Sonja Corbitt Offers a Non-Religious, Social Defense of Marriage

By Sonja Corbitt
5/10/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

The family based on marriage is the natural heritage of humanity written in every person's DNA and which characterizes the culture of all the peoples in history

After Tuesday's NC vote to ban gay marriage and civil unions, many are asking "why"? Questions of concerning marriage as a relevant institution, a legal advantage, and an individual right and have become so widespread, systemic, and divisive in our society that it is important to publicly revisit, in a non-religious, anthropological way, why traditional marriage must be legally elevated above other unions, cohabitative, homosexual, or otherwise.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

NASHVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) - Those who defend traditional marriage almost always do so from the basis of religion, probably because religious institutions and people are the most vocal in defense of traditional marriage. But those who support offering alternative unions equal legal status to traditional marriage out of a sense of fairness often care little or nothing for religion at all and are baffled and offended by legislation banning them.

If religion or faith is part of their lives, it takes a back seat to a sense of justice provoked by the denial of equal rights of gays to marry or protections for those who live together without marrying. All initiatives and arguments that seem opposed to this sense of choice and fairness, then, are seen as religious and irrelevant without considering the other, more convincing foundations.

Supporters of equal rights for alternative family models believe that any institution or government that acts to maintain the status quo, does so exclusively because the family, based on marriage, is simply the cultural model (a "traditional" as opposed to "progressive" model) that it wants to keep, despite the great advances and evolutions of our times.

Questions of marriage as a relevant institution, a legal advantage, and an individual right and social justice for all, then, have become so widespread, systemic, and divisive in our society that it is important to publicly revisit, in a non-religious, anthropological way, why traditional marriage must be legally elevated above other unions, cohabitative, homosexual, or otherwise.

A Rational Perspective

The justice or fairness argument is most often taken up in defense of a situation, person, or group of persons with whom individuals and groups are personally connected or sympathetic. It is therefore an emotional assertion. Arguments based on emotion, whether based on compassion or ideology, are inherently superficial, prejudiced, and most often culturally conditioned. They cannot be wholly rational, nor therefore wholly just, at all.

Viewing the case for legal equality for alternative unions through sympathy pits contemporary, individual, private choices against decades of scientific evidence and millennia of historical proof for the objective value of traditional marriage to the social order. It exalts individual freedom of choice without reference to any relevant social value.

It is an individualistic and private approach to marriage and the family that is blind to its objective social dimension. Without these considerations, the argument is irrational and contrary to reason. It is self-affirmation, often forced against others. It is selfish because it affirms and acknowledges only self, not society, and does not consider either the past or the future, only the present. It cannot therefore, be just.

The difference between the family originating in marriage, and the community that originates in an alternative union, is not, and could never be created by any public authority. It is a natural and original institution that is completely and absolutely prior to any group whatsoever.

An Ancient Anthropological Perspective

What is prior, inherently takes priority. Before there was ever a civilization, society, race, or tribe, there was a man and a woman. DNA studies indicate that all modern humans share a common female ancestor and a common male ancestor who lived in Africa thousands of years ago. The first humans had children, and a family was created.

Aside from any physical anomaly, fatherhood and motherhood are genetically and physiologically written into the first man and woman, and every man and woman after them. Genetically and physiologically, woman receives man, and a new human is created. Children have a genetic, inherent, and fundamental right, then, to both a mother and father. This fact is physically and genetically irrevocable.

Furthermore, children can only proceed from this union. Certainly fatherhood and motherhood can also be and are emotional, intellectual, or spiritual, but gender is inherently natural, genetic, basic and foundational. Physical anomalies can and do occur, and we have compassion and empathy when they do, but anomalies do not, and cannot change that man plus woman is the genesis of all humankind.

Granting marital status to unions between persons of the same sex is anthropologically opposed by the natural impossibility of the transmission of life and the absence of complementarity between male and female at the most basic biological level. If the bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real anthropological family, then it follows that the right for that union to adopt children without a family is also ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 17 Comments

