“Gay Marriage” is an Unjustified Illusion

Dr. Anthony Esolen is one of Cowboy Papist favorite writers, since we read his translation of Dante‘s The Divine Comedy.  Dr. Esolen has written a wonderfully coherent essay at The Public Discourse on the logical fallibility of the sexual revolution and it’s child in our culture today, “gay marriage.”  As a professor of English at Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, and the author of Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Ironies of Faith, Dr. Esolen is a man who knows of what he speaks.  It’s very difficult to find fault in his premise; below are some of my choice passages from this article titled “Sexual Revolution: Defend It, If You Can « Public Discourse.”  He opens with this direct assertion:

Why should two men who are sexually attracted to one another not be allowed to pretend that they are married?  That we are even asking such a question is the result of our having accepted the premise of the sexual revolution, which is, essentially, that what people do with their bodies is their own business, so long as no one is harmed.  By “no one” we mean the people involved in the sexual act, and sometimes, though much less reliably and without a great deal of concern, an unwitting spouse who happens, at the moment, not to be in the bed but, perhaps, shopping for dinner, or laying pipes at a construction site.  By “harm” we mean obvious physical or psychological violence.  So we frown upon rape and, after two generations of knowing smiles and winks, pedophilia. Everything else goes.

Now the odd thing about this premise is that, despite its being so widely taken for granted, it is astonishingly weak.  The person who proclaims it severs himself, in effect, from all considerations of the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.  For he says, “With regard to sexual behavior, so long as no one is being coerced into the act, and, perhaps, so long as no spouse is being betrayed, the claims of virtue do not apply.”  The justification of the sexual act is located in the desire itself, and the desire is taken as a brute fact, a given. But this is a premise we would reject out of hand in any other sphere of human action.

We know, indeed, that the very reason why we inculcate the virtues in ourselves and in our children is so that we will do the right thing despite what we happen to desire, and, more, that we will learn to desire what is right, because it is right, just as we should wish to know the truth because it is true.

The obvious cultural defect resulting from this belief in unlimited desire so long as it doesn’t cause physical or psychological harm to anyone else is the epitome of selfishness; it is a core belief in today’s secular doctrine of belief.  This cannot change without fundamental realignment of faith, love, and charity that comes from time and generational change.

Dr. Esolen points out the hypocritical positions of supporters of gay marriage as they tout the triviality of what occurs on one’s private life also needs the support and protection of our nation’s constitutional law to maintain its triviality.  Dr. Esolen goes on:

Indeed, I can conceive of no other thing more deeply determinative of what a society will be like, or even whether it will be a genuine society at all, than our folkways regarding men and women, their courtship, their marriage, their duties to one another, and their raising of children.  Sex—both the distinction between man and woman, and the act that unites man and woman in the embrace that is essentially oriented towards the future—is a foundational consideration for every people.  When we ask, “Will a man be allowed to have more than one wife?” or “Will husbands and wives be allowed to divorce at will?” or “Will unmarried people be encouraged to behave as if they were married?”, we are asking, whether we understand it fully or not, “What kind of culture, if any, do we want to share?

And that sharing of a culture brings me to the crucial point.  It is a plain fact that what two people do in a bedroom is not confined to the bedroom.  The most obvious evidence for this fact can be seen around us everywhere, walking on two legs.  They are the creatures known as children. . .  Now, it is also a plain fact that children deserve to be brought up by both a mother and a father. This ought to be no more controversial than asserting that they deserve to be fed well and dressed warmly and loved.  The boy needs a father to teach him to be a man; the girl needs a father to protect her and to affirm her worthiness to be loved by a man; and, as for a child’s need for a mother, it is so obvious that only madmen and modern educators would dare to deny it.  If we would deny that children should be brought up in stable families, with mother and father, we need only look to our bursting prisons, and ask how many of the men incarcerated actually grew up in unbroken homes.  In other words, when we are talking about sex, we must talk about the common good.

He finishes up by declaring that the sexual revolution, like many other revolutions before it, have failed.

They began . . . by justifying the new “virtues” of freedom of sexual expression, on the grounds that we would be a looser, friendlier, sweeter, less violent, and more beautiful society.  Well, that certainly didn’t happen. . .

The sexual revolutionaries have for too long simply begged the question. They say, “We should be allowed to do this, because every sexual desire short of rape and (sometimes) adultery should be tolerated—no, encouraged, even honored in law.”  But that is to justify the sexual revolution by saying that the sexual revolution is justified. Let them do more. Let them argue that the sexual revolution—in its entirety—has conduced to the common good.

In other words, let the sexual revolution be justified on grounds of the common good.  I believe it fails that test miserably, with evidence that is weighty, obvious, manifold, logically and anthropologically deducible, and clearly predictable by wisdom both pagan and Christian.  Let them make their case, rather than asserting a principle that, in reality, would destroy the very idea of the common good.”

Frankly, the sexual revolution and its horrific offspring will indeed expire over the next several generations if the “virtue” of selfishness can be successfully defeated by the coming generations of priests, teachers, and parents.  Of course, there’s always the risk one runs of being labeled as a hate-filled bigot when one doesn’t subscribe to the virtue of selfishness.  Ah, as if what ‘they’ thought mattered!

This entry was posted in Charity, Culture, Faith, Hope, Love and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “Gay Marriage” is an Unjustified Illusion

  1. So in your opinion… Do you believe in gay marriage? Either men or women? Obviously the word of god is a huge part of your life and I respect that. But I think, well from what I gathered in your post. You are missing the point of the idea of marriage.
    Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.
    No where in this definition, which was found in a dictionary, does it say those two people engaging in this union is meant to be a man and a woman. The fact that two people love on another enough that they want to share that love and their life with a child is a magical moment. And I think that if that if those two people are worthy, as in not abusing alcohol drugs, or one another in an sort of way that they are capable of raising a child.
    Kinship is different in every culture, some cultures in Africa and Asia do not distinguish between a man and a woman, but rather that they are both needed to raise a child ‘properly’. And I do respect this. I do believe that a child needs both a positive male and female role in their life, but that doesnt mean they both need to be married to do so. I am sure that good friends, if not family will be involved in the raising of the child. It does after all take a community to raise a child, both men and women.
    (This is not meant to offend in any way, I just wanted to express, like you already did, how you felt about the subject)

    • CowboyPapist says:

      Thank you for your reply; however, you are wrong as it is obvious you didn’t read my blog entry or follow the links to Dr. Esolen’s article. We would recommend you do so. While Cowboy Papist appreciate that you have strong beliefs on marriage and child rearing, it would appear that your beliefs are not well formed and require further study and research on your part. “Gay Marriage” is enclosed in scare quotes because there is no such thing, like “almost pregnant.” It simply is a recent creation by advocates of the sexual revolution that will not extend for many more years. Your definition of marriage is cute and kind, but inaccurate – the 1st definition used at Dictionary.com is “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” This is the thousand year old definition and based on the traditions in virtually all societies, religions, and cultures. This definition has been questioned socially, culturally and legally in recent years by advocates of who believe that “what people do with their bodies is their own business, so long as no one is harmed,” as Dr. Esolen’s article cites. As noted in our early blog post, Cowboy Papist doesn’t believe this faux revolution will not survive subsequent generations. Thank you again for your thoughts and your email; we’re very grateful and wish you the best in your journey toward full understanding of true marriage.

Comments are closed.