Again, that assumes that the purpose of sexual union is the repetitive exemplification of sexual bipolarity, which is absurd. No one is denying that children are born of man and woman, it not relevant to the question of the acceptability of homosexual behavior in a civil society, or of civil marriage between members of the same sex. The only natural law argument with any validity merely affirms that heterosexuality is built into the equipment, and that it is a perversion to employ it against nature. Even then, there is a problem, however. No one expects husbands and wives to avoid all "non- standard" use of the equipment, and therefore perversion.
Additionally, even assuming that the perversion is more egregious, it is seems clear that most homosexuals, whether for psychiatric reasons or some other, have a deep- seated orientation not amenable to medical treatment. (Claims of treatment in a religious context have no bearing on the civil disposition of the question, since they introduce notions of grace.) Then it becomes a question of whether the perversion is so objectionable that we, as a society, should heap upon them further disabilities, or whether, as with others with intractable conditions (for example, blindness) we should eliminate barriers to their living a life as close to normal as possible. My preferred solution is civil union, which makes life easier, but refrains from rendering the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual unions indifferent, thus satisfying society's sense of something being amiss........ |
