The Future of "Homosexual Marriage"

Arguments and Reasoning That Prove Far Too Much

When homosexual "marriage" became legally recognised there were tears of joy.  At last true love would be acknowledged and respected.  Christians and others were not amused.  They prophesied that before long the state would be recognising all sorts of relationships as marriage--thereby making the institution eventually empty of significance, meaning, and power.

Nah.  Don't be stupid, crowed the foolish and naive.  Slippery slope arguments lack logical force.

But there are a couple of little devils in this particular slippery slope that give it both logical force and societal potency.  In the case of homosexual "marriage" there have been been two suppressed premises driving the argument.  The first is that "true love" cannot be denied.  In the end, marriage in this view is the willful union of people.  Therefore, whatever may be the object of love, by virtue of its being loved, it justifies--nay demands--that society recognise the existence of a marriage, and provide legal sanction and recognition of it.  If it does not, it fails to recognise the human rights of the "true lover".

The second assumption is that marriage, like all existence, is evolving, developing and changing.  Therefore, we must expect, look for, and co-operate with the constant flux of existence in the way we recognise marriage (and all things for that matter.)

Yup.  The Christians were right.  Within just a few weeks of homosexual "marriage" being recognised by the Supreme Court of the United States, we read the following in Slate:

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Sexual Smithereens

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

Monday, December 29, 2014

In a remarkably prescient joke, Bob Hope said this back in the seventies. “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

As we look at what remains of sexual ethics in America — the old sexual norms that somebody took a weed eater to — we need to come to grips with what is actually happening. There are two principles that we have to learn. We have to get them down in our bones. When we have done so, we will be able to understand what our only objective must necessarily be.

The first is the inescapable concept. This is a “not whether, but which” situation. It is not whether a sexual norm will be established for all society, but rather which sexual norm will be established for all society. But there is another layer. More is involved here than just competing norms. A battle between Islam and Christianity would be a battle between competing sexual norms, but what we are up against here is a collision between a norm and an anti-norm. The sexual devolution that is now clamoring for acceptance is not a stable norm with “some differences” that could simply replace the old norm.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

The Old Gray Mare

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

November 25, 2014

The goal of the pansexualist movement is to remove all creational distinctives. They want to batter down every border, every barrier, so that when we are all done, every sentient being has been melted down into their great cauldron of lust. If you really think that when same sex mirage is a done deal, everyone will settle down into a recognizable normal, then you are a chump, a patsy. We are already at the stage when mainstream publications can run puff pieces on guys who like to have sex with horses.

The issue is not the fact that there are pervs who do this kind of thing. We have always had them, and the Bible prohibits it for a reason. The issue is how everybody else is being manipulated. The issue is not the sin, but rather the societal response to the sin. Get a load of the first lines.