Pat78
8 months ago
Great article! A couple of points I'd like to add: I agree that applying a social justice angle to a sinful practice such as creating same sex "marriage is a demonstration of false compassion because it isolates a part of the whole picture without looking at the greater good for a society. The creation of family units as designed by nature have declined due to various reasons which point back to lowering previous applied standards of responsibility and discarding of values that sustain families. Engaging in premarital sex, using artificial birth control, postponing pregnancy, abortion, using artificial means to conceive including anonymous egg and sperm donors, etc. has opened the door to fewer children and a rational for so called "alternative lifestyles" while placing more importance on self rather than community. The consequences are devastating! Among the many, there are increasing number of children who don't know who their siblings are and will eventually marry someone they are too closely related to simply because adults had a personal agenda to create in irresponsible, self-centered ways.
Mark J. Chermside
1 year ago
Upon further thought upon this subject, as a dutiful interested citizen of the United States of America, I hope and pray our country can advance constantly toward the most perfect will of Almighty God for all humankind now on Earth. Yet, perhaps an interesting dialogue here may be lawful USA marriage in comparison and contrast with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Delighted I was to hear the reading this morning at Mass from Acts 15:22-31, including direction to abstain from unlawful marriage! Amen!
Kim
1 year ago
I just sent off an email to my parents and sister trying to get them to understand a basic key to why it is important to defend marriage, and my points are well articulated in this article. I think one of the problems people of good will have in defending traditional marriage is that they mistakenly understand marriage as a purely private matter. One major factor that has led to people seeing marriage that way is their acceptance of contraception. Contraception leads men and women to view their bodies as something they can manipulate for their own personal pleasure. Thus, they really don't consider much the impact creating children will have on their own relationship as well as society as a whole, and furthermore, these couples really don't see then the impact their relationship has on society. Also, regarding the concept of "anthropologically sustainable relationships"...I question just how sustainable those relationships really are. Just because humans can set up a certain relationship doesn't automatically mean we should.
Mark J. Chermside
1 year ago
Thank you Sonja, I believe you articulated the relative key points very well!
Stephanie
1 year ago
This is 2012. I am tired of the old arguments of gays being "born that way" that are 20 years old and are based on emotions rather than science. The human genome project is complete; there is no gay gene. Instead, what people working with those with same sex attraction have found is that same sex attraction comes from gender identity formation problems from early childhood. In men, they do not leave their mother's side and form a male identity when they are supposed to. They often have a domineering father who is perhaps very athletic/stereotypical male, while the son has an artistic personality and maybe doesn't have the hand-eye coordination that other boys do. In a few cases, the boys cling to their mothers because they have no father at all (but usually when there is no father the mother has to work and the son can bond with other boys at daycare). In women, there are three kinds of lesbians, some have a mother who was emotionally distant or depressed during her early years, sometimes the child viewed the mother as weak (maybe she cried a lot or did not stand up for herself) and so the girl wanted to be a boy, and the last case is women who were abused by a family member, past boyfriend, or someone else, and do not trust men so they'd rather be with a woman.

No, they do not choose to be gay. But we have to remember that the Catholic Church is against the behavior, not the individual. For example, we know that smoking is bad for you and yet we can tolerate smoking as long as they smoke outside, don't blow smoke at us, etc. Practicing homosexuals actually have a shorter average lifespan than smokers by about a decade, have a high risk of getting venereal diseases and oral/anal cancers, and are more likely to be in violent relationships or become depressed. We should be compassionate to the people with the cross of same-sex attraction, and encourage them to get the counseling they need. I have actually heard of cases where gay men have lived together and became friends and helped each other not fall into sin and they were good practicing Christians. Some people have been able to leave homosexuality altogether through positive, same-gender friendships, but it is not an easy road and can take years or even decades to overcome. And of course the longer you wait, the harder it is to turn around, so if you see a little boy acting like a girl, PLEASE step in before he gets any older. Help him affirm his masculinity, and tell him stories about other men who shared his talents (art? music?). There are also some cases where hand-eye coordination can be taught/improved which will also help him fit in better with the guys, since a lot of little boys are in sports and/or play soccer at recess.
Sonja
1 year ago
A - "I have no sins"? Yes, I think so, but saying gay marriage is not as good for society as traditional marriage is not saying I have no sins, nor is it making homosexuality more sinful than any struggle I personally deal with. We cannot pretend we don't all struggle with sin, but we also can't make "thou shall not judge" about making judgments, decisions, on what is good and evil, right and wrong. We are absolutely called by God to judge between what is good and best for society, and to DO what is best. If we can't judge what is good from what is evil, then how can we DO what is good, rather than what is evil? On public vs. private interests, I offer, because the Church does, that it is in the interest of society, public interest, to protect traditional marriage, while it is not in the public interest to elevate alternative unions, because they cannot help build society physically, nor socially, in the same way or as well as marriage.
David W. Cooney
1 year ago
Here is another article I wrote which addresses the issue from a philosophical instead of a religious standpoint.

http://acatholicknight.blogspot.com/2012/02/to-government-of-state-of-washington.html
A
1 year ago
Giancarlo - We can't blame same-sex marriage for the decline of traditional marriage values (I hope I've understood you correctly). Same-sex marriage is seen as an attack on what constitutes traditional marriage, but any problems with traditional marriage can be placed on those within those failed unions. Marriage has weakened for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with gays wanting to be married. Also, is protecting traditional marriage not a private interest as well? It's a public issue for those who don't have the right to marry. It's public for those who have no legal rights as couples. Like I said, I have mixed feelings on this issue, but I think it's important to continuously question what we believe.

Sonja-What about "judge not lest you be judged," "don't cast the stone..." "remove the plank from your own eye..." I'm not a scripture expert so I probably shouldn't go there but to me judgement is on par with saying I have no sins, is that correct?
Giancarlo Taliente
1 year ago
Anna,

What you fail to realize is that ALL of those cultures and civilizations that did not follow the One Man plus One Woman relationship have died out. Only the One Man-One Woman relationship has continued and grown stronger up until the last 40 years or so and especially the last 10 with this SSM issue at the forefront. At the end of the day, the government is here to foster the public interest not the private one. The article shows that over time and still today, the public interest is Traditional Marriage.
che
1 year ago
Thank you for making a non-religious defense of marriage available. So many of the people I know immediately dismiss any defense of marriage the moment a religious argument enters the debate. Now I will be able to make reasonable, logical intelligent arguments to support the Church's position and perhaps inspire my friends and aquaintences to actually consider a position other than their own with a more open mind. God bless you for your efforts.

Prev12 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment