Homosexual "Marriage"

Hypocrisy and Special Pleading

The arguments swirling around the crusade for homosexual "marriage" have been playing out pretty much as expected.  One argument by those opposed has been to employ reductio ad absurdum: if homosexual "marriage" is approved today, tomorrow (or some time in the future) society will be legitimising polygamy, polyandry, incest, and paedophilia.

This argument has been mocked and lampooned by homosexual "marriage" proponents--who have resorted to the most superficial and spurious rebuttal.
  They have used people who desire to enter a homosexual "marriage" to declare that there is no way at all they will want to move on to incest and paedophilia.  Nope.  It's ridiculous scaremongering by Christians, they claim.

This appears not to be an honest attempt at rebuttal at all.  The reductio or "slippery slope" argument has never (to our knowledge) claimed or proposed that the same individuals who enter a homosexual "marriage" would then move on to incestuous relationships.  The rebuttal thus amounts to a determined and spirited attack upon a straw man, a windmill.

The reductio argument rests on another premise altogether, ignored by proponents of homosexual "marriage" presumably because they find themselves unable to rebut the argument.  They are caught--and they know it.  The reductio argument by opponents of homosexual "marriage" rests on this exposition of the case: protagonists for homosexual "marriage" are claiming that it is a human right because homosexuals desire to be married. A sub-premise is that the basis of human marriage exists when two people freely will to enter such a relationship. Protagonists thus conclude that all the pre-conditions and requirements of marriage are met by two homosexuals who freely desire to be in the marriage state. Not to permit them to enter the state of marriage is, then, a violation of the fundamental human right to be married. 

But the opponents of homosexual marriage point out that the homosexual "marriage" case proves far too much.  The same arguments, with the same veracity and logic could be advanced for any kind of human being who mutually wish to enter into marriage: sisters and brothers, sisters and sisters, brothers and brothers, parents and children, multiple adults and children in "big love" arrangements, and so forth.

If homosexual "marriage" supporters recoil from such "marriages" they do so with the stench of hypocrisy--for if marriage should be allowed on the grounds that two homosexuals freely and willing desire to enter marriage, on what basis should a brother-brother homosexual "marriage" be opposed when both parties, in that case, also freely and willingly desire to enter marriage?  The latter must be just as much grounded in fundamental human rights as the homosexual "marriage" case.

When proponents of homosexual "marriage" respond by saying, we are not concerned with incestual marriage, our counter challenge is, on the logic and premises of your case, you should be--if your argument is to be given credence and taken seriously.

For our part, we are very serious about this rebuttal for it strips away the cloaks.  A fundamental premise of our argument is as follows: marriage is an institution recognized by society, but not defined by society.  Consequently, our argument rests on the Creator's declarations concerning marriage--as delivered to us in Holy Scripture and in Natural Law--not on human wilfulness.  Of course we recognize that this argument will carry no weight with those who have already decided that the Creator of the heavens and the earth does not exist.  Atheists will continue to mock.  Their mockery, however, says nothing about the truth.

But Unbelief has a way of talking out of both sides of its mouth.  It wants untrammelled freedom and license (when it suits), but still wants to cling to vestiges of truth and rectitude from a more Christian time so that their licentiousness can be protected.  Standing upon Christian truths, it dances around demanding greater licentious expanse.  Our retort is, well then--get serious.  Go the whole hog.  Do all of what your logic, rationalisms, and principles would require.  Be true to yourselves and your principles!

One retort amongst the thoughtful may be: but that would be the end of marriage.  It would be so profane, so common, so diverse as to be a meaningless construct in secular society.  Precisely.  And your problem with that would be . . . . what?  The homosexual "marriage" case rests upon the claim that marriage is a human institution to be shaped and morphed by humans as they will, right?  If that claim has integrity and is to be followed honestly, it means the end of marriage and family as social constructs.  But that's what you want, right?

If you don't want that, then you need to give up on your contention that because two homosexuals desire willingly to be marriage they have a right to do so.

Marriage is not an institution grounded upon human wilfulness.  Or, if it is to be so grounded, marriage becomes a meaningless construct.  You cannot have it both ways.