Wednesday, March 12, 1997

TWO SEXES, ONE FLESH: Chapter 3

This chapter is excerpted from my book, Two Sexes , One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage (Solon, Oh.: Latimer Press, 1997). Used with permission.

CHAPTER 3: The Natural Design of Marriage
Cultures and religions throughout history have recognized various forms of marriage.[1] Same-sex marriage has not been one of them.[2] In the next three chapters, I shall investigate why this is so. By setting forth the nature of marriage, I hope to show why homosexuals in partnerships cannot fulfill their own aims and hopes that their unions can truly be marriage.
This chapter looks at marriage in terms of its natural character as a creation ordinance and a universal fact of human society. The Bible begins at this very point in the first three chapters of Genesis, where God creates the human race male and female, ordains the marital bond of man and woman, and continues to provide for their relationship after sin has entered in and distorted it. The two-sexes-in-one-flesh essence of marriage is presupposed and necessary at every stage of God’s original design and the subsequent history of his dealings with the human race.
The exposition that follows begins with the foundational chapters in Genesis and proceeds to reflect on these texts philosophically and sociologically, and particularly in the tradition of the Prayer Book marriage service.

The Purposes of Marriage

One of the Anglican contributions to a theology of marriage has been the attempt to give a comprehensive statement of the nature of marriage by enumerating its “causes” or purposes in the liturgy. This statement is made in the Opening Exhortation to the marriage service.[3] While Thomas Cranmer derived these purposes from patristic and medieval sources, the tradition itself goes back to Jesus’ appeal to God’s original purposes in creation. Cranmer began the practice of a public rehearsal of these purposes at each wedding, which was intended to be a Sunday celebration.[4] Every couple was to enter marriage “advisedly and soberly,” instructed in its purposes:

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
[5]

In contemporary parlance, we can speak of these “goods” of marriage as the biological, the erotic, and the social purposes. I shall argue that each of these goods can only be fully experienced in the bodily union of a man and a woman, and that they cohere as a full expression of human nature only in the institution of lifelong heterosexual marriage.

The Biological Purpose (Genesis 1:26-28)The first creation story looks at the creation generically, with everything in its proper place and each living creature reproducing “according to its kind.” The story comes to a climax with the creation of a new race: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This new race has a two-in-one character, one humanity in two sexes, and its primary task is reproduction: “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’”

The first humble purpose of marriage is, simply, the survival and flourishing of the human race. This is the evolutionary success story the biologists tell of the human sperm uniting with an unlike egg, with XX and XY chromosomes coming together to reproduce distinct personalities within the immutable two-gender plan. It is the story of hormones and instincts that have led males for millennia to search out desirable females, and females to attach these males to themselves and their offspring.[6] It is the origin of the hope of having descendants and the instinctive pride of mother and father in saying: “This is our own child.”

Whatever else marriage is, it begins with a biological drive, which is then crowned by divine blessing. The two-in-oneness of marriage turns necessity into a gift, if we have hearts to receive it as such. Anglican ethicist Oliver O’Donovan expresses the spiritual dimension of the biological purpose in this way:

Human beings come into existence with a dimorphically differentiated sexuality, clearly ordered at the biological level towards heterosexual union as the human mode of procreation. It is not possible to negotiate this fact about our common humanity; it can only be either welcomed or resented. Marriage, precisely by being ordered around this fact, enables us to welcome it and to acknowledge it as a part of God’s creational gift.... What marriage can do, which other relationships cannot do, is to disclose the goodness of biological nature by elevating it to its teleological fulfillment in personal relationship.”[7]

The Erotic Purpose (Genesis 2:23)The second creation account is much more personal. Its drama begins with the man (Adam) and God’s observation that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Then follows an odd courtship ritual in which the human animal rejects all other animal flesh as fitting his desire. At the climax of the second story, God builds from Adam’s own rib a “helper according to his opposite.” Seeing the woman, the man exclaims: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This response is not only a mental recognition of another human being but the longed-for opposite.[8] From this recognition flows marital eros, echoed later by the lovers of the Song of Songs 2:16: “My beloved is mine and I am his.”

Marriage is a union of flesh and bones. Specifically, it is the yearning the male senses for the female form, and the female receiving and returning those attentions. It is a matter of male and female members uniting to make “the beast with two backs.”[9] The physicality of sexual desire is a warning sign that in itself sex has no obvious or inherent spiritual significance.[10] The desire of the flesh is for this world, participating in “life under the sun.” It includes all the pleasurable activities of the human soul: the arts, wisdom, and love. The Preacher’s counsel to “enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life” (Ecclesiastes 9:9) is of a piece with the claim that “love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave….” (Song of Songs 8:6).

It may seem demeaning to speak of marriage as “a remedy against sin, to avoid fornication.” Of course, the Prayer Book is addressing the fallen desires of humanity, but even in its unfallen state eros is meant to be exclusive and hence jealous. As the philosopher Roger Scruton observes: “Sexual desire is itself inherently ‘nuptial’: it involves concentration upon the embodied existence of the other, leading through tenderness to the ‘vow’ of erotic love.”[11] Thus jealousy is a threat and chastity a project for men and women not only before marriage but in marriage as well. The threat of fornication reminds us that married couples are not held together by some iron hand of biology; rather, they participate in a human drama, which has tragic dangers but may also lead to victory over sin and healing in life.[12]

The Social Purpose (Genesis 2:24)The Paradise story concludes with the public institution of marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife....”[13] Marriage is the personal and historical crossroads of the love of man and woman and the love of parents and children. The verse also introduces a motif of tension, even potential tragedy. Children will leave parents and become husband and wife, whose children will leave them.

While marriage may be preceded by erotic courtship and fulfilled in sexual delight, the union of man and woman brings about a new reality, a society. As noted previously, “in his unfathomable condescension God does add his ‘Yes’ to yours; but by doing so, he creates out of your love something quite new – the holy estate of matrimony.”[14] This new society has a home base: in the moving words of the Marriage service, we pray for the couple “that their home may be a haven of blessing and peace.”[15] The home is the place where the biological drive to procreate children finds its fulfillment in their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.

According to the Bible, the family and home are natural from the beginning, while the first city, built by Cain, is a product of the Fall. At the same time, God takes up the city into his plan of salvation, and believers look for fulfillment to a commonwealth in heaven. In the Christian understanding of the “two cities,” the family makes its contribution to the secular city and is shaped by political and social realities, but it owes its existence and allegiance to God and his ways, not to any political ideology.

The Essential Nature of Marriage

Jesus draws from the creation texts a central principle: “the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:5; Genesis 2:24). By this he clearly meant the two opposite sexes joined in one physical union. Like all Jews, Jesus grounded his understanding of marriage in creation; however, while Jews (like Roman Catholics after them) saw descendants as the main outcome of marriage, Jesus drew attention to the coming into being of a spiritual union of husband and wife. God has put something together, he said, which man cannot put asunder. It is Jesus’ understanding of the mystical union of a man and woman that forms the basis for the Christian understanding of marriage as sacramental (see Chapter 5).

The two-sexes-in-one-flesh communion of man and woman gathers together the three subsidiary purposes of marriage into one “intrinsic good.” One cannot see or demonstrate the essence or intrinsic good of something, the “roseness of a rose,” but that does not mean it does not exist. It was the error of earlier “natural law” teaching to see procreation as the obvious essence of marriage, thus making the marital relationship and act instrumental to the end of procreation.[16] Recent Roman Catholic theologians have corrected this error while upholding the overall natural law tradition:

... marriage and the marital act are not merely instrumental goods. Marriage is an intrinsically good communion of spouses, constituted by their mutual self-gift, and each marriage has this character from the moment the couple marry and begin to live together. Though particular couples may know, or come to learn, that they never will have children, their marriages are real and good, insofar as they partially fulfill the spouses’ biological and moral capacities of sexually complementary persons.[17]

Anglicans who look back to Richard Hooker as a founding father of their tradition cannot help but make distinctions between what is natural and what is not.[18]

