Homosexual activists like to compare opposition to homosexual marriage to opposition to interracial marriage. It's a familiar, guilt-by-association smear.
In a sense, they are half right. Mind you, it's dangerous to be half right–since the right part falsifies the rest.
There is a parallel, but not the parallel they intend. The actual analogy ricochets against their position.
Both homosexuals and segregationists try to artificially redefine the institution of marriage. Both try to define marriage for political reasons rather than natural reasons.
Segregationists opposed miscegenation, not because blacks and whites are naturally incompatible mates, but because interracial marriage is incompatible with the socioeconomic system of segregation. If marriage is the fundamental social unit, then you can't very well maintain segregation if you permit interracial marriage. If you're committed to segregation, then you can't draw the lines on marriage where nature draws the lines. You have to redraw the lines in spite of nature.
This is directly parallel to homosexual activists. If you're committed to homosexual "equality," then you can't draw the lines of marriage where nature draws the lines. You have to redraw the lines in spite of nature. Homosexual activists support homosexual marriage, not because same-sex "couples" are compatible mates, but because natural marriage is incompatible with the homosexual agenda.
(By "nature," I mean God's design for men and women.)
Ironically, the analogy backfires. Both homosexuals and segregationists are wrong for similar reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment