Gay Marriage

As a latecomer to the blogosphere on this issue, I'm tempted to think that "it's no use" in offering my convictions in the matter; nevertheless, I've come to understand that in order to hold a view, it's a good idea to write it down, and offer my thoughts to the public, though such puts me at risk of being ostracized and labeled with insults.  It's a brave thing these days to offer a dissenting view, and may even cost a job, or physical well-being.  In the least, it may cost--and does cost--the willingness to be abused on a verbal level.  But rather than heaping up abuse against those who differ, we should rather use our reason, avoiding emotional rule, and yet speak with care for others in a logical form of argumentation.  Such discourse is rare these days, sadly, and I've been guilty myself of lofting sardonic aphorisms, which help very little, if at all.  

On with the skinny.  The axiom of our day is twofold, and we exist under the umbrella of two cardinal rules in our society: tolerance and love.  These two concepts are conjoined twins that exist like Hermes' caduceus.  Under the canopy of these two, is written, "You can do anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  This is the supreme ethic of our day and the zeitgeist of  the 21st century.

It is upon this ethical spirit that the gay marriage proponent rests: tolerance, love, and the injunction of "do whatever you please, but please, don't hurt anyone in the process."  It is therefore intolerable to dissent from the gay marriage proposal, as doing so reeks like the underside of Shelob's belly (what a miserable creature She was.  Way to go Samwise Gamgee!).  Nevertheless, dissent is integral to human society and flourishing; without it, we are nothing more than lemmings rooting for the underdog, just because the Yankees can afford all the good players.  On with the dissent then.  But my dissent from gay marriage is going to come in the form of a few questions (with comments, too).

Let's consider these aforementioned qualifications (the tolerance/love ethic) and our current, unwritten laws that people hold in their minds when thinking of gay marriage, and let's ask some hard questions.  But first let's accept the fact that such consideration in asking hard questions is most certainly not a slippery slope argument.  A slippery slope argument is predictive of future states of affairs.  These questions are not assuming a realm of being that is inevitable in the future, but rather they are aimed at why we justify some laws but not others, when such justification is built upon the tolerance/love ethic.  

1) If it is true that we must tolerate other people out of love, then why cannot people who believe in holding to a traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman be treated with admiration and respect?  The answer is because such a view is intolerant of homosexuals who would want to get married.   But the question still stands: given the tolerance ethic, all views should be tolerated and respected, and therefore, one who stands firm in the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman should be tolerated and respected--because that is what tolerance is.  The reason why this is difficult to do is because tolerance as an abstract concept is meaningless unless it is grounded in the concrete absolute of a moral law.  Tolerance, all by itself, is built upon itself, and argues in a vicious cycle of circular reasoning: Tolerate all views, but tolerance is the supreme law.  It's built upon a wheel of relativism, and cannot accomplish the goal it sets out to achieve apart from a transcendent moral law.  Moral laws such as this only make sense in a theistic framework, and theism in the forms we know of (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) exclude homosexual acts from the realm of acceptable behavior.  So, back to square one: if tolerance be the rule we all must follow, how can people hold dissenting views from the populace (or minority) and themselves be tolerated?  I argue that it is not possible on an epistemological plane (leads to moral relativism), and while it's tough politically, it is possible.  But the existential plane is the toughest: how to live with fellow citizens who disagree with me, and even vote against my desires?  In a democracy, tolerance needs to work, and it needs to work both ways.  We tolerate each other for each others' views, while accepting that we hold to different values concerning ethics.  Vote, and accept the vote without recourse to slander and revenge tactics (in the case of the former link, there are numerous stories of homosexuals taking revenge on heterosexuals.  Note: heterosexuals should NEVER harass or harm homosexual people.  They are made in God's image and deserve to be treated with dignity). 

2) Love:  "If two people love each other they should be able to marry." This sounds simple enough and true, for love is the other supreme ethic of our day, as it should be.  But, let us ask and think for a moment: what is love?  Is it an emotion?  Is it a decision of commitment?  Is it a contract or covenant?  Is it self-sacrifice?  If someone loves someone else, does that mean they should be married?  Is that the only rule required to be met in order to marry?  Nicht so schnell.  When people utter this normative ethic, they have a number of things in mind:

a) A couple, comprising of two, and only two people. This leaves polygamy out (but is that fair?). 
b) Adults, and not minors, may marry (with exceptions from state to state: pregnancy, parental consent or court approval).    
c) Not related.  This leaves out siblings, cousins (in about half of the United States, and includes exceptions and conditions, such as non-procreative laws, genetic counseling, and prohibition of double first cousins only).  And of course, people are not allowed to marry their nieces and nephews, aunts and uncles, or parents.
d) Human.  Obvious, but still....When people say, "Two people who love each other should be allowed to marry," they presuppose the moral law that humans should only marry humans.  But what if--what if--someone wanted to marry her horse? 

