The tangled skein of Justin Noia's spurious argument begs response ("I don't hate gays (and neither does God)," Nov. 1). I shall confine myself to questioning one idea. This is the fear that society will crumble under the tenuous foundations of marriages based on love.
First of all, Noia seems to equate "normal, stable" with non-unnatural. Now this means that the spousal abuser who rapes his wife and impregnates her is carrying out the purpose of a normal, stable family-after all, he is procreating in a way consonant with biological features.
Now, I think that Noia might consider this a tad off the mark. But why is this? Because normal and stable are not just predicated on the idea of procreative ability, but on something else as well. Normal and stable families are normal and stable because of that "arbitrary" idea of love. Society does not get on because humanity continues to propagate itself. Society gets on because people are connected with each other. If people had babies but hated or didn't have connections with one another, there would be humanity, but no society. And since Noia has propounded that marriage has a social purpose, he should accede that the social purpose will be tied up not only with temporal continuance but also present harmony. And harmony, as I think most would agree, is very well served by the notion of love.
So in declaring that the definition of marriage be expanded to include relationships based on love, we are not falling into some abyss where society will die out, but rather strengthening society by emphasizing that element by which society becomes possible-that is, love or true, committed devotion to other human beings.
Leslie Kirkman
Trinity '08
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.