1. First of all, we need to acknowledge that some marriages may be deficient in terms of the God-given purposes and still be true marriages. A barren couple, or a couple separated for years against their will, have a real but deficient marriage.[19]
2. We may also distinguish variations in the pattern of marriage found in human history. Some variations are morally neutral, such as interracial marriage; some may be morally dubious, such as the marriage of an octogenarian to a teenager; others, like polygamy, are morally wrong for Christians at least.
3. Some non-marital relationships have the potential to become marriages. A man and woman are not married simply by having sex together, even though their souls may be marked indelibly through the union of the flesh. If the couple accepts the full meaning and purposes of their union and lives it out over a number of years, their “common law” marriage may be recognized as irregular but real. In this case, both state and Church seek to have these irregular relationships publicly recognized.
4. Some relationships – and this includes homosexual partnerships – are simply contrary to the essence of marriage. Unlike heterosexual relationships, they do not have the potential to fulfill the design purposes of marriage. Thus formal recognition cannot change their ontological status. Two lesbians who arrange for one partner to bear a child, engage in physical acts of love, and are recognized as a family in their community, will still not be married. Appearances notwithstanding, the two cannot be one flesh because God has provided only one design for the union of persons.[20]

Christian moral theology, and American natural rights philosophy, have clearly distinguished between the first three kinds of relationships as marital or quasi-marital and the fourth as non-marital. In recent years, however, some Christians and some Americans find it hard to say to someone, “You cannot be whatever you want to be.” The post-World War II generation, in particular, has had difficulty accepting the limits imposed by nature and death. Human nature is, like the human body, malleable but not infinitely so. The same is true of marriage: it comes in many shapes and forms, but this fact does not mean that it can be made into something it isn’t. This is why the Church cannot bless same-sex marriage.

Marriage Under the Power of Sin and Death

The early chapters of Genesis depict marriage not only as a good and natural institution created by God, but as fallen under the power of sin and death. The third and fourth chapters of Genesis are not only an account of the Fall of human nature but the fall of human marriage. Marriage in all its purposes is infected by sin.

Biologically, the “evil imagination” of the human heart is passed on from generation to generation. The Genesis account makes the point that Adam knew Eve and she conceived a son only after the Fall. Original sin is a spiritual condition, linked inextricably to our physical nature: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men in that all sinned...” (Romans 5:12).[21] The pain of child-birth (Genesis 3:16) becomes a symbol that the family is a broken society where sin and death reign.

Erotically, the Fall distorts the relational life of man and woman. Eve discovers that desiring “knowledge of good and evil” apart from the command of God and the community of faith is the root cause of idolatry.[22] Reaching for fig leaves, Adam and Eve abandon any illusions about uninhibited sexuality.[23] Shame becomes a necessary component of sexual modesty.[24] By confining desire to the family (“your desire will be to your husband...”), God makes romantic courtship and wisdom of elders central themes of human art and wisdom and seals off mythology as a quest for meaning.[25]

Socially, God also seals off the lonely man’s tendency toward wanderlust and binds him to one wife and family. The bond between wife and husband becomes at best a benevolent monarchy, at worst a tyranny (“... and he shall rule over you”). The relations of parents and children become an occasion for envy and murder in Genesis 4. Cain goes on to found the first city, where family rivalries must be restrained by law.

Despite the deformation caused by sin, marriage retains its essence and purposes. Even in a polygamous union, the principle of two-sexes-in-one-flesh union of man and woman is preserved: each coupling of husband and wives is separate with distinct offspring. In the case of a barren couple, the procreative purpose is frustrated, but God may always “open the womb.” Even with divorce, the Law insists that one marriage must be formally broken (and not renewed) before a second is instituted.

Homosexuality and the Natural Purposes of Marriage

Homosexual relationships are not only inconsistent with the primal “two-sexes-in-one-flesh” principle of creation, but they frustrate the three subsidiary purposes of marriage as well. The contrary character of homosexual love, most obvious with regard to procreation, is less obvious in the other two purposes. Homosexual couples can desire each other and engage in genital acts, and they can set up house. But even in these latter purposes, there are indications that appearance and reality are not one and the same.

Homosexuality against BiologyBiologically, nature expresses the two-sexes-in-one-flesh principle. Homo sapiens is a sexually bipolar species, whose individual members are either male or female, each of whom is formed by a union of chromosomes from father and mother. Nature has made no provision for same-sex gametes to fertilize each other. No homosexual act has ever produced a child. Any genetic tendency to homosexuality would be quickly frustrated by the non-reproductivity inherent in the trait. Male and female bodies are made for sexual intercourse, whereas same-sex partners can only simulate coitus. Monogamous sex is the safest and healthiest sex, whereas all other kinds of promiscuous and non-vaginal sex bring with them much higher health risks.[26] These facts of life constitute the most obvious reason that homosexuality has been considered unnatural and abnormal.

Desire for the Truly OtherErotically, biological realities control the direction of desire. The difference in male and female hormones dictates that males and females will look sexually distinct and identify the opposite sex as distinctly beautiful.[27] The question of whether biology is destiny and whether some persons are naturally oriented as homosexuals is, of course, a major area of dispute today. The Bible, to begin with, does not give any support for the idea that God created some people naturally to desire others of the same sex.

The biblical view is supported by the aggregate experience of the human race, as studied by anthropologists and sociologists. Their studies have uncovered no fixed form of homosexual desire that compares with the love of married partners. Sometimes homosexual activities mimic marital relations. Egalitarian homosexuality requires one partner to play the role of the opposite sex and, in some cases, to conceive of the other partner as being the opposite sex. This role-playing phenomenon helps explain the berdache custom of American Indians and transsexualism and transgender identification.[28]

Philosophically, homosexual desire must also be seen to be derivative and distorted. The contemporary philosopher Roger Scruton, without relying explicitly on biblical norms or commands, concludes that an essential feature of mature sexual desire is “the opening of the self to the mystery of another gender”:

Desire directed toward the other gender elicits not its simulacrum but its complement. Male desire evokes the loyalty which neutralises its vagrant impulse; female desire evokes the conquering urge which overcomes its hesitations. Often, of course, this complementarity can be re-created, either momentarily, in play, or permanently, by members of the same sex.[29]

To say that complementary desire can be “re-created,” however, admits a fundamental difference between a natural and an artificial impulse.

Homosexuality without Marriage
Socially, the artificiality of homosexual relationships is reflected in their non-institutional status. What is most striking in an anthropological survey of sexuality is the concurrence of homosexual practices and the absence of a homosexual marriage institution. This phenomenon is explained in part because much ancient homosexuality was practiced between elders and youths, or between male couples and female couples who had no opportunity for heterosexual relationships.[30] The male berdache who put on squaw’s clothing and played the role of a female could in some societies be treated as married, though many berdaches had specialized roles as priests and shamans. Transgendered homosexuality, as this has been called, is the exception that proves the rule: same-sex unions were accepted only insofar as they simulated heterosexual marriage.[31]

Conclusion

Homosexual relationships, even in those cases where they are exclusive and long-term, frustrate the natural design of marriage and fail to fulfill its purposes. These natural purposes are derived from the essence of marriage as a two-sexes-in-one-flesh communion of a man and a woman. Marriage is natural in two senses: it is universally found in human societies, although frequently deficient and deformed; and it is the final cause or goal toward which all biological, erotic, and social relationships of men and women tend. There are other intimate love relationships among human beings, such as friendship and family affection, but these are neither sexual nor are they institutionalized in marriage. Homoerotic relationships, however, are contrary to nature, which explains the strength of the taboo which many people feel toward homosexuals, not out of prejudice but out of a natural intuition.

Those who would change the Church’s teaching and practice must make a decision at this point. If they believe same-sex unions are not marriage, then they must explain why the privileges and responsibilities pertaining to marriage – raising children, engaging in erotic activities, and receiving recognition as a societal entity – should be appended to some other form of human relationship. If they believe same-sex unions are marriage, then they must show that the natural design of opposite sexes, which informs each of the purposes of marriage and the universal practice of the human race, is accidental and that two persons, one flesh is equivalent to two sexes, one flesh.

Those advocating same-sex unions have not yet declared which way they want to go, though it seems that a movement for liturgical and legal recognition of homosexual relationships will inevitably lead to the call for same-sex marriage, marriage being the only religious and legal paradigm available for imitation. If they opt for same-sex marriage, they have yet to demonstrate biblically, sociologically, or philosophically, that same-sex marriage can fulfill the design implied in the phrase “the two shall become one flesh.”[32] There are good reasons on all counts to think such a demonstration cannot succeed.

