Nothing confounds me more than the same-sex marriage advocate who is himself confounded by those who fret over the harmful implications of redefining marriage. By every account, he cannot fathom what all the fuss is about. The dire warnings of the naysayers are chalked up to panic-stricken ravings emanating from mere reactionaries: the futile wailings of the damned. Meanwhile, the advocate – having blown away his philosophical opponent like so much dust – prattles on and on with impenetrable jargon, spouting off words like “equality” and “rights” without once bothering to define them or engage in any meaningful debate. Behind the impressive verbiage there is little by way of substance, like a pastry filled with air where cream ought to be.
Why the dismissive approach? Because it’s easy, for starters: a whole lot easier, that is, than actual debate. Challenge an advocate of same-sex marriage and you are likely to receive as your reward either slang or slander, but seldom if ever a gentleman’s game of debate, wherein points are scored solely on the merit of the argument, and battles are waged on the same field using the same weapons: words sharply defined.
But the same-sex marriage fight is most often a sham fight since the terms bandied about are rarely defined; and even when they are defined, it is likely they have been redefined – a favorite trick of dirty fighters. Indeed, the very phrase “same-sex marriage” is a case in point: for if same-sex marriage is truly the equivalent of marriage so-called then there would be no need for the qualifier. The advocate argues on one hand that marriage should be redefined to include same-sex partners while on the other hand assuring us that same-sex marriage is equal to marriage traditionally defined. In a word, the lovers of redefinition have even redefined what it means to redefine.
And having reassured us that same-sex marriage is actually just a longer, roundabout name for marriage itself, the advocate then draws the truly remarkable conclusion that the effects of redefining the institution of marriage will range anywhere from neutral to positively peachy.
But surely the effects of altering an institution as old as the hills cannot be neutral. How could they be? We can argue whether the effects of that change would benefit or destroy society, but we cannot possibly maintain that such a drastic change will have little to no effect on society. Such a rationale would literally amount to saying that to alter a thing is to leave it unchanged. Forgive me, but I dare not follow this Pied Pieper line of reasoning into the woods, since it would certainly deal the deathblow to a rather important rule of logic – as in the law of non-contradiction.
Still, the advocate inquires: “What business is it of yours, and how does it concern you, if two people of the same sex want to get married?” This is usually followed by flippant remarks to the tune of: “The world will keep on spinning” or “The sun will rise in the morning” – which mean, of course, that everything will continue as before without any perceptible change.
Such shallow thinking is of course inevitable in this woefully superficial culture which so thoroughly abhors logic and reason, but horribly naïve upon any deeper consideration. For such thinking demonstrates an utter lack of understanding, in as much as reason grasps that a social institution such as marriage, by its very nature, must have at least some implications for society – and hence why its redefinition must redefine what those implications would be. Such thinking is also hopelessly narrow since it seems to suggest that redefining marriage won’t directly affect a single person, once more forgetting that the alteration of a social institution must affect every single person – some directly, some indirectly, but all just the same – since all are members of and belong to society.
This is truly elementary stuff, but the point seems to escape many otherwise intelligent people, who turn visibly agitated whenever their glib dismissal of the repercussions of altering age-old institutions meets a reasoned and admonitory response. The advocate really, truly believes that everything will be as it once was; he really, truly believes that by redefining marriage society is merely extending the franchise, just as it once did for freed black slaves and suffrage pioneers. And who, but a backwoods, racist, misogynist hillbilly thinks that such an extension wasn’t a net positive for blacks, women and the whole of society? And therefore who, but a backward, barbaric, bigoted homophobe could possibly be against broadening the understanding of marriage to include those of the same sex?
Before my eyes right now is a short article from National Review’s Joel Gehrke, in which he relates a disturbing admission uttered by the Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, when asked by one of the Supreme Court Justices if schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriage. “I don’t deny that,” Verrilli replied, thus speaking to the very real possibility that religious institutions might lose their tax-exempt status if the Supreme Court rules, in the case now before them (Obergefell v. Hodges), that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Is this what advocates consider the neutral or even beneficial effects of redefining the institution of marriage?
