Square circles and gay marriage

Square Circles and “Gay Marriage”

This is my very first posting on my new blog, and what a way to start! “Gay Marriage” seems to be the highest priority for young people these days. I’m hearing that even young adults who consider themselves to be evangelicals are for “gay marriage.” (I always put “gay marriage” in quotes because I don’t believe such an entity actually exists. Something CALLED “gay marriage” certainly exists, but I believe that is only a legal fiction.)

Entities are named according to their natures. While there are a variety of trees, one of the qualities they all share is “treeness.” There are varieties of horses, but there are inherent differences between horses and cattle or cats or birds. If you really WANT to you could CALL a cow a “horse,” but calling it a horse won’t make it one – because it doesn’t have a horse’s nature. You can even mate a horse with a donkey, but the offspring is a mule, which is neither a horse OR a donkey.

The unity of a man and a woman has its own unique nature. That nature is what makes the couple married. The unity of two men or two women would have its own nature, but it wouldn’t be the nature of a marriage. If ninety percent of the house and senate voted for “gay marriage” and the president signed it into law, that wouldn’t change the nature of marriage because nature isn’t something one can vote on. If one of the ten present who objects to “gay marriage” sued and it got to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court voted nine to nothing in favor of “gay marriage,” there still would be no such thing as ACTUAL “gay marriage” because the Supreme Court can’t change the nature of marriage. They could certainly make the fiction of “gay marriage” legal – but they couldn’t make it ACTUAL.

A square is a square because it has the NATURE of a square. A circle is a circle because it has the NATURE of a circle. While some rock band could call itself the “Square Circles,” that wouldn’t make actual “square circles” possible; it is impossible by definition. In the same way, “gay marriage” is impossible by definition.

In our postmodern world, when you point out to young people that a “gay marriage” is impossible by definition, they say, “No problem. Just change the definition of ‘marriage.’” But that can’t be done because legal fictions don’t affect nature. Unless you can somehow cause the nature of a man/man  or woman/woman relationship to be the SAME as the nature of a man/woman relationship, you can never have actual “gay marriage.”