Category: Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy, and incest is homophobic, right?
However, don't we often hear that the proponents of "traditional" marriage offer a selective history in which they conveniently forget how the definition of marriage has changed over time? What about the patriarchs of the Bible who enjoyed multiple wives? Society has a right to evolve and redefine its institutions.
I actually think that is a valid argument. But, if the definition of marriage is fungible and the product of community consensus, why is comparing same-sex marriage to other currently out-of-favor marriage variants a sign of bigotry? That is, why isn't gay marriage in the same category as underage unions, polygamy, and marriage between siblings?
Let's break it down:
Intrinsically Unique.
1. Any honest broker will admit that marriage between a man and a woman has a "natural" and historical advantage in this debate. Since time immemorial, societies have recognized this form of human relationship for reasons that are too manifest and lengthy to explain in this space. Hetero marriage is fundamentally unlike same-sex marriage.
2. I did not mention this category in the above listing, but let's dismiss bestiality as an unkind and irrelevant comparison. Bestiality belongs in a completely separate category of cross-species commingling as well as an abuse of animals. Equating homosexuality with bestiality is insulting and not at all constructive or illuminating.
3. Pedophilia, sexual engagement with children, is also a false comparison. Why? The question here revolves around our definition of children. If we, as a society dedicated to human rights, are to eventually rest our case on the concept of "consenting adults," underage marriage becomes a question that revolves around the age of consent rather than "unnatural" attractions. Less different--but not comparable.
Fair Comparisons.
Polygamous and Incestuous marriages, on the other hand, entered into between consenting adults, seem fully comparable to same-sex marriage.
Why would a proponent of same-sex marriage take umbrage at this comparison?
If it is proper to redefine marriage for homosexuals, why not extend the same tolerance to plural marriages and incest?
However, don't we often hear that the proponents of "traditional" marriage offer a selective history in which they conveniently forget how the definition of marriage has changed over time? What about the patriarchs of the Bible who enjoyed multiple wives? Society has a right to evolve and redefine its institutions.
I actually think that is a valid argument. But, if the definition of marriage is fungible and the product of community consensus, why is comparing same-sex marriage to other currently out-of-favor marriage variants a sign of bigotry? That is, why isn't gay marriage in the same category as underage unions, polygamy, and marriage between siblings?
Let's break it down:
Intrinsically Unique.
1. Any honest broker will admit that marriage between a man and a woman has a "natural" and historical advantage in this debate. Since time immemorial, societies have recognized this form of human relationship for reasons that are too manifest and lengthy to explain in this space. Hetero marriage is fundamentally unlike same-sex marriage.
2. I did not mention this category in the above listing, but let's dismiss bestiality as an unkind and irrelevant comparison. Bestiality belongs in a completely separate category of cross-species commingling as well as an abuse of animals. Equating homosexuality with bestiality is insulting and not at all constructive or illuminating.
3. Pedophilia, sexual engagement with children, is also a false comparison. Why? The question here revolves around our definition of children. If we, as a society dedicated to human rights, are to eventually rest our case on the concept of "consenting adults," underage marriage becomes a question that revolves around the age of consent rather than "unnatural" attractions. Less different--but not comparable.
Fair Comparisons.
Polygamous and Incestuous marriages, on the other hand, entered into between consenting adults, seem fully comparable to same-sex marriage.
Why would a proponent of same-sex marriage take umbrage at this comparison?
If it is proper to redefine marriage for homosexuals, why not extend the same tolerance to plural marriages and incest?
Provocative and well said from Francis Beckwith:
"On November 4, 2008, the people of California—in a 52 to 48 percent vote—placed in the state’s constitution an amendment that reaffirmed that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The amendment, Proposition 8, overturned the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that invalidated a statute that was passed in 2000 in a statewide referendum by a 61 to 39 percent vote. That 2008 opinion held that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, as required in the 2000 statute, violated the equal protection rights of homosexuals under the California constitution.
"Following the Proposition 8 victory, thousands of its opponents protested in a number of California venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. The rage and anger exhibited toward the Latter-day Saint and Evangelical believers who were present during the protests was palpable. The protesters were clearly blaming their loss on the effort and organizational and financial support of LDS citizens as well as Pastor Warren’s vocal backing for Proposition 8.
"There is a certain irony in seeing those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses or Dixie Chick CDs. And yet the perpetrators in this instance, the losers in the Prop 8 election, do not see it that way. They see the absence of same-sex marriage from our legal regime as a grave injustice that must be remedied by any means necessary. For them, tolerance does not extend to injustice."
Read the entire First Things piece here.
Also, from Politico, "Gay leaders furious with Obama" over selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
"On November 4, 2008, the people of California—in a 52 to 48 percent vote—placed in the state’s constitution an amendment that reaffirmed that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The amendment, Proposition 8, overturned the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that invalidated a statute that was passed in 2000 in a statewide referendum by a 61 to 39 percent vote. That 2008 opinion held that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, as required in the 2000 statute, violated the equal protection rights of homosexuals under the California constitution.
"Following the Proposition 8 victory, thousands of its opponents protested in a number of California venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. The rage and anger exhibited toward the Latter-day Saint and Evangelical believers who were present during the protests was palpable. The protesters were clearly blaming their loss on the effort and organizational and financial support of LDS citizens as well as Pastor Warren’s vocal backing for Proposition 8.
"There is a certain irony in seeing those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses or Dixie Chick CDs. And yet the perpetrators in this instance, the losers in the Prop 8 election, do not see it that way. They see the absence of same-sex marriage from our legal regime as a grave injustice that must be remedied by any means necessary. For them, tolerance does not extend to injustice."
Read the entire First Things piece here.
Also, from Politico, "Gay leaders furious with Obama" over selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Sidebar
