--------------------
Claim 3) Homosexual
marriage is the most tolerant option.
Response 3) The
problem is that this is the exact opposite of the truth. It is those who oppose
same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if homosexual marriage
is legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom
of speech and even thought.
It’s important to remember that the
issue’s not whether society will allow homosexuals to marry. Many churches are willing
to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, etc… Such institutions
either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex marriages or
look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.
No laws prevent these churches from
conducting marriage ceremonies—and
nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay
out of a church’s decision on the issue. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force
third parties—individuals, businesses, and institutions to recognize these
marriages and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional
marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
Individuals,
organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat
same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and
tolerant position.
It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to
treat these relationships. But this
freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex marriage want to destroy;
they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex
unions as marriages whether they want to or not.
The effects of such coercion have already
been felt in some places such as adoption agencies or even local wedding cake
bakeries. The real issue is whether the
government should force everyone to recognize such marriages. Far from being a
liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex marriage is a governmental
intrusion of monumental proportions.
Claim 4) Homosexual
marriage will bring greater equality.
Response 4) People say that homosexual marriage will
make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal in terms of having equal access to
marriage.
The problem with this position is that
it again assumes that homosexuals are not allowed to marry (see Response 3). The reality is that no one is stopping
homosexuals from getting married. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition
of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the
institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that
homosexuals can begin to want access to it.
Claim 5) Homosexuals
are being denied a constitutional right.
Response 5) First, laws already establish marital conditions.
There’s already a “discriminatory” factor built in. If you don’t meet XYZ, you
aren’t legally allowed to have ABC. In marriage, you must be an adult, can’t
already be married to someone else, can’t be closely related to the other person,
and must marry another human. Restrictions
have always existed.
While there have been valid
discriminatory issues (ie: interracial), the mere existence of a discriminatory factor doesn’t necessarily imply
that a particular group’s being denied a civil right. Also, homosexuals
already have access to marriage. See response #3.
Claim 6) Making
a moral judgment on homosexual marriage and saying that it is wrong is to be hateful
to homosexuals.
Response 6) Making a moral judgment of an act in and of
itself is not an act of hate..
It is not hateful for me to tell my
toddler that disrespecting me is wrong.
In the same way, my declaring that
homosexual marriage is wrong is not hating homosexuals. It is my duty and act
of love to explain to them the inconsistency of their position.
Claim 7) There
will be harm done to their children if we don’t say that their homosexual
parents are married. It will be a net societal benefit.
Response 7) Paul
Nathanson, a sociology professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, recognizes
this as an untested social experiment:
“advocates of gay marriage have made
no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want
more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Thirty years ago, “no-fault divorce” redefined
marriage, though more subtly than what is being demanded today. NFD said that marriage
should only last as long as one partner wants it. This implied that marriage
was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not taking child well-being into
account at all.
If a
subtle shift from NFD produces this much devastation, how can a fundamental shift such as homosexual
marriage be justified as a net gain for society? Like NFD, we’re being told that parental gender doesn’t matter. We
don’t have to wonder about the impacts of a one-gender family (e.g. “intentionally
fatherless families”). Analogously, the same-sex family is problematic because
same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father
just because adults want it that way.
Dr. Nathanson also identified at least five functions in marriage, things that every culture must do to
survive and thrive: (1) Foster the bonding between men and women, (2) Foster
the birth and rearing of children, (3) Foster the bonding between men and
children, (4) Foster some form of healthy masculine identity, (5) Foster the
transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.
Dr.
Nathanson considers these five points critical to the continued survival of any
culture.
He continues, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both
reproduction and survival, ... every human societ(y) has had to promote it
actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that
limits marriage to unions of men and women.
He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without
it.” Homosexual marriage inherently cannot fulfill all five of these items.
------------------------------
Part 3 next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment