Love, Sex and Death

This paper evaluates the different views held by the New Natural Law, Mohr and Card on the legalization of same-sex marriages. It discusses the arguments based on natural law, religious doctrine, and the concept of marriage itself. The paper concludes by advocating for the acceptance and legalization of same-sex marriages.

Running head: LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
Love, Sex and Death
Name of Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
Almost everyone has an opinion about same-sex marriages and whether it should be
legalized. These points of view come from personal beliefs to what a marriage is, as is
mentioned in the Bible, to contrasting views coming from people who do not see same-sex
marriages as being anything different from traditional marriages (Bernstein 2016). Before
forming one’s own thought on the matter, it is important to ask yourselves that why should a
couple be forbidden to get married in front of family and friends, to show their commitment
to each other? As a nation, Australia has been trying for a long time to respond to the
society’s changing values and needs (Harris 2017). This paper aims to evaluate the different
views held by the New Natural Law, Mohr and Card on the legalization of same-sex
marriages.
The New Natural Law (NNL) theory, which is sometimes called the New Classical
Natural theory, was initiated in the 1960s by an individual named Germain Grisez (Finnis
2017). From the time of Aquinas, many philosophers have been trying to engage with
forming the correct definition of the natural moral law and making it the formative system
which agree with ethics to form a basic legal structure. The opposition of the legal
recognition of same-sex marriage is closely interrelated to the belief that the act of sex
between people of the same-sex is morally inappropriate. This comes with the analysis
whether it is important for law to be “natural” or “positive” (Selznick 2018). Individuals that
believe in the natural law assert that laws are required to be able to reflect morals that are
universal to protect one’s inherent right to be human. On the other hand, individuals that
believe laws need to be positive assert that legislators need to create laws based on the
particular society that it applies to.
It is important to note natural has been in discussion since before the prevalence of
Christianity however, philosophers like Aquinas who are key figures in the development of
this theory have argued that the basis of natural law is to appeal to a higher moral

2LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
authoritarian figure on the basis of what is counted as justice, and that authority figure is God
(Seidman 2016). John Finnis, a Catholic philosopher studying natural law has traced much of
his findings and thinking to the ideas that were first expressed by Aquinas. According to
Finnis’ theory, marriage is considered a basic good which is meant for the heterosexual good
leading to procreation (Finnis 2017). He says that the act of sex is only considered moral
when it takes place within a heterosexual marriage. The sexual acts which are considered to
be in the immoral category by Finnis, in accordance to the Natural Law, are homosexual sex,
masturbation bestiality and adultery.
Same-sex marriage is handed a heavy burden on proving the natural right for
individuals if they want to have a same-sex marriage, and this will only be possible if this
type of union is found to be confining with the principles of the natural law. Even though it is
never correct to condemn an individuals’ intrinsic human right in forming a matrimonial
congregation with another individual of their choice, there are many factors that come into
play with the topic of same-sex marriages trying to fulfil the laws of natural law (Halwani
2018). One of the main arguments is that homosexuality has failed to fulfil the natural ends
that exist in the body parts to procreate life in a union.
As it has been mentioned in the paper, the perception that homosexuality is immoral
is deeply rooted in the religious doctrine and the cultural norms that have developed due to
this. Numerous Christian entities has out rightly rejected the acceptance of homosexuality,
but there exists many arguments over the biblical interpretations of homosexuality.
According to Mohr (1999), there has never been a mention of homosexuality by Christ in the
Bible with the most recent clarification saying that the story of Lot at Sodom is not intended
towards homosexuality, but actually relates inhospitality. Furthermore, Mohr states that if the
story of Lot at Sodom is to denounce homosexuality, then similarly the story of Lot in the
cave should be seen as praising of incestuous rape (Mohr 1999). According to Mohr, the

3LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
concept of marriage is described as being the act of intimacy in the medium of everyday life
mixed together with the sanctity of love and necessary demand. Love is not to be considered
a legal activity or a legal language, but it is able to capture an aspect of the good in the heart
of relationships between individuals and marriage is to be only considered to be a legal status
of individuals which embodies the reality. Mohr does not consider marriage as a whole to be
considered under the categories of heterosexual or homosexual (Riggle et al. 2017)
Mohr has made a distinction between moralities in the sense of being descriptive
along with in the normative sense. In the descriptive point of view, the reason why
homosexuality is considered to be immoral is because it is not accepted in the society.
However, from a normative point of view, just because the society accepts homosexuality as
an allowed practice, does not make it morally right (i.e. slavery). This is to say that just
because the society is not accepting a certain practice, the majority does not have the right to
discriminate against the peoples who are actively identifying themselves as a homosexual.
Opponents of Mohr’s point of view and the legalization of same-sex marriage argue
that the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate and subsequently, provide for the family in
way that takes care of all the children involved in the matrimony (Mohr 1999). When
marriage gets limited to a biological concept, the realities of families that are present in
today’s society get neglected and discriminated against. It is falsely accepted that only
heterosexual couples are able to provide a healthy life for their children, because it has never
been proven that children who have same-sex parents have suffered greatly in their
development (Knight et al. 2017).
According to Claudia Card, she argues that gay ‘marriage’ is not going to be the best
route forward for the progression of the gay community and that a more radical reformation
of the concept of marriage is required. It is in her opinion that the state must not get involved

4LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
when solving out someone’s personal problems because by doing so, many bad consequences
could be caused (Card 2018). Card believes that the whole concept of marriage is futile and
that marriage should not be considered a legal institution as it does not serve any necessary
function that cannot be done in any other way. Combining Card’s way of thinking along with
the unnecessary need for the institution of marriage it can be said that, marriage is just an
unfortunate result of the longstanding processes in the past which are essentially not based on
any proper moral justification (Card 2018).
Card thinks that the efforts which have gone into pursuing the legalization of same-
sex marriage has gone in vain because she thinks that marriage should just be completely
taken off everyone’s political agenda, so that the people in the gay community can either
choose to pursue marriage or choose not to, and pursue more important things. An interesting
purview to be offered with accordance to the view of Card is that just because our society had
banned women from owning slaves, it does not mean that women should be fighting for that
cause. So now, for legal institutions to be able to come to a conclusion about same-sex
marriage, it is required to determine whether it is the whole concept of marriage that is
flawed, or it is the exclusion of certain individuals from this opportunity is the main problem.
However, it is not fundamentally correct to compare the institutions of slavery along with that
of marriage because there exists more differences between the two rather than similarities.
Nonetheless, the reason why Card uses the slavery analogy to compare it to marriage as a
whole is to iterate the fact that if an institution is seen to irredeemably bad then there stands
no reason why people should clamour to participate in it (Card 2018). This is because the
status of being married gives privileges to certain people’s way of life that may not be similar
to everyone else and the fact that the same status grants individuals with various social and
economic benefits.

5LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Australia since the end of 2017, with the legal
definition of a marriage changing from “a union of a man and a woman” to “a union between
two people”. Increasing number of governments in various different nations are realizing that
the argument against the legalization of same-sex marriages are very weak, and it will benefit
everyone to not follow the views of the natural law, and think more in the terms of train of
thought proposed by Mohr and Card. The wellbeing and happiness of the people in a society
strongly affects the condition of the society as a whole, and it will prove beneficial to most
governments to allow people to live and do things like everyone else, and not be legally
discriminated against.

6LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
References:
Bernstein, M., 2016. How a country’s political system works can be integral to whether or
not same-sex marriage becomes legal. USApp–American Politics and Policy Blog.
Card, C., 2018. Against Marriage and Motherhood. Criticism and Compassion: The Ethics
and Politics of Claudia Card, pp.193-217.
Card, C., 2018. Gay Divorce: Thoughts on the Legal Regulation of Marriage. Criticism and
Compassion: The Ethics and Politics of Claudia Card, pp.219-233.
Finnis, J., 2017. The “Natural Law Tradition”. In Law and Morality (pp. 17-20). Routledge.
Halwani, R., 2018. Philosophy of love, sex, and marriage: an introduction. Routledge.
Harris, B., 2017. Human Rights and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia. J. Pol. &
L., 10, p.60.
Knight, K.W., Stephenson, S., West, S., Delatycki, M.B., Jones, C.A., Little, M.H., Patton,
G.C., Sawyer, S.M., Skinner, S.R., Telfer, M.M. and Wake, M., 2017. The kids are
OK: It is discrimination, not same-sex parents, that harms children. The Medical
Journal of Australia, 207(9), pp.374-375.
Mohr, R. D. 1999. Gay basics: Some questions, facts, and values. In J. Rachels (Ed.), The
right thing to do (2nd ed., pp. 141–156). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Riggle, E.D., Wickham, R.E., Rostosky, S.S., Rothblum, E.D. and Balsam, K.F., 2017.
Impact of civil marriage recognition for long-term same-sex couples. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 14(2), pp.223-232.
Seidman, L.M., 2016. The Triumph of Gay Marriage and the Failure of Constitutional
Law. The Supreme Court Review, 2015(1), pp.115-146.

7LOVE, SEX AND DEATH
Selznick, P., 2018. Sociology and natural law. In The Law and Society Canon (pp. 47-71).
Routledge.