Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.~It’s inevitable.
~It’s a losing cause.
~It makes us look mean and unloving.
~Non-Christians can’t be expected to live by Christian morality.
~If you wouldn’t force people to be Christians with their money, why would you force people to be ~Christians with their bodies?
~What’s the real practical difference in a society with openly gay relationships and a society in which there’s gay marriage?
~It feels like racism to non-Christians.
~The loss to our society is pretty slim compared with where we currently are. Marriage has endured contraception, abortion, decriminalization of adultery, normalization of divorce, and no-fault divorce. Marriage will survive this, too.
~We let people marry all the time who won’t be having children. What’s the difference?
~How does it harm you?
~If gays are going to behave as gays, wouldn’t you rather have them in permanent relationships rather than not?
~You can’t complain about promiscuity in the gay community and then prevent them from forming permanent, legally binding relationships.
~Places that have gay marriage haven’t suffered the societal implosions that many have predicted.
Response:
1. Admit that the difference between a culture as it is today and one with gay marriage is not a shift from being 80% right to being 15% right, but more like a shift from being 20% right to being 15% right. This is minor in comparison with the damage already done to the traditional institution of marriage by contraception, abortion, decriminalization of adultery, decriminalization of premarital sex, and the massive facilitation of divorce on non-fault grounds. These things also mean we have granted away tremendous chunks of our moral authority in the realm of marriage issues.
2. That being said, there is still a significant difference between allowing (decriminalizing) gay behavior and endorsing it with state recognition through marital status. The two reasons to recognize marriage were that God creates it (historically the view) and (more recently) that marriage benefits the society by domesticating men, creating stability for children, and providing for the needs of mothers. Gay marriage satisfies neither of these criteria. The question isn't so much why should we oppose gay marriage. The real question is what do gay marriages have to offer society in return for the recognition and benefits desiring to be granted?
3. I generally find the view of most conservatives that gay relationships are fine but must not be called marriage a silly and indefensible one. It's a distinction without a difference. The much more defensible view is that gay relationships and gay sex are inferior to heterosexual marriage in a significant moral sense and that, therefore, gay marriage must not equate them in value. This is consistent with decriminalizing gay sex, but it is much more consistent with maintaining a criminal status for that conduct...as well as for all other similar sexual deviances (adultery, fornication, contraception, incest, etc.).
4. Sex is far too important to treat like just another activity. Everyone knows this by the way they talk about, think about, sing about, write poetry about, compose art about, and pursue sexual gratification. In other words, sex is surely not just another bodily appetite or activity. People who say that aren't even being honest with themselves. But precisely because sex is so powerful and important, it's at least plausible that there are right and wrong ways of using it, and that those distinctions will not coincide with whatever each individual thinks he wants to do.
5. Does the state have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage or sex at all? If you start with libertarianism, the answer has to be, "No." If you start with concerns about children, family structure, and God, the answer has to be, "Yes." This is a difficult argument to make in the current cultural environment. That isn't even a particularly honest admission. Look at how hard we're trying to make it and how little impact we seem to be having.
No comments:
Post a Comment