It’s a hot issue but until lately it has always been something of a non-issue for me. Important, sure, but not as important as the other things I have to wrestle with. So, I opted out of the discussion. A number of things changed this for me; finding out that gay marriage might actually hurt the rest of us was one of them. At that point, it became a matter of importance to me as a person, as a follower of Christ and as a member of the society. Don’t I have a duty to oppose any piece of legislation that would not be in the best interests of the community as a whole?
Now, the arguments I’ve heard for the institution range from “there’s nothing wrong with it” to “It’s cruel to prevent people from marrying those they love”. The second one fascinates me. Note that it doesn’t explicitly assert that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage or homosexuality. A person to whom you present evidence arguing that gay marriage is not in the best interests of society might still recourse to some version of “But they love each other. They are people who just want something nice. How can you be so mean?” instead of engaging with your argument. Or worse, they might engage with your argument not because they know the facts you present to be false, but because they are committed to that position.
But I digress. This post isn’t to get into the psychology of why people act in certain ways. I am yet to start defending a solid position on gay marriage because given the minimal research I have done about it, it would be unwise to tie myself to any view. I might find myself defending an unsupported view and reluctant to leave it because (like the proponents of GM I previously talked about), I feel committed to it.
Here are the things I do think about the gay marriage issue.
- If GM is not in the best interests of the society, we have a moral obligation to oppose it.
- If I believe that an action is morally wrong, I am morally obligated to oppose anything that promotes it. Therefore, if I believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong, I am obligated to oppose anything that promotes it.
- Allowing GM would give homosexuality legitimacy and therefore promote it.
- The combination of 2 and 3 (do the math).
- If an action is in fact morally wrong, we are morally obligated to oppose it whether I believe it to be wrong or not. Therefore is homosexual acts are morally wrong, we are all obligated to oppose anything that promotes them.
- The combination of 3 and 5.
- If we are going to argue about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts and unions, we have to first agree on what right and wrong are, who decides and why we have to do the right thing.
- Anybody who doesn’t have answers to the problem in 2 should stay out of the conversation. It’ll make for a less confusing debate.
These things may be wrong, but from where I’m currently standing, they don’t seem to be. Can you see anything you disagree with on that list?