Friday, May 16, 2008

Oligarchy Part 4

“Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.”

I am reminded of a Mad TV skit where George Bush is asked if homosexuals should be allowed to marry. He said, “Of course, a gay man may marry a gay woman.” As funny as that skit was, I thought it pointed out the obvious. Marriage by definition is a male becoming legally and physically and spiritually united to a female. Isn’t this the obvious point that Bidstrup misses?

There is no such thing as gay marriage. He simply assumes that anybody may become married. His statement, “You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now.” is indeed the real argument that Conservatives attempt to argue. Could we have polygamy marriages or something we haven’t even thought of yet? What if my religious beliefs were that of Joseph Smith’s? Bidstrup has absolutely no foundation upon which to define anything.

Bidstrup makes some good practical points that his position would bring about. Pragmatism and what seems to work is irrelevant to whether or not something is morally justified. The example that some marriages end up in divorce is truly sad in itself. I agree that quite often conservative churches have made homosexuality the unpardonable sin. However, failed marriages happen all the time due to someone believing they married the wrong person or have desire for someone else. Marriage counseling may not always help, but quite often we hear of success stories including men who struggle with homosexuality. I have personally witnessed this fact.

Another assumption in this statement above is the idea of love. If “people” love one another, who are we to say they can’t get married. This simply leads us into another presuppositional discussion. Bidstrup simply assumes an American version of the definition of love. He is simply wrong. Love is defined by God, not human emotions or desires. He assumes man is not a sinner that bends and perverts everything, including love. True Love fulfills the Law of God. If we break God’s Law, then we do not love according to God’s definition.

In conclusion, we do not redefine terms and institutions simply because of pragmatism or using man as a starting point to form a moral and ethical system. Bidstrup is constantly using negative arguments against heterosexuals to justify his position. He assumes moral arguments, yet he simply begs the question constantly. I keep rereading his post. Perhaps I am reading with a strong bias against his position that keeps me from hearing his positive arguments, but I just do not see anything in his essay that makes a positive presentation why gay marriage is morally justified. I never hear his basis for saying heterosexuals are wrong. His philosophical position is simply assumed. He borrows from the Image of God within himself to use reason and attempted logical argumentation and morality. Yet he does this while fulfilling Romans 1. He suppresses the truth and perverts it at every turn.

No comments: