Bad Faith Arguments

Defiled Beds

Homosexual "marriage".  It's got the Commentariat chattering like a Spanish castanet.  It is a classic illustration of how Unbelief operates in its own vortex.  This latest cause celebre is being touted as a human and/or civil right.  Want to buy?  Apparently millions do. 

Two homosexuals want to live together in the bonds of holy matrimony.  Because they want to, and because they are human by definition it has to be regarded as a human right.  Not to accede to their desires is, therefore, an act of discrimination against them; it is to deny them civil rights (since marriage is a civil right).  Ah, but the question is begged: is homosexuality a moral or immoral state?  The entire issue turns upon that one troubling, little, begged question.
 

Those who argue against homosexual "marriage" do so on the grounds that homosexuality is an immorality.  To commit homosexual acts is evil--along with theft, adultery, murder and so forth.  That is the only substantial ground for opposing homosexual "marriage".  Civil and human rights do not extend to encompassing immorality and evil.  Those who contend for homosexual "marriage" assume that it is ethical, thereby begging the question entirely. 

So the issue we need to have Unbelievers and the Chattering Classes front up to is, By what standard have they determined that homosexuality is a moral act?  The fact that two or more people want to engage in such acts is irrelevant, for it is abundantly obvious that all people at times want to do evil and that some people at all times want to do what is immoral.  What makes homosexuality moral, and by what standard has the Commentariat made the determination?    That is the fundamental issue upon which the entire debate turns.  Simply eliding over this issue is deceptive and misleading. 

So, without reference to the desires of homosexuals, let the Commentariat tell us not only how homosexual sexual acts and desires are moral, but by what standard they are so determined.  We are aware that the Theologian-in-Chief, President Obama has grounded his determination on a person called Jesus, who apparently said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Well, that's at least a start  in the right direction.  So Mr Theologian-in-Chief, did this same Jesus also declare that homosexual marriage is approbated by His heavenly Father from the beginning?  Come on.  Make the argument honestly, and in good faith.  How we long for integrity in this matter. 

No doubt there will be those who would argue that the desires of homosexuals are sufficient warrant for the morality of their actions.  If people desire something it must, by this definition, be ethical and moral.  This is an absolute nonsense, of course--yet the argument is made with a straight face.  Spare us. 

There are legions of people in this world who are paedophiles.  Their desire is intense and genuine.  Nambla does exist, after all.  There are also millions upon millions of people in this world who are willing to deliver their children up to the tender embrace of paedophiles--for a fee.  They earnestly desire that their children would be so situated.  How utterly wrong, then, that such paedophiles and parents are denied their desires and denied the right to enter paedophiliac marriage.  It is discrimination at its worst.  It is a travesty of human rights, non? 

Only if paedophilia is holy, just, and good.  If not, then never can it be argued that not to permit paedophiliac marriage violates the human and civil rights of paedophiles.  That's the point.  That's the issue.  It's precisely the same with homosexuality in general, not just the paedophiliac variant.  The Commentariat needs to man up and deal with it, not ignore it, hoping that in the ignoring of it everyone else will join them in just assuming that homosexuality is a moral state. 

So the question remains: By what standard does the Commentariat and its attendant Chattering Classes establish or prove that homosexuality is a moral act?  Moreover, on what skyhook is that standard going to be hung.  It is entirely specious, dishonest, and deceitful to ignore these issues.  True servants of the Lord Jesus Christ never will.  True servants of the Lord will never allow the Chatterers deceitfully to shuffle the issue under the bed either.