Greece is introducing them under the same slogan as the English-speaking world: ‘What’s the trouble for you if two homosexuals will be able to call their relationships a marriage officially?’ However, the practice of the same Western world shows it is a trouble indeed.
Lately, the Greek parliament has adopted a law not only allowing formal registration of same-sex marriages but also enabling such couples to adopt children.
Greece turned out to be the only traditional Orthodox state where the authorities took such a decision.
The Greek Orthodox church was against it, and many are pointing out that what happened shows that the Greek society (and the political elite) no longer perceive themselves as Orthodox, with church not playing the role of a moral authority anymore.
‘Good for that, someone might wonder, church is just a player backpedalling on progress!’
Indeed, it is ‘a back pedal’ in some respects, but when someone is rushing to fall off a cliff it is hard to be happy, they got rid of ‘a back pedal’, or one hardly will be happy about advanced cancer. In the 20th century, we saw many advanced movements, which, having reaped their terrible fruit, failed once and for all.
Redefining such a fundamental tenet of human’s life as marriage means opening Pandora’s box, and the people of more progressive countries have already gone all the way to realse it.
Basically, Greece is introducing such marriages under the same slogan as the English-speaking world: ‘What’s the trouble for you if two homosexuals will be able to call their relationships a marriage officially?’
However, the practice of the same Western world shows it is a trouble indeed. This needs to be explained further.
Declaring something a person’s right, the state makes its citizens liable for accepting this right. For instance, if you have a property right, someone commits a crime by not accepting it.
‘Same-sex marriage’ does not mean a same-sex couple can share their food and bed (they could do so even before), but that everyone else must accept this as a marriage.
For example, in the countries, which have gone this way before, Christian foster agencies faced an obligation to give children to gay couples and Christian bakeries and florists – to serve gay weddings. If they refuse, they can be sued, because in the new reality, doing so they commit a prejudice-motivated crime. Which is exactly like refusing to serve a black couple.
This threats to disrupt any community having traditional beliefs about marriage.
However, this does not stop there – the recognition of same-sex marriage is immediately followed by transgenderism and criminalising parents’ attempts to persuade their children from mutilating gender reassignment surgery.
Any person still believing that marriage is only a union of a man and a woman, that pregnant men do not exist and that cutting off from youngsters’ something which cannot be reattached, is not right, today is treated with the same repulsion as straight-out racists. They are subject to being cancelled from all sides and, preferably, to a prosecution.
But the problem is not only that same-sex concubinage is, by far, not a marriage from the perspective of any traditional religion.
The problem is the state-level denial of the biological reality.
People as a biological species have their own nature. They are mammals, divided into two sexes and reproduce sexually, form stable unions of men and women where they have and bring up children.
This is not a matter of culture and religion – such a behaviour exists in all human communities regardless of specific traditions. People form families, like birds build nests, because of their nature. Neither the state, nor religious circles define marriage (or can redefine it). They can only maintain and favour this natural reality, which has existed before them and independently from them.
Objectively, regardless of out assessments and preferences, marriage (i. e. the set-up when a man and a woman live together sharing food and bed) is different from same-sex concubinage in plenty of aspects.
First and foremost, marriage (usually) leads to something which is not possible for a same-sex couple – to having children. The reason why the society accepts marriage is, firstly, to encourage fertility and, secondly, to ensure the rights of parents and, above all, of woman and her children.
Marriage implies a need to take care of your kin and, through that, facilitates forming responsible, productive and lawful behaviour. As they say in such situations: ‘when you marry you settle down’.
This is linked both to fertility and spouses’ complementarity.
Men and women are biologically different and are not interchangeable by nature. Only a woman has a unique skill of being a mother, with all the capabilities she needs for that. A man is a true-born breadwinner who has to provide for his wife and kids.
Marriage creates a role model of responsibility, love and care for children, and they need a dad and a mom to develop. Of course, there are cases when it is not so, but creating them artificially is no good.
Forward-looking people can retort that pregnant men do exist, as a matter of fact. From the perspective of any other culture, including the traditional Western culture, ‘a pregnant man’ is just a woman who tried and could play a trick on nature.
She declared herself a man and, possibly, let her breast cut off, but she preserved both the heterosexual affinity and the ability to bear children.
To consider her a man, like to consider same-sex concubinage ‘a marriage’, means to deny the empirical reality.
And relevant governmental decisions starting from legal recognition of ‘same-sex marriages’ are a way to impose a consent to what is initially wrong, moreover, which is wrong not only at the level of assessments but also at the level of facts.
Of course, it can be that some time later this surge of ideological nonsense will fade away.
Or, maybe not. In which case Greeks, like other European countries, will be pushed out by other nations, which still respect family and fertility.