Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Jonathan M.’s case against legalizing same-sex marriage

Cross Examined has published an argument against gay marriage by Jonathan M.

Excerpt:

Now, there are various  reasons why a revision of the current (traditional) view of marriage, in my opinion, would be overall non-conducive to society’s best interests. For one thing, if the definition of marriage is fundamentally malleable, then are we to expect to hear next from those seeking “equal rights” for polygamous marriage (as is already seen in Canada)? How can you grant legitimacy to one and not the other? After all, they use essentially the same arguments. Indeed, The Guardian recently published aninteresting article entitled “Polygamy in Canada: A Case of Double Standards”, observing,

What the polygamists argued is that this new definition discriminates against them because it continues to insist on monogamy in the same way that the previous definition insisted on both monogamy and heterosexuality. It was a logical argument that was rejected by Bauman who in his judgment gave a spirited defence of the virtues of monogamy as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.

Bauman said that the preservation of monogamous marriage “represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of monogamous marriage as a norm in the west,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in western society from the earliest of times.” He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of polygamy, which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good polygamy’,” he added.

Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?” [emphasis mine]

Furthermore, schools will be expected to promote and endorse same sex marriage as just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. As Frank Turek has pointed out, in his book Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, “The law is a great teacher — many people think that whatever is legal is moral and, therefore, should be accepted. We only need to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence attitudes and behavior.” As Frank Turek discusses here, there is a correlation between legalisation of same-sex-marriage and the number of children born outside of wedlock. He writes,

“We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.””

This is the way you want to argue social issues. All evidence, all the time. As Christians, we need to get better at arguing for social conservatism. And it’s not free. You can’t just pray about it and hope for the best. It takes work. It takes time and effort to study the issues and to understand them. And it takes character – not just to be brave, but to be respectful. It’s one thing to be snarky on theism/atheism, but when it comes to social issues, you have to make the extra effort to be civil – because it’s personal for a lot of people.

Jonathan is one of the promising young Christian scholars that you should all keep an eye on. I worry a lot about him, because sometimes I think he is too brave for his own good! Say a prayer for him and others like him. It’s a dangerous world, and disagreement on moral issues is not always welcome with the “tolerant” secular left.

Related posts

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response

  1. WK, thanks for posting this and for continuing to be a voice on the so called “gay marriage” issue. I’ve been concerned that the masses in the pews are either getting weary of the fight or are not articulate enough to make the case against this abomination without resorting to quoting Scripture to secularists who do not recognize the Bible as authority. Sadly, much of the younger generation in the Church is oblivious to the cost to society and evangelism if we lose the policy battle on this issue.

    God not only has recorded His commands in His Word, but has programed His wisdom into the natural order of His creation. We can and must (like you, Jonathan, and Frank Turek are doing) appeal logically to the scientific facts that demonstrate how men and women are immutably different and how the tradition of marriage–one man, one woman maximally exploits the differences for the benefit of the pair, the children, and society. Normalizing homosexuality as something equal to heterosexual marriage is wrong and at the very least as detrimental as giving A’s to C students just so they can “feel better” about themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,534,152 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,175 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,175 other followers

%d bloggers like this: