The Essence of Marriage: Part 3

X: Hello again, Socrates. I'm afraid that we'll be talking about some sticky subjects today. 

Socrates: Sticky subjects? Oh, don't worry about that. Most of the time, topics aren't what bother me--people are.

X: That's a relief to hear. Now for the topic. Socrates, once again I might sound dumb, but I know that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, and I'm not entirely sure how to convince myself or others that it is so. What is wrong with it? Why must it be forbidden? What possible harm could it do?

Socrates: You've just asked a load of excellent questions. Now I'll ask some of my own. To begin with, what is the reproductive system for?

X: For producing new people, of course.

Socrates: (Sigh. How few people today know that.) Are married couples able to procreate children?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Does this give them both pleasure and responsibility? Are they responsible for caring for their children, and for feeding them and clothing them and educating them and giving them their time and love?

X: Yes to both questions.

Socrates: Do homosexuals inherit any of these responsibilities?

X: No. Their unions are sterile. They get enjoyment without responsibility. You know, this is all very well, Socrates, but I still don't have quite the strong argument that I'm hoping for.

Socrates: Don't worry; you're building lots of little ones right now. Let's move on. In nature, do we not observe that all animals follow the laws to which they are subjected?

X: They do.

Socrates: Does this not apply to their reproduction? There are no such things as "gay animals", are there?

X: No, of course not.

Socrates: Why, then, do men break the laws of nature, which even the beasts do not disobey?

X: Well, Socrates, men have the odd ability to disobey some laws at will, the moral and natural law.           You asked just a minute ago what the reproductive system is for. What is wrong with the way that homosexuals use their bodies?

Socrates: Well, first of all, we know that the primary purpose of the reproduction system is the procreation of children, correct?

X: Correct.

Socrates: The opposite sexes were created to complement each other for this purpose, were they not?

X: They were.

Socrates: And yet homosexuals do not use this system for its intended purpose?

X: No.

Socrates: What meaning can their "union" have then? Can we even call it a "union"?

X: Oh, I see that now. Neither male nor female homosexuals can call their activities "union" of the physical kind. In neither case do their bodies complement each other. They simply cannot unite at all. (Males would claim that they can, but of course this is not true. They only have union by unnatural means.) To say that they could unite is like saying that a key can be used to unlock a key or that a lock can be used to unlock a lock. Their acts are devoid of meaning. Why did I use the word "union" to describe these acts?

Socrates: You're not using it anymore; that's an improvement.

X: Sorry, Socrates. Gotta go.

Socrates: You're always so abrupt.