NOTES

[1] Kenneth Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 213, notes that “marriage rites in Christianity are a rich tapestry.” But Stevenson is clearly not considering same-sex marriage as part of that tapestry, past or present.
[2] Contrary to his intention, William Eskridge’s “history of same-sex marriage” (Case for Same-Sex Marriage, 15-50) proves there is no history. Once one subtracts Boswell’s tendentious theory of Church-approved same-sex unions, the only remaining examples in his history are tribal customs among Native Americans and Africans where for special religious or social reasons, one person takes on the role of the opposite sex. But in these “berdache”-type arrangements, the other partners remain heterosexual or perhaps bisexual. So there simply are no examples in history of institutionalized unions of erotically attracted same-sex couples.
[3] The number of causes is not theologically so important as the claim to comprehend the whole nature of marriage. Archbishop Cranmer’s enumeration of three causes remained unchanged in the English Book of Common Prayer from 1549 to 1662 and thus down to the present. Some modern revisions, such as the English Alternative Service Book (1980) and the Canadian Book of Alternative Services (1985), reduce the purposes of marriage from three to two, but they do so by combining the erotic and social purposes. The American Prayer Book omitted the statement of purposes from the Exhortation in 1789, but it was reintroduced in the 1949 Declaration of Intention (Canon I.17). This Declaration of Intention reversed the priority of purposes, placing mutual society first, procreation “(if it may be)” second, and “the safeguarding and benefit of society” third. The 1979 Exhortation follows the trend of dropping the avoidance of fornication as a stated purpose. By adding that marriage is for “mutual joy,” the current rite may intend to suggest that erotic fulfillment is a distinct purpose. When in 1988 the Declaration of Intention was reconciled with the 1979 Prayer Book, the safeguarding and benefit of society was dropped. The political dimension of marriage is still implicit in the prayers “that their life may be a sign of Christ’s love to this sinful and broken world.”; “that they may reach out in love and concern for others”; and that “all married persons who have witnessed these vows may find their lives strengthened and their loyalties confirmed” (1979 Prayer Book, pages 429-430). The claim that marriage is procreative, erotic, and social has remained essentially constant in the Prayer Book tradition.
[4] The form of the Exhortation derived from the Sarum and York rites, but the theological exposition of the purposes derived from the Reformers, via Herrmann van Wied’s Consultatio. While Western theology since Augustine had enumerated purposes for marriage, Cranmer’s version would seem to be his own variation on the theme.
[5] This version comes from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
[6] See Robin Fox, “The Conditions of Sexual Evolution,” in Ariès and Béjin, Western Sexuality, 4.
[7] Oliver O’Donovan, “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” Journal of Religious Ethics 11 (1983) 146.
[8] Hebrew ‘ezer kenegedo. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 102, seems to want it both ways: to have the woman as the one who comes as a helper, God-like yet with “no opposite sex, no second sex,” to the undifferentiated earth-creature Adam.
[9] Othello, Act I, Scene 1. In Plato’s Symposium 189c2-d6, the comic poet Aristophanes suggested that there were originally three kinds of double-sexed beings: one having two sets of male genitalia, another having two female sets, and a third combining male and female. But he was joking!
[10] I shall argue (pages 54-55) that the Law shuts eros out of spirituality. Similarly, eros has no ultimate philosophical or political significance. Piper, Biblical View, 69, comments: “Thus the Biblical viewpoint is not only opposed to Neoplatonism and to all Faustian natures and romantics who attempt to cope with the inadequacies and limitations of sex by constantly searching for the true partner, but it is also against the utilitarian views of those who see the meaning of marriage in the service it renders to the life of society or the State.”
[11] Roger Scruton, Sexual Desire: A Moral Philosophy of the Erotic (New York: Free Press, 1986) 339.
[12] Gilbert C. Meilaender, “Sexuality,” in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology eds. David J. Atkinson et al (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995) 75, speaks of avoidance of fornication as the “healing purpose of marriage.”
[13] The authorial voice speaks in this verse in an aetiology of the permanent institution. Jesus interprets the verse as a divine declaration when he speaks of “what God hath joined together.”
