fbpx

If One Believes in the Legitimacy of Same-Sex Marriage

In the discussions surrounding same-sex marriage, it has struck me how difficult it is to get a handle on what secular culture “believes.” Like any large group, beliefs within a group are anything but monolithic. There are inconsistencies in beliefs among members of the same set. Below are a few of the beliefs one cannot consistently hold in addition to believing in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

If one believes in the legitimacy of same-sex marriage:

  • One cannot consistently believe in the illegitimacy of heterosexual marriage.
  • One cannot consistently believe that marriage is simply “a legal piece of paper” with no further significance.
  • One cannot consistently believe that someone’s sexual orientation does not matter. In this debate, it undeniably matters.
  • One cannot consistently believe that someone’s sexual orientation is only a private matter. Part of what is being advocated by same-sex marriage supporters involves a public display of one’s orientation.
  • One cannot consistently be against “tradition” in every case. There is no empirical, perceivable difference between a same-sex couple living together and a same-sex couple who are married and living together. There must be some acknowledged meaning behind the traditional ceremony, vows, etc.
  • One cannot consistently deny legitimacy, on the same grounds, to multiple-partner marriage. If loving feelings toward someone is both the necessary and sufficient condition for marriage, nothing inherent in the definition prohibits the possibility that loving feelings can be directed toward more than one person.
  • One cannot consistently deny that divorce is more significant than a non-marital breakup. If the institution of marriage is more meaningful than mere dating or co-habitation, the severing of that institution must have significance beyond mere legal implications.

Though the current debate keeps getting framed in terms of “rights,” the underlying beliefs regarding the integrity of marriage as an institution (on both sides) reveal some tangled assumptions.

cary

7 years ago

Good point but a little short. What of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia? While this is an argument that the Gay community hates, nevertheless it is quite legitimate. They claim that the “government allows a certain behavior for some groups and not others”, therefor federal law makes it illegal to discriminate thus, same-sex marriage is covered under the non-discrimination act. If that is true, certainly there is a group of polygamists that would like multiple wives. There is an entire website devoted to bestiality and surely they would like to marry the animal they sodomize. MAMBLA claims to love the children they molest, why not let a 60 year old man marry a 10 yr. old child?

They say that argument is absurd when their opposition says they don’t want to “open that door.”

Let’s look at Roe v Wade. In the beginning abortion was strictly regulated and termination of pregnancy prior to 20 months was all that anyone allowed. On Friday 3-30-13, Planned Parenthood stood in in front of the State of Florida Legislature in objection to the “Infant Protection Act being made into law. When asked by a House Representative:

“When a baby is born alive, on the table and breathing, what should we do?” Alisa Snow, a Planned Parenthood Official responded, “That decision should be between the patient and Health Care Provider.”

Talk about opening the door, we have gone from only early term abortions to claiming the right of INFANTICIDE. Sorry, but there is no reason to change the original definition of Marriage as being between a man and a women.

Jeremy

7 years ago

The biggest difference between same sex marriage rights and beastiality or peadophillia marriage rights is informed consent.

An adult (regardless of gay, straight, whatever) can give informed consent that they want to be we’d to the other person, an animal cannot provide this consent (and if they could I would be interested to meet said animal, find out eBay they think of humans). Under state and federal laws a child cannot provide informed consent either so that rules out peadophile weddings.

Note that I left out pologamy from this argument, the reason being that if it is between consenting adults then I don’t see the issue with pologamy.

pba

7 years ago

This is vague from start to finish. What does “legitimacy” mean, for instance? Are you discussing SSM at the level of morality or legality? Which “group” is this addressed to? Besides the vagueness, though, I don’t see how you can expect this post to be convincing to anyone, since not only do you leave out explanations of the views you are critiquing but you fail to include anything except bare conclusions.

reformed-forum-logo-white400

Email Newsletter

Contact

Reformed Forum
115 Commerce Dr., Suite E
Grayslake, IL 60030

+1 847.986.6140
mail@reformedforum.org

Copyright © 2020 Reformed Forum