" if that does not fit the definition of what a marriage properly is.
Some might object that not all heterosexual relationships are fertile, and therefore the essence of marriage does not include "children." Finnis, however, argues that even an infertile heterosexual union still fulfills the model of marital life and continues to promote societal well-being by properly educating and providing an example for the youth - it is based in the potential for a right relationship to bring forth new life, even if it never actually does so. A homosexual "marriage" is contrary to that basic potential to conceive children.
Most other arguments for allowing homosexual marriage either ask for the freedom to live life the way in which "I see fit," or claim that not allowing homosexuals to marry is discriminatory. Both of these views, however, are shortsighted.
A consequence of living in a civilization is that a code of laws describe various acts as prohibited, but this doesn't mean that those laws restrict freedom. To the contrary, laws are enacted to promote moral standards in society that help its citizens become better people. There is a vast difference between freedom for pursuit of happiness and pure license to any action whatsoever. In fact, most common people would prohibit murder for much the same reason.
It is also to be noted that as a result of failing to define marriage as involving a heterosexual relationship, proponents of homosexual marriage have no real ideological mechanism by which to prevent marriages devolving into conditions of perennial sexual acts with no solidarity among the parties within the marriage, or even any basic justification for preventing polygamy or polyandry. If we accept their reasoning, does it also become discriminatory to say just "two" rather than "14" is the limit to marriage?
Any attempt to legislate "civil partnerships," adoption by homosexual partners, and definitions of marriage, which include homosexual relationships, must be stopped so that future generations will be able to pursue true happiness according to moral law and in order to promote an ever more healthy, stable society based on those principles.
Stephen Ontko is a senior economics major and a columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at sontko@kent.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 22
Val
posted 11/18/08 @ 2:22 AM EST
What a disgustingly bigoted view to hold. Marriage is a CIVIL state, not a solely religious one, and the state should recognize it for all its citizens, regardless of gender. (Continued…)
Blah
posted 11/18/08 @ 4:51 PM EST
More homophobia/fear brought to us by Steven Ontko and his "right" and totally distorted views.
Millions of hetero married men AND women cheat on their spouses every day! One only has to look at any church (Chistian based are usually the biggest hypocrites) to find these people who are deemed "more worthy" to marry. (Continued…)
WE <3 STEPHEN!!
posted 11/18/08 @ 9:24 PM EST
GREAT ARTICLE STEPHEN!
WE COMPLETELY SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS!
DON'T LET ANYONE DISCOURAGE YOU. YOU JUST SPEAK UP FOR ALL OF US!
Andrew
posted 11/19/08 @ 2:44 PM EST
Steve, you are a bigot and I wonder how "freedom" exactly applies when you deny other people that same freedom. I call that privilege. If you want to talk about freedom, leave these people alone and don't support blatantly bigoted laws. (Continued…)
Mr. Jesse Merino
posted 11/19/08 @ 3:46 PM EST
I'm sorry, but I have to take the Bible as my guideline on this matter.
And, I am suprised that Saint "whats his name", that is revered as all saints in the catholic church would write a piece such as that. (Continued…)
Brittany
posted 11/19/08 @ 4:09 PM EST
Although I respect your right to free speech and to have an opinion, the world is far too diverse to have such a narrow view. Like Val said, marriage is a civil right, and the Supreme Court passed gay marriage because the marriage ban is unconstitutional if you separate church and state. (Continued…)
MK
posted 11/20/08 @ 9:38 PM EST
Why should a few people's religion dictate how the rest of us live? Imagine what the world would of been like if our ancestors would of followed what the church always said. (Continued…)
MWorrell
MWorrell
posted 11/21/08 @ 10:28 AM EST
I heard a man some years ago on NPR's "Fresh Air", a sociologist (not a priest), expressing his apprehension at the prospect of legally redefining marriage. (Continued…)
Ben
posted 11/21/08 @ 2:46 PM EST
Ok. What we have here is a person with a very light education in the philosophies playing way out of his league. The beauty of the philosophies is that they are an open arena for discourse and discovery. (Continued…)
Nelson Angstrom
posted 11/24/08 @ 11:47 AM EST
An hourly employee is, as I undertand it, fired for promulgating an email through @kent.edu which has alleged racist and anti-semitic remarks and/or statements and/or phrases. (Continued…)
Post a Comment