[14] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Wedding Sermon,” 42.
[15] From his prison cell, Bonhoeffer noted poignantly (“Wedding Sermon,” 44): “Most people have forgotten nowadays what a home can mean, though some of us have come to realize it as never before. It is a kingdom of its own in the midst of the world, a stronghold amid life’s storms and stresses, a refuge, even a sanctuary.”
[16] Cf. Augustine, City of God, xiv.22.
[17] Germain Grisez, “The Christian Family as Fulfilment of Sacramental Marriage,” in Studies in Christian Ethics 9 (1996) 30. See also Walter Kasper, Theology of Christian Marriage (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 9-14. This understanding of marriage is found among Protestants as well, e.g., Piper, Biblical View, 137-138; and more recently, Johann Christoph Arnold, A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage, and God (Farmington, Pa.: Plough, 1996).
[18] Anglican “natural law” teaching is not identical to Roman Catholic doctrine, but it is a dominant tradition in Anglican moral theology.
[19] To say these marriages are deficient is not to imply that they are morally inferior, any more than to say a physically disabled individual is morally inferior to a normal person. On the contrary, many couples, imitating Abraham and Sarah, surpass normal couples in the way they overcome this deficiency, becoming fathers and mothers by legal adoption and by spiritual adoption of others who are poor and needy.
[20] In “Dragons in Manhattan” (Girl Goddess #9 [New York: HarperCollins, 1996] 36-93), children’s author Francesca Lia Block gives an imaginative twist to this scenario in a Bildungsroman about Tuck Budd, the daughter of a lesbian couple, who searches for her biological father, only to discover that he is one of her mothers (transsexed).
[21] The much debated eph’ ho pantes hemarton – “in that [or in whom] all sinned” – is a locus classicus for the doctrine of original sin. How sin is transmitted to the human soul is a complex question that does not depend on Augustine’s speculation that erotic arousal was the means by which sin reproduced itself.
[22] “Knowledge of good and evil” includes sexual, moral, and general knowledge. Genesis does not portray Adam and Eve before the Fall as utterly ignorant but as growing in knowledge under the loving tutelage of God’s law. John Milton understood this; many contemporary commentators do not. See James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (London: SCM Press, 1992) 21-56.
[23] John Milton, who depicts prelapsarian eros most graphically, also describes the Fall as the source of the courtly love and romantic sensibility, which are the precursors of today’s ethic of intimacy. Cf. Paradise Lost 4.737-775; 9.1034-1066; and James Grantham Turner, One Flesh: Paradisal Marriage and Sexual Relations in the Age of Milton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[24] Scruton, Sexual Desire, 140-149.
[25] Thus Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes represent two moments of human desire: the eager love that is stronger than death, and the seasoned wisdom that knows its end is dust.
[26] See Thomas N. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995) 100-130.
[27] The natural attraction of male and female explains more than anything else why homosexuals will always constitute a small minority of the population. According to Robert T. Michael et al, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Warner Books, 1994) 176, only 2.8% of adult males and 1.4% of adult females surveyed identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
[28] Transsexuals insist that they really are the opposite of their biological sex, though this claim is dubious philosophically and behaviorally. Cf. O’Donovan, “Transsexualism and Christian Marriage,” 146.
[29] Scruton, Sexual Desire, 307-309.
[30] David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) 26-40, 66-73, calls these two types “transgenerational” and “egalitarian” homosexuality.
[31] Greenberg, Construction of Homosexuality, 40-65.
[32] In the December 1996 ruling in Hawaii, Judge Kevin Chang claimed that the state of Hawaii had “failed to establish a causal link between allowing same-sex marriage and adverse effects upon the optimal development of children.” There is an inevitable circularity to this argument. One could say homosexuals have never had a chance to show whether same-sex marriage could promote stable families because it has never been legal. On the other hand, one could reply that the human race has had the whole of recorded history to try and has chosen not to. On whom should the burden of proof rest with such an unprecedented experiment as same-sex marriage?

Have a comment? Please send it via email.

Follow-ups from Stephen

There are no follow-ups to this post at this time.