Or consider the long and growing list of people whose lives have run up against the immovable object of marriage redefined: People like Elaine Huguenin, Barronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips, Crystal and Kevin O’Connor. Each represents the countless photographers, florists, bakers and small business owners who have met the iron fist of the law, facing litigation, fines and even threats to their very existence merely for refusing to dip their bread into a strange bowl – a bowl full of new wine, which once went by the name of grape juice.
Is this not a direct, negative effect arising solely from the supposedly innocuous redefinition of marriage?
But the advocate will hear none of it. He maintains that such outcomes are entirely avoidable if only the traditionalist would simply submit to the new definition, repeating after him that gay marriage is marriage. That is the solution he offers: compliance. If you wish to avoid fines, penalties, or worse, then you must only surrender your religious freedom. If you wish to remain in business, then you must only leave your faith, your conscience and your entire way of being at the door. Or as the Tempter might put, reversing his Enemy’s immortal words: If you wish to gain the whole world, then you must only give me your soul.
But let us say, for argument’s sake, that the traditionalist, after relentless brainwashing at the local public school and after sufficient exposure to countless hours of hip, modern television sitcoms – which so generously portray the normalcy and benevolence of gay couples – comes at last to acquiesce. What then? Are we to admit that the negative effects stemming from redefining marriage are merely the result of stubborn resistance on the part of a decreasing, conservative minority? Clear the stodgy old buns away and all shall be well?
Hardly.
Consider the subtle, psychological effects such a change entails, and how over time those psychological effects will seep into the consciousness of each member of society like a poison, whereby an alien notion and understanding of human society, human sexuality – and indeed what it means to be human in general! – would come to predominate.
For generations on end, as far back as recorded history, there were always two necessary ingredients to every marriage: man and woman. And since man and woman are the two expressions of the one human race, it was taken for granted, it was always understood, by the most backward as well as the most refined, that each member of future generations would do well to learn at the feet of a mother and a father. This was the environment nature itself favored and afforded – the environment we call the family: father, mother, daughter and son. And it was here, in this natural environment, that girls would learn from their mothers what it means to be a woman, including how to act around and interact with men; while boys would learn from their fathers what it means to be a man, including how to act around and interact with women. Exception might strike, of course, as when tragedy deprives a child of either parent; but the exception only proves the rule – that every child, in order to properly develop as an integral human person needs as a guide in those formative years of early life a representative from each sex – and hence why we consider the single-parent child as deprived and his or her situation as tragic, meaning not ideal.
I repeat: such things were always taken for granted – for such things are pure common sense. But today, with the gimmick of redefinition, we have altered the entire meaning of an institution, exchanging the wisdom of the ages for the thoughtless, flippant decisions of the present moment.
How then will girls learn what it means to be a woman from two men, however feminine the one might be? And likewise, how will boys learn what it means to be a man from two women, however masculine the one might be?
The implications of this sort – shamefully glossed over in silence – will have done their worst, quietly working their way through the psyche of society and every member thereof like a cancer, before we are even aware of it – and by then it will be too late.
Nevertheless, the defenders and promoters of same-sex marriage – nay, even the indifferent – will have brought these things down upon the head of society, and a thousand things besides, like an executioner’s blade, all while glibly maintaining that their push to redefine marriage is, in the broad scheme of things, inconsequential. They cannot understand why opponents of same-sex marriage blather on and on about the dangers inherent in such a risky move. They simply reassure us that the sun will still rise in the morning, and the world will keep on spinning as it did before.
And they are right. But what kind of world will it be over which the sun rises? At the very least, it will be a world far different from what it was before. It will be a world that will sense a void without being able to name it, because custom will have long since taught that opposites do not attract, that men and women are interchangeable, and that therefore children have no need for a mother and a father. Those who are content to redefine marriage cannot redefine what it means to redefine. For to redefine something means quite literally to rub away the old lines in order to draw new ones, and within the expanded boundaries of those new lines lurks the consequences – intended or unintended. And hence, when the redefinition involves a social institution, a thousand consequences, many unforeseen, will be loosed upon society. There is simply no way around it.
Comments