Same-Sex Marriage - Part 2
Yesterday, I began a series of posts discussing the objections which are offered against those who seek to defend the traditional understanding of marriage as being a life-long commitment between one woman and one man. This series attempts to summarize the excellent arguments of Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason on this subject as found in a recent Townhall.com article (See yesterday’s post). In an effort to promote same-sex marriage, its proponents often exclaim:
They said the same thing about interracial marriage.
This is one of those responses which has great rhetorical force. This is due, in part, to our rightful disdain of racism. Upon closer inspection, however, this response is rather silly. Just because an argument was used incorrectly in one situation, does not bear on its correctness in another situation. Only if the circumstances are the same, is the the fact that the same objection has been used to deny a thing relevant. If the circumstances are in fact quite different, the fact that the same objection has been offered is irrelevant. When comparing interracial and same-sex marriages, the circumstances are completely different, having nothing in common.
Human skin color is morally trivial. There is no difference betwen a black and a white human being. There is, however, enormous differences between a man and a woman. As Koukl points out:
Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
If this response has merit, we would certainly have to allow polygamous or incestuous marriage, as well. One could just throw up the objection, “Well, in the past they wouldn’t allow interracial marriage either.” The objection may be the same, but the circumstances differ. That is why it works in one case and not in the other.
Next, a third response.