But how is it that love is the only requirement necessary for two people to marry?  And if homosexuals marry, who are we as a society to prohibit polygamous marriage?  And who are we to deny someone the right to marry his sister, mother, or aunt?  There is indeed, something inside us that says, "No, that wouldn't be right."  True--it wouldn't (although, whether on an evolutionary account, or the Genesis account--our origins are dependent upon inter-sibling unions).  And why should we not allow grown men to marry boys?  That's ridiculous, I know--though some men would want to do it.  We call them pedophiles.  They call it "intergenerational love," and NAMBLA.  Nevertheless, I'm asking you: how would you formulate a cogent argument against such a thing? Who are you to say a man shouldn't marry a boy, after all?  On what grounds do you do so?  What if the boy says he wants to consent?  And on and on.  Sexual ethics matter, don't they?

My conviction is that gay marriage is not good for society.  This is because it redefines marriage and flattens it into something amorphous, which is defined by the relative terms "tolerance" and "love," with no epistemological referent to what tolerance and love actually are.  Now, we live in a post-Christian United States, but it's important for my readers to understand that I hold to the Christian view of God, man and the world.  So then, the Christian concept of love is that love is rooted in God's character, which is goodness, holiness, justice, righteousness and love.  These attributes work in conjunction with each other, and are reflected in the created order (male and female) and in his holy law given at Mt. Sinai to Israel though Moses.  This is the Christian view of love and marriage, and to ask me to keep my views out of the public square is really to ask me to not be a Christian, because being a Christian means allowing the word of God to speak to every area of my life, including education, economics, law, and so forth.  (I don't advocate a theocracy, so chill).  

The second reason for my dissent from the popular view is that homosexual sex between men is highly dangerous in terms of disease, depression, and physical harm.  The Center for Disease Control's Fact Sheet shows the dangers of this activity.  The second line reads, "MSM (men who have sex with men) account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections)."  A moral society should not promote sexual patterns which result in such perils of disease and depression--depression which often leads to suicide.

Finally, gay marriage does indeed open the door wider in a society of an already crumbling, family ethos.  Society no longer deems it normal for a family to exist in the form of a husband and wife with their children (even having more than two is out of the norm).  Gay marriage then, produces a mindset in culture that not only eschews the traditional family as the ideal, but also encourages that ambivalence towards it.  And it's a strange thing, because studies are on the increase that children do best when nurtured by a mother and father, and that in a situation where there is a single income (something very difficult to do today).  See economist Richard Wolff on this. 
 
Alternate scenario.  Let's say god doesn't exist.  If there is no god, or if god exists, but has not revealed his will and character to us, then of course, there is no moral law, and there is no reason to prohibit marriage to anyone.  On such a scenario, perhaps humans would still flourish, but more than likely, in a society, as studies show, humans flourish where monogamous marriage is the way of life.  For a study on this go here.  

On the Two Lesbians Who Raised an Incredible Young Man

The video shared on the net and primarily through facebook about the fine, young man raised by two lesbians is being used to show that it is indeed possible for a person to be raised as a responsible, educated, and industrious citizen without the aid of a male/female parentage, the latter vision of which so often appears in the minds of people when the term "traditional marriage" is invoked as a cultural norm. After all, we must ask ourselves, is it not better, indeed--far better--for such a situation to occur than for one to be raised in an abusive, albeit "traditional home"? We should not dispute that it is not better. Of course it is better to be raised in an atmosphere of love, compassion, encouragement, et. al, as opposed to one of ridicule, neglect and abuse. What would the world be like if all children had such a life? The world would instantly change into a paradise full of grown-ups fulfilled in every sense with the self-esteem required in order to apply personal ambition and dreams, as well as the selflessness required in order to perpetuate this kind new world rolling with fields of love and compassion. Ah, blessed hope! To this end we are striving.
The young man appeals to the courts and to his fellow citizens to please vote in favor of gay marriage. "After all," we are told, "look at me: I'm a fine citizen and proof of what is necessary in order to make the world a better place. Imagine if I had been raised in a home where there was no love, or an abusive home. I could be a common criminal, but instead I am a fine, upstanding young man." We applaud this young man!
But wait. Let's put our emotions aside and think for a moment. Is something good because it produces a desired result? Let's think of a different scenario. Think of a parent who *does* abuse his child. The child is beaten upon the first instance of disobedience. The child is chided when mistakes are made in school. The child is given a stern look when "tomfoolery" is detected. The child then grows up to be a hard-working, industrious, educated, producer--a CEO of a big business. He provides jobs for 1000's of people. He gives to charity. Maybe his marriage suffers (or even fails) because he is unable to enjoy life because of his upbringing and his work ethic and his askance toward "tomfoolery" aka, "having a laugh." But all the same--he's a good guy. Now, would we argue that his abusive parents (or dad) was right in doing so? After all, look at what has been produced? That's ridiculous, you say. You are right--it is ridiculous to say his stern, mean father was good and right for doing what he did and *being* who he was.
"But wait," you say. You're are using a bad example, for our example is one of two, loving lesbians who raised an upstanding young man, whereas your example is one of a harsh, stern parentage (or, just the dad) which produced something similar." Correct again. But perhaps you will see my point in this: the outcome of something does not validate its origins, and this we call pragmatism. Pragmatism says, "If it works, it's good." In our case of the lesbian couple, we are told to vote "yes" for gay marriage because of a particular outcome, in this case, the outcome of a fine, upstanding young man. (Of course, we know nothing of this man's personal life, other than a 3-minute video, so we really know him not at all, but let us take it for granted that these 3 minutes are sufficient to the task at hand). Pragmatic theories of ethics are not desirable tests for social structures, however. For pragmatism proves nothing except that some things work. Many cultures have resorted to pragmatism in order to produce desired results: Stalinist Russia, the Nazis, pagans who sacrifice to idols, Southerners who owned slaves. So, just because something produces a desired result, does not mean it is, in and of itself, good and right. And, we should note that while we can be thankful that such a fine, young man has had his genesis and nurture from this lesbian couple, it does nothing to say for others who may have been raised in similar households who have not enjoyed such success. Does one, good example nullify any (possible) negative ones?
Please note: I am not comparing those who support gay marriage to the aforementioned groups who have committed atrocious crimes against humanity. These are only glaring examples of pragmatism.
If gay marriage is going to be argued as something that our society should affirm, proponents of it need to argue on better grounds than those of pragmatism, for as we have seen, pragmatic arguments are weak, and should not be accepted as solid criterion upon which to build a societal ethic.
Now, we may also note that the argument is
*two people who love each other should not be told they cannot marry.
But we need to ask ourselves why we should limit ourselves to *two* people in a marriage? And what rules should there be concerning age, or relation? The argument proposed by the proponents of gay marriage rests on "two people in love with each other." But surely this is insufficient. There is an intuitive, unmentioned assumption that the following rules apply:
1) no close relatives
2) no minors married to adults
3) no human/nonhuman unions
4) no minors married to minors
5) no more than *two* people per marriage.
But why, and on what grounds? If we must throw away the traditions that bind and oppress us and keep us from loving each other, then why must we obey rules 1-5? (Rules 1-5, by the way were codified millennia ago by Moses to his fellow Hebrew freedmen). What of the old woman who loves her faithful pet? What of the uncle who loves his niece? What of the cousins who love each other? We'll not go further and insult ourselves with gross illustrations. Ah, I've insulted you now. I should stop. But, please allow me to ask: why must we obey any rules at all? Why must rules 1-5 apply? After all, who is to say that it is wrong? And how would you respond to someone who says, "But we love each other?"
By now perhaps you are angry with me, for I have dared to make such statements and ask such questions. But I am only asking questions, and I am asking what I do trust is done so in humility and love. For now, however, the burden of proof is not upon the "traditionalist" but on those who would change the tradition of one man/one woman for marriage (with additional rules about age and relation). Yes, the burden of proof is on the proponents of gay marriage to provide grounds for their position, based not upon pragmatism, and also to answer questions 1-5, and especially number 5.