A friend recently asked the question "why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?" She is a Christian, believes homosexuality is morally wrong, but is curious as to why so many Christians believe the government has the right and should sanction laws about marriage.
I'm curious, too. Most arguments you see against gay marriage stem from a moral basis. Are there reasons, non-Christian reasons, to prevent gay marriage? Another good question: is it even possible for religion or morality to be separated from such an instituation?
I'm very interested in your thoughts.
9 years ago
2 comments:
The quick answer to the question is that married (under what is currently defined as marriage) people live longer, live happier, have better sex, and are more wealthy. No study has ever demonstrated that these aspects of the marital relationship can be imitated by a same-sex couple relationship, however it is defined.
But, let's delve deeper, b/c there's an underlying rationale for laws regulating marriage that we may have missed.
First, it is vitally important to not remove the moral element. Remember, Romans 13 reminds us that God has established gov't. It was not his original design, but following the fall, it was necessary to mete His justice in civil form, to restrain evil as much as possible. Still, gov't is a human operation and, necessarily, fallible.
But why is the moral question objected to only on the issue of same-sex "marriage?" If you remove the moral element to the laws of marriage, then must we also remove the laws barring multiple marriages? Should we likewise then eliminate the laws preventing an adult from marrying a minor? Should we imitate the Netherlands and recognize a human's marriage to a porpoise?
In short: where are we to draw the line? If we are to draw the line anywhere, upon what basis do we determine where the line is to be drawn? Ever-changing public sentiment? Relative morality? A squishy feeling in one's heart? Or absolute Truth?
Laws are statements of morality, no matter how they are sliced. If you wish me to not impose MY morality via the law, then would you ask me to impose my IMmorality on you via law? I think not.
In a republican democracy such as ours, no law is "imposed" on anyone, at least they shouldn't be. Ours is a form of government that permits the interplay and debate of ideas. The ones that the majority agrees upon become laws (and I realize that is an over-simplification, just go with me here!).
So, the moral element is an essential component and cannot be removed from this discussion anymore than it could from a discussion on the regulation of blue algae in the Hudson River.
A "non-moral" argument would suggest that marriages are the foundation for families. Families being the foundations for communities, states, nations, and cultures. If you erode or undermine the institution of marriage, then you erode a culture.
Whatever same-sex relationships may be, they are not marriages. Marriages are, by definition, a union capable of propagation. That those couples who cannot conceive are permitted to marry is of no consequence and not analogous to a same-sex relationship.
There can be several arguments made that marriage promotes the welfare, safety, and health of children born and/or raised in marriages. The same is abundantly NOT true for same-sex "marriages." Children raised by biological parents are less likely to be sick, have fewer psychological issues, commit fewer crimes, and are less likely to abuse drugs or spouses.
Therefore, in the name of the public interest, gov't has a secular, public interest in encouraging marriages and discouraging same-sex "marriages." Doing so, from the perspective of the state, will decrease crime, health care costs, and create better citizens.
I suppose there are other arguments to be levied and, for them, I would urge your review of www.imapp.org, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. Thereon you will find several well researched, well conceived articles on this issue.
But, really, you ought turn the question back to the asker. "Why should gay "marriage" be permitted?" How does it benefit society? Why must we redefine the venerable institution of marriage?
You see, the onus is not on the one preserving the "status quo" to make the affirmative argument. The one who wishes to make the change must prove their reason for making the change trumps the status quo.
In this debate, however, the left has magically declared ssm to be so and thus it is, failing to offer valid, or sometimes even logical reasons in support.
In fact, those in support of same-sex "marriage" regularly use the "moral" argument to support - albeit impossibly - their position. Why must we then be deprived of the moral argument in response?
The answer is because they profess the morality of relativism and humanism, crafting their belief upon the expedient, popular, and "what's right for me may not be right for you" mentality. That fails before it begins, yet has gained deceptive traction.
So, don't shy from the argument. I wonder, if you remove the moral argument, how you defend any law?
Beth,
You should read this article by Albert Mohler, President of SBTS, as you well know. Make it a point to read his blog daily!
Say something...