Gay Marriage

My position is not that gay marriage is not just wrong"but it is impossible too. I will show this first by doing a reductio ad absurdum argument against pro. I think that pro and I accept some things in common (though he can correct me if I"m wrong here), and this can be the start of my argument then: 1.Marriage is possible. 2.Marriages can only be enacted between two humans. 3.All marriages are relationships between humans, but all relationships are not marriages. 4.There are objective reasons why some relationships can possibly be called marriages, and other relationships cannot be (if this were not true, there would be no objective reason why I should believe that gay marriage is possible or not). 5.Marriages ought to be acknowledged to exist by other people outside the relationship. 6.Gay marriage either should be legal, or should not be legal (in other words, it is important that it be one way or the other; if this were not the case, then there would be no reason to debate about it, unless gay marriage was just a propaganda tool or something). These things are givens, so to speak, and if accepting gay marriage forces us to repudiate any of these givens, then it is a case of reductio ad absurdam. For the givens to be true, you have to believe these postulates as I shall call them: 1. That there something objective that makes a human a human. If you don"t believe this then there is are no objective criteria for determining whether someone is human or not, and thus what it means to "be human" would just be a personal opinion. Since it is supposed to be humans that marry, saying that there is no objective standard to judge whether marriage is possible between two entities (since whether the two were humans or not would just be one opinion amongst others, and thus whether they could even possibly get married would just be one opinion among others as well; this would undercut given 2, and hence given 1 as well). 2. That humans are subject to moral demands. (If they are not, then there would be no objective "right" or "wrong," and this would undercut given 4, since the word "should" is used here, which implies right or wrong.) 3. That an objective standard of morality exists. (This is pretty much the same as 2. If there were no objective standard of morality, aka a standard of morality independent of an individual, then whether any marriage should or should not be enacted would just be a matter of opinion, with no basis in fact, which would contradict given 4.) 5. That there is an objective reason why marriage is possible. If there is no objective reason, then there would be no objective reason why I should acknowledge anybody else"s marriage, and this would contradict given 5. 6. That there is some objective criterion or criteria for determining what a marriage is. If there is no such objective criterion or criteria, then there is no objective reason why some relationships are marriages or not, and this contradicts given 3. 7. That there is some objective reason(s) why marriage is important. If this is not the case, then there is no reason why I should have to accept gay marriage, and if there is no reason why I should have to accept gay marriage, then this would contradict given 5. Thus, if the concept of gay marriage entails going against any of these postulates, then it is impossible for it to be the case that two men or women can get married, and thus pro is wrong. It seems, if we are to decide what makes marriage objectively possible, we must find something objective and certain upon which to base it. This objective thing, I would argue, is the human essence (this is the thing in postulate 1 that determines what makes a human a human). This is unchanging between humans, by definition, and it is not given by some subject (which would make it and everything based on it subjective), but inheres in the person. I would argue that it is only something which comes from the essence that is objective. (And this is easily proved: think of individual triangles that are drawn. They have all sorts of defects"squiggly sides, messed up corners, etc. Yet, the essence of triangles, toward which all drawn triangles are "aimed" so to speak, is unchanging and objective, e.g. they will always have three sides, etc.) I would further argue, from what I have just expressed with triangles, that an essence is not what individual things are, but instead is what they are supposed to be. It is of the essence of humans to have two arms and legs, even though some individual humans do not have them, since all humans are supposed to have them normally. If we deny that humans have an essence, and also something they are directed toward just because they have the essence, we are reduced to saying there is nothing objective that makes a human a human, which goes against postulate 1. Thus, we have to say that man has an essence if we want marriage to be objectively possible. Also, we can say it is from "what man is" that "what marriage is" flows. Lastly, the existence of an essence of something implies something toward which all the individual manifestations of that essence are directed objectively (as drawings of triangles are directed toward adhering to the essence of triangularity, though they do so imperfectly). This logic serves to ground marriage objectively, and no other basis can do so (just try to ground marriage objectively otherwise, i.e. try to ground marriage objectively other than in what man fundamentally is). Individual humans, then, since they have an essence imbued in them by nature which is objective (as opposed to just some subjective agent), have something they are objectively directed toward and not just subjectively (as was the case with the drawings of triangles, which were directed toward triangularity by an artist). Thus, humans are constantly driven to attain the best good for themselves they can (this is always true with humans, though they often imperfectly realize what the good they want is). The way that humans can find out what the best good is for themselves is through reason (which the animals do not have in the same way, which is why examples of homosexuality among them do not impact us here), not through emotion and feeling (which are subjective only). Thus, just because you feel drawn to something does not make it the good toward which you should aim, but you must examine it by reason and find out. This logic applied to sexuality yields results that sexual desire is rationally and essentially (according to man"s essence, which we also call a nature in cases where the essence is inherent and directed toward change) directed toward the man ejaculating his semen into the woman"s vagina, and not toward anything else. It is from this part of man"s objective essence/nature with reason applied to it that marriage flows, and not just "falling in love." Thus, I hold gay marriage to be inherently unreasonable, in that if gay marriage is possible, the only objective basis for marriage, human essence/nature, must be discarded, making marriage inherently subjective (which would violate postulates 5 and 6). Yet if marriage is inherently subjective, you can never say objectively whether a given relationship is marriage or not, and thus marriage can never truly exist. In sum, if gay marriage is a "marriage," then there is no real marriage possible. Thus, gay marriage is objectively impossible, so long as marriage is given the only objective basis (in human essence and the goal directedness of nature) possible for it. This should explain why gay marriage does hurt the "traditional family:" making gay marriage out to be marriage would logically make all marriages purely subjective. I hope this also explains why using arguments from nature (in which a nature is defined as an essence in which there is an inherent principle of change) is not just using the naturalistic fallacy (i.ewhatever happens in the wild is morally good).