Why are homosexuals wanting equality through marriage?
 |
| Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
This is the main battle cry of homosexual activists. It’s brilliant because who can be against equal rights? The problem with the slogan is that, when it comes to marriage, everyone in America already has equal rights. We are all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any qualified person from the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every male and female has the same right to marry. What certain males and females in our society want is special rights—the special right to marry someone of the same sex. But if we grant special rights for same-sex couples to marry one another, on what grounds can we deny special rights for consenting adults who desire marriage for other socially destructive or unhealthy relationships such as polygamy, incest, or bestiality? Should bisexuals get to marry two people?
You say, “We won’t allow polygamy, incest, and bestiality because those are unhealthy and destructive relationships!” Yes, but so are homosexual relationships as we saw in point 2 of the six-point case. Second, as I have already mentioned, the government is not denying the “rights” of homosexuals to have relationships or to pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” Homosexuals do that all the time. But homosexuals have no “right” to have that relationship endorsed and granted benefits by the state. Government endorsement is the central issue in this debate.
Third, desires do not constitute rights. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn’t mean you have a right to do it. Even among “consenting adults,” there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And even if you were to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior.
Yet that’s what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality. Fourth, while proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be established? Certainly no founding Constitution of any state, or the federal government, says anything about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God—but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to “nature’s God”—or the “self-evident” “laws of nature” that come from God as the Declaration of Independence declares—then they have to make the case that God believes homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident, as virtually the entire history of religion, the “laws of nature,” and the design of the human body attest.
Finally, notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage. Since a majority of Americans find such acts unnatural, immoral, and repulsive, homosexual activists hide the real truth about what they do behind the word “rights” because no one can be against that. This language manipulation extends to other terms they use (such as “gay” and “pride”) and is a common propaganda technique used by radical abortion rights proponents as well. It’s too difficult to advocate child dismemberment, so partial-birth abortion advocates talk about “choice.” We should ask the manipulators the following: “A right to choose what?” and “A right to do what?” They won’t call it what it is because the naked truth would hurt their case.
