Answers to Ten Challenges Posed By the Pro-Homosexual-Marriage Movement
"Homosexuals
should have the right to marry."
Answer: Homosexuals already do have the right to
marry a person of the opposite sex, but they choose not to marry under the
standard definition of marriage. For
this reason, their non-participation in marriage is their choice.
"Marriage
is a right and not a privilege.
Therefore it should be accessible to all."
Answer: All homosexuals already do have the right to
marry under the terms described above, which apply universally to all. That they wish not to accept the invitation
to do so does not give them the right to change the definition of marriage for society.
"All
people who love should be free to marry."
Answer: Everyone is already free to love whom they
will. All people are legally free to express
sexuality with whomever person they will (excluding children). This does not give homosexuals the right to overthrow the traditional definition
of marriage in order to include different arrangements. If it is argued that people should have the
right to redefine whatever sexual arrangement they choose as marriage, then it
is “logical” to broaden the definition of marriage all the way to including
polygamy, bestiality, and sex between “loving” adults and children. Once moral objections are removed from the
traditionalist’ battery of arguments on the allegation that moral arguments
cannot be used to place restrictions on marriage, then the pro-homosexual
marriage movement must accept other relationships including polygamy, etc. as the logical extension of removing moral concerns from the argument.
"All
loving relationships have the right to be recognized as married."
Answer: Since marriage is at present legally defined
as between a man and a woman, couples involved in homosexual relationships
(which do not fit that definition) do not even logically have the right to being recognized as being married, since they are actually not.
"The weight of opinion is moving in favor of
homosexual marriage. Therefore the vote
of the people should reflect this new reality."
Answer: Viewed historically, until this movement became
a majority (as is currently claimed) the gay marriage lobby consistently rejected
the will of the people in favor of court rulings designed to overturn the will
of the majority. Only now, after the
tide of popular opinion appears to be changing in favor of gay marriage, is the
pro-homosexual marriage movement eager to put the matter to a vote. This cynical reversal of strategy merely for
the sake of advantage betrays a fundamental dishonesty with respect to
promoting “the will of the people.”
This present trend to deal with issues of morality exclusively
by means of popular vote represents a departure from the vision of our nation’s
founders. They recognized the existence
of a “higher,” moral law which gives foundation to the laws which govern our
nation. The disintegration of morality
as the ultimate social standard of society logically turns the means to social change
into unchecked mob rule by the majority.
As 2nd President John Adams wrote, “We have no government armed with power
capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of
our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only
for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of
any other.” (http://historicwords.com/american-history/john-adams-our-constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/)
No comments:
Post a Comment