The current national debate on homosexual marriage has brought to light – again – one of the nastiest tactics used in “discussion” that I know of. That tactic is labeling those who disagree with you “phobic” or “hateful.” What it usually looks like is this: if I express the belief that homosexual marriage is wrong, detrimental to society, or in any way less than ideal, I’m labeled as homophobic or hateful.

Now, how one concludes that disagreeing with another individual means that one must have an irrational, consuming fear of the other individual is beyond me. I am hardly afraid of homosexuals – I have worked with, studied with, and hung out with homosexuals of my own free will – nor am I afraid of homosexuality in and of itself. I am repulsed by it, yes, but not afraid of the idea. What I am afraid of is the general and ongoing shift towards relativism in our culture, of which the debate over homosexual marriage is just the most clear and present manifestation.

I also do not hate homosexuals, nor do I wish them ill. In fact, I feel badly that a homosexual man or woman cannot be visited by those closest to them in hospitals, that they have significant difficulties with estate settlements, etc. I do not feel, though, that the rights in question – the right to designate heirs or approved visitors at a hospital, for example – are necessarily linked to marriage, gay or straight. These issues need to be addressed, but they do not have to be addressed by redefining marriage. So, I am empathic toward homosexuals – not hateful – but I am not willing to redefine a major pillar of civilization to avoid grappling with laws related to taxes, estates, and medical care.

Finally, there is the issue of “rights.” Gay rights activists would have us believe that homosexuals are being oppressed and denied basic human dignity in the way that blacks were during the 1960′s or even the way Jews were in the Holocaust. This is not at all the case! Nobody is telling gays that they cannot vote, own property, hold public office, or even marry (in the traditional sense). What is in question, rather, is what the latter means. Is marriage a union between a man and a woman? Between two adults (regardless of gender)? Between consenting human beings (regardless of number)? Between consenting mammals?

Since the basic biology does not change, once homosexual marriages are allowed, why forbid group marriage? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Many people have gotten blasted for making comments on these lines. If you want to blast me, fine, but here’s the challenge I offer you: explain to me why group marriage should not be allowed, while gay marriage should, or consensual pedophilia, etc, THEN blast me.

This is not a discussion about rights; it’s a discussion about what society itself is. If we discard male-female marriage as the basis of procreation and child-rearing, we call into question the very nature of society and what positive and negative sanctions that society may prescribe. If any activity between consenting adults is acceptable, even when it affects children, why not allow murder and cannibalism, if the victim consents (this is the subject of a trial in Germany, right now)? It’s consensual, right? Why not allow cocaine use, so long as no violent crimes are committed? If a woman using cocaine happens to kill or addict her unborn children, well, big deal, since a fetus has no legal rights… right?

Explain to me where society is allowed to draw the line. Show me how homosexual marriage can legally exist without affecting society’s mores in general and how we can still justify setting any limits, then we’ll talk about whether or not homosexual marriage is a problem.

Feedback is welcome, so long as you want to offer something other than “you hateful person” – contact me here.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 9th, 2004 at 12:06 pm and is filed under Faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.