Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

The arguments in favor of same-sex civil marriage are well known. Thrown into the ring are the buzzwords of “equality” and “discrimination”. So the typical argument goes: Discrimination is bad, and equality is good, so our government should give homosexual couples the recognition and subsidies reserved for heterosexual couples.

But there are problems with those. For one thing, discrimination and prejudice are innate to our psyche. If I have a soccer ball, for example, I will only intend to use it for soccer, because that is its purpose. Since I refuse to use it for basketball, does that mean I hate the latter sport? No, but I discriminate between the two. Moreover, whether they recognize this or not, people of all political persuasions have their own interests in preventing the catastrophe that is same-sex marriage.

Conservatives need to stand up. Christianity has always opposed it. The Jews rejected it, too. Even the Greek thinkers despised it! What could be more conservative than protecting something so sacred to the Abrahamic religions and Western philosophy in general? This is not only a moral concern, though, but a major political one, too: members of broken and “non-traditional” families are more likely to vote Democratic. And another thing: Conservatives are not “hateful” for wanting to preserve an effective, proven institution. The sorry truth, in fact, is that most conservatives are no longer conservative enough. We must never forget that same-sex civil marriage is similar to abortion, in that enabling it makes it more likely to occur. Could our nation bear it on its conscience?

Libertarians should be outraged over this, also. Do libertarians really want humanity to return to the days of de facto sex-slavery, like that of pagan Rome, in which the only classifications that matter are “penetrator” and “penetrated”? Nothing could dehumanize or undermine liberty more! Do they really believe, like Barack Obama believes, that the Constitution contains “a rejection of absolute truth” (The Audacity of Hope)? Or, do they instead share the mind of John Adams, who said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Civil marriage may seem, even in the very first place, to be an encroachment on liberty, but traditionally, it has facilitated social health and promised fairer child custody decisions. The point is that, once we change our essential institutions – and civil marriage has been with humanity for many centuries – we become a substantially different society, one of which the Founding Fathers could have never dreamed, opening the door for any number of unsettling developments.

And, liberals, you’re not off the hook, either. If equality is your desire, you must then demand these benefits for not just homosexual couples, but for polygamous couples, child couples, and single people, as well. On the first, it is true that polygamy causes social incohesion and much detriment [1, 2]. But so does homosexuality [1, 2]. On child couples, there is an argument to be made from contract law and ages of consent. But, historically, they and their parents have been capable of handling these types of decisions. And if singles were to be approved, too, then no one would be exempt! Hooray for “equality”! But then, no one would have a benefit, because the term demands exclusivity, and that would undermine the modern liberal’s favorite thing: the coercive power of government, which rests on its ability to discriminate. Simply put, if liberals are to support homosexual couples in this endeavor, they need to find a unique incentive from homosexuals that justifies the continued exclusion of others. The problem for them, of course, is that there is not even one.

So, everyone should oppose same-sex marriage.

Follow me on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to my YouTube videos.

marriage

Matthew Olson is a college student in the Diocese of Little Rock. He was raised in multiple Protestant denominations before eventually converting to Catholicism on 7 April 2012. His primary interests are theology, Church history, and ecumenism. He is privately discerning the possibility of God calling him to the priesthood. He has a blog, Answering Protestants. He also has a Twitter account, @crucifixwearer.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Culture, Current, Politics
3 comments on “Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
  1. Kurt says:

    “We must never forget that same-sex civil marriage is similar to abortion, in that enabling it makes it more likely to occur. Could our nation bear it on its conscience?”

    Laws restrict abortion are justified because they are effective at reducing abortion (and if they are ineffective, the case for them is weaker). Is there any data that show that SSM marriage leads to an increase in the number of acts of sodomy? If the point is to use the law to stop the sin, then it is a return to making homosexuality illegal that should be the real objective.

  2. Kurt, as a Catholic man with SSA, one who is not looking for a partner and who is attempting to follow Church teaching, the goal is NOT to ultimately make homosexuality illegal again. It may have been the goal of some in the past but that is not what anyone from the Holy Father nor the USCCB or other Church leaders see as helpful. Plus just how enforceable would that be, just for starters? Do we begin having “sex police” and surveillance cameras in suspected bedrooms? To create such a police state would indeed have dire consequences in the long run, and even for heterosexual couples too. Think about all of the people who have sex outside of marriage or who, yes, sodomize their partners of the opposite gender? How many arrests could we make? And how many of us could plead “not guilty” in fact to at least one form or another of sexual impurity?

    My point here is that there is a fine line between enabling sin and condemning a whole segment of society. The goal of the Church is to win people to the Lord Jesus Christ, not to make their every private activity illegal. I am old enough to have lived through the days when it was acceptable to call people from my background “fags” or “queers” and/or beat us up mercilessly (been there, had it done to me, by a fellow altar boy in fact), and then to again live through the era when people, sadly including many, many Christians, were publicly not sure if we should “waste” our medical money to help cure or improve the quality of life of those with HIV/AIDS. After all they brought it upon themselves, right?

    Kurt we can become utterly unmerciful in our approach if we are not careful–and I am NOT suggesting you are doing so. I am just saying why we do not wish to go the route of making homosexuality illegal. All one has to do is look to the many nations where it is still a criminal offense, such as nations like Uganda, and then look to Sacred Scripture to note that Jesus, even with the woman caught in adultery and the Samaritan woman too, forgave them over and above the Law where either or both of them could have been stoned to death–while YET telling them to “go and sin no more.”

    It is a delicate balancing act. We are called upon to protect the basic rights of people, and that includes their sexuality, especially when it comes to employment (except when they are working in situations where it violates conscience, such as religious organizations), housing, hospital visits, and the like. Those things should be no-brainers for those of us who say that we believe in a God of Divine Mercy.

    Even very thoughtfully conservative people such as Sherif Girgis, Robert P George and Ryan T Anderson in their stellar book “WHAT IS MARRIAGE” do not advocate any such thing, in fact the opposite, and George is one of the original authors of the Manhattan Declaration! No one other than the Westboro group (aka the late Fred Phelps) is looking to criminalize homosexuality in this day and age.

    And I for one would be terribly frightened, even as a celibate person, to live as a single older person, (I am nearing 60), in a world where homosexuality is treated in such a manner. That is not the answer, and such thinking is the very reason why people from my background often feel so very alienated from God and the Church. Again please realize I am not suggesting that is your attitude. Hopefully it is not. God bless.

  3. […] Ignitum Today Marriage Breakdown Threatens Society, Religious Leaders Stress – A. Mena Why Everyone Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage – Matthew Olson, Ct An The Obama Doctrine: Promoting Homosexuality – Austin Ruse, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Support Our Work
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers

%d bloggers like this: