Her speech is effective and sincere, but I reject its premise, one I commonly hear advanced in support of gay marriage, namely that since heterosexuals have failed to honor the marriage institution, indeed have disgraced it repeatedly and failed to act morally within its boundaries, it follows then that we should cast aside the moral/religious basis upon which opposition to gay marriage has most often devolved. One does not follow the other. That heterosexuals have been imperfect in marriage is no rationale for casting aside the objection to gay marriage on moral/religious grounds. Put another way, if the reverse were true, that heterosexuals were exemplary paragons of marital virtue, would supporters of gay marriage then agree that the moral/religious based objection to gay marriage is vindicated? I think not.
December 11, 2009
Traditional Marriage is Already on Fire, Whats One More Log?
That is my satirical take on the premise behind this commonly made argument by gay marriage proponents, articulated here by NY Senator Diane Savino.
Her speech is effective and sincere, but I reject its premise, one I commonly hear advanced in support of gay marriage, namely that since heterosexuals have failed to honor the marriage institution, indeed have disgraced it repeatedly and failed to act morally within its boundaries, it follows then that we should cast aside the moral/religious basis upon which opposition to gay marriage has most often devolved. One does not follow the other. That heterosexuals have been imperfect in marriage is no rationale for casting aside the objection to gay marriage on moral/religious grounds. Put another way, if the reverse were true, that heterosexuals were exemplary paragons of marital virtue, would supporters of gay marriage then agree that the moral/religious based objection to gay marriage is vindicated? I think not.
Her speech is effective and sincere, but I reject its premise, one I commonly hear advanced in support of gay marriage, namely that since heterosexuals have failed to honor the marriage institution, indeed have disgraced it repeatedly and failed to act morally within its boundaries, it follows then that we should cast aside the moral/religious basis upon which opposition to gay marriage has most often devolved. One does not follow the other. That heterosexuals have been imperfect in marriage is no rationale for casting aside the objection to gay marriage on moral/religious grounds. Put another way, if the reverse were true, that heterosexuals were exemplary paragons of marital virtue, would supporters of gay marriage then agree that the moral/religious based objection to gay marriage is vindicated? I think not.
Logging you in...Post a new comment
Not displayed publicly.
Not displayed publicly.
This section is for comments from A Political Season's community of readers, a wide ranging and diverse group. Please don't assume that A Political Season's management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Doug · 798 weeks ago
And what are the moral reasons for rejecting gay marriage? Not religious, necessarily - that is to say, not "I read it in a book" but the actual moral foundation for rejecting gay marriage?
A Political Season 53p · 798 weeks ago
You ask what are the moral reasons for rejecting gay marriage, but you want to constrain my answer to non religious grounds or to some rationale not based on the guidance of the Bible. In point of fact, that is the source of guidance for the vast majority of people who do not support sanctioning gay marriage. The Bible's teachings are the moral guidance and compass on this issue for me and for many others and its guidance is pretty clear that homosexual behavior is considered outside of the will of God. Its that cut and dried. We don't like it, just like we don't like other things in the Bible that interfere with what it is we would like to do. I don't always want to turn the other cheek, or to forgive or to pray for my enemies, so there is nothing new about the fact that people don't like the Bible's position on gay marriage and homosexuality. But that is where I find my moral basis for objecting to same sex marriage.
@erixtweet · 798 weeks ago
While I understand that a lot can change in twenty four years, I find it interesting how we once again stand on opposing sides of this issue.
A Political Season 53p · 798 weeks ago
@erixtweet · 798 weeks ago
The most compelling argument that I've heard on this topic was actually presented today on your facebook page. Can you seek her permission to link her comments to this blog? I think her comments would stimulate some interesting discussion.
Thanks for your time
@erixtweet · 798 weeks ago
PPR_Scribe · 797 weeks ago
The point is that "gay marriage" will not impact heterosexual couples one way or another--whether those hetero folks were "virtuous" in their unions or not.
A Political Season 53p · 797 weeks ago
I think the institution of marriage is diminished when people cheat. I think it is diminished when people enter into it or break its covenants in a frivolous manner. I think the institution of marriage would be diminished by sanctioning those relationships in spite of the moral issue. If you subscribe to the moral teachings of Christianity, there is simply no getting around the fact that homosexuality is considered immoral. While I struggle somewhat to reconcile the values of fairness and equality on this issue, I am not compelled by the argument that since heterosexuals screw up marriage so spectacularly with immoral behavior (Tiger Woods, er I mean Cheetah Woods, case in point) that the immorality of same sex relationships should simply be ignored and those relationships sanctioned. The equality/fairness arguments go further with me than this idea that hetero morals are so bad, we shouldn't worry about adding new moral quandaries to the mix as it relates to marriage.
PPR_Scribe · 797 weeks ago
In that light, it is hard for me to see marriage equality as threatening an institution that has been in the difficult process of modernizing for at least a generation now. If marriage has good effects, then I think those good effects should be accessible to as high a percentage of consenting adults who desire it as possible. If, for example, it cements love and caring, provides for a sense of commitment, provides stability for children and elders, offers financial supports, etc. My view is more that it is not marriage itself that is "moral," but that by participating in marriage people can become more moral.
But then, I do not see same sex relationships and sexuality as immoral to begin with, so there will never be a whole lot of room for consensus between my view and many religious views.
A Political Season 53p · 796 weeks ago
But the issue of whether or not marriage has been equally good for men, women and children down through the ages only strikes me as another variation on the argument that Sen. Savino makes and which I reject, namely that humanity's flawed implementation of marriage means we should be less concerned about the moral question as it relates to same sex marriage. I would even argue that our flawed practice of marriage within the confines of heterosexual relationships should give us even greater pause about sanctioning same sex marriage as a social, cultural matter, not less.
Now, of course, all of this is moot as a general matter if you reject what I would consider to be the very clear and direct position of the Bible on this issue. If you don't subscribe to the conclusion which the Bible does about whether or not same sex relationships and behavior are acceptable or not as an issue of moral behavior, then arguments against same sex marriage will as you say, be entirely unpersuasive to your point of view.
Were the issue of morality not engaged, I might be persuaded by arguments for same sex marriage as it relates to equality and fairness. I'm not unmoved by these arguments, though I am not convinced.
Clay · 797 weeks ago