Callicles is an activist for “traditional” marriage between a man and a woman.
His demeanor portrays a person who is an expert of his views. Based upon this expertise, I found that I may be able to learn something enlightening about marriage and engaged him in conversation.
Upon asking Callicles “what is marriage?” he responded with the example that marriage should be exclusive to a man and a woman.
Not having expected an example, I prodded Callicles to articulate his expertise with a definition. “Marriage is the natural result of when a male and a female love each other,” Callicles stated.
I responded in turn, “but Callicles, is it not also possible for love to exist outside of marriage? Is the connection between family not love? Similarly, if a person loves a friend of the opposite gender, is this a marriage?”
Callicles considered for a moment as he found his own initial definition to be an insufficient description of marriage. He, however, purported to be very knowledgeable and I genuinely wanted to gain a better understanding of marriage. With these factors in mind, I decided to offer Callicles an opportunity to reestablish his view and again attempt to articulate his stance.
“Marriage is an act which is intended to benefit the state by producing the next generation,” Callicles stated. “The problem with gay marriage is that it does not provide heirs and is, as such, not a valid form of marriage.”
Being quite surprised by the significant digression Callicles took from his initial argument, I responded in turn. “Callicles, I am uncertain what you propose of marriage if its sole purpose is to produce a lineage? Gay marriage does not seem to be the only form of marriage in which a child cannot be born. Tell me, Callicles, do you consider marriage in which one or both partners are infertile through birth or advanced age to be valid?”
“I do not appreciate your attempt to deride my argument,” Callicles responded. “In the event of an infertile marriage it is possible for the married couple to adopt and still provide benefit to the state. Besides, I am entitled to my own opinion.”
“Callicles, you are right that you are entitled to your own opinion; however, you are not entitled for others to agree with it. I am surprised you seem to have not considered the ramifications of your own argument. Is it not also possible for a homosexual couple to adopt and raise a family?”
“No,” Callicles responded. “God did not intend it. Leviticus 18:22- ‘you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.’”
Sensing the frustration in Callicles’ voice, I responded, “Callicles, we seem to have diverted quite far from your original definitions of marriage. However, does the Bible not primarily teach love and toleration? Also, take for instance Matthew 22:21. ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s; and unto God that which is God’s.’ Jesus’ words instructed his disciples to follow the laws of the land.”
I continued, “given our current situation of a separate church and state, is it not possible that a secular establishment would allow gay marriage? Jesus’ teachings would seem to require you to support gay marriage, of course, without having to participate.”
Callicles responded with increasing agitation. “No! I don’t care what argument you make; I will never support gay marriage. It is unnatural and, quite frankly, the thought frightens me.”
“Callicles,” I responded. “I initially believed you were an expert on this topic. However, you only appear to believe gay people are icky and hide your views behind policies of procreation or religion. It seems we both have some thinking to do on the topic.”
Respond to Greg at
