I just listened to Michael Medved discussing same-sex marriage with a guest who wrote an article on a related subject. I think the guest was on for close to half an hour. He kept referring to same-sex marriage as a right, and he referred to opposition to state recognition of same-sex marriage as evil. As far as I recall, he was never asked where that alleged right comes from, whether people have a right to other forms of marriage as well, such as incestuous marriage and polygamy, or on what basis we should conclude that opposition to state recognition of same-sex marriage is evil. Instead of focusing on a universal aspect of opposite-sex marriage that distinguishes it from same-sex marriage, such as how opposite-sex marriage promotes the unity of the sexes in a way that same-sex marriage can't, Medved focused on how opposite-sex marriage can produce children biologically. His guest raised the usual objection that not all opposite-sex couples can or do have children, whether because of sterility or for some other reason. Medved responded that it wouldn't be appropriate for the government to do something like test people for sterility before recognizing a marriage, but he didn't explain why or explain how his original appeal to the biological production of children remains valid in spite of the objection raised against it. A caller referred to how offended he was, as a Christian, by the position of Medved's guest, and he commented on how some black individuals he knows are offended by the comparison between opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage. He also referred to how old the opposite-sex view of marriage is. But he never explained why he was offended, why the black people he described were offended, why anybody else should agree with their reasoning, or what significance the oldness of opposite-sex marriage has.
When opponents of same-sex marriage so often argue so poorly for their position, is it any wonder their position keeps dropping in popularity? Last year, I wrote a few posts about how to approach this issue in a more effective way: part 1, part 2, part 3.
Yes indeed, Jason, the paucity of good arguments for natural marriage and against same-sex pseudo-marriage in the public discourse is maddening! But it's doubtful that the use of better arguments, such as those you have previously written about, would have much effect on public opinion. For it is the law of non-contradiction itself that gives the greatest offense to this generation. The first law of logic is the source of all bigotry, hatred, and oppression.
ReplyDeleteAdvocates of SSM seem to act as if it's conservatives who have a burden of proof to fulfill, but they couldn't be more mistaken. Heterosexual marriage is already the norm (well, mostly) - they need to give us a good reason why the status quo needs to be changed. Given the difficulties involved in providing a secular basis for objective moral rights, I don't think they'll have an easy time of it.
ReplyDeleteI have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. (Hosea 8:12)
ReplyDeleteWhosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)
The lack of reference to the basis for beliefs is reflective of conformity to the societal abandonment of Scripture as the basis for morality, which resulted in the increasingly pervasive propagation of perversion, which prosperity - blessings we entered into due to the labors of Godly generations - paradoxically is actually conducive for. (Ezek. 16:49,50)
Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. (Hosea 8:3-4)
Homosexual relations are the demonic perversion of what God created and instituted, that of male and female being uniquely complementary and compatible, with opposite genders uniquely being what God joined together in marriage, as the Lord Jesus specified., (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 2:24)
As the devil seeks to be as God, (originating the "Occupy movement" and "share the wealth" cry) climbing up some other way, (Is. 14:12-14; Jn. 10:1; Rv. 3:21) so he seeks to be as God by converting and perverting what was of God, in seeking to built his alternative kingdom, wherein his will is done on earth as it is in his domain. And which converting and perverting he is increasingly accomplishing in America.
This provides the devil with boasting against God, his adversary, whom he evidently sees himself as the victim of, and thus entice Eve with the idea that she was a victim of an egotistical God who was selfishly holding back from her what she had as much right to as God. In a word, the victim entitlement mentality.
Homosexual activists work out of this, following the marketing gospel of Kirk and Madsen and its psychological tactics.
And as the devil knows the real barrier against his ethos is Scripture, the assured infallible word of God, then it is not surprisingly that prohomosexual apologists have engaged in an inordinate amount of effort in seeking to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations, and even to wrest sanction for the same. The end result however, is that of negating the very authority of Scripture due to the hermeneutics they must employ. As with the prostitute who would rather the infant be chopped in two rather than allow the real mother to have her, so they would do likewise to Scripture.
For more on Kirk and Madsen and its psychological tactics, see here . And for refuted homosexual polemics, here by the grace of God.
ReplyDelete