I now attempt the impossible in the current political climate and make an argument for heterosexual marriage as the ideal and thus, the only one deserving of legal recognition -- or more accurately stated, legal encouragement. Although too many so-called progressive people respect the notion of moral relativism—and thus, one cannot argue any relationship is superior to another—the patent superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones leads me to take the chance and let the chips fall where they may.
To start at the beginning—many people make an ambiguous argument for the ideal nature of heterosexual marriage. They maintain that the unique union between a man and a woman is a foundation to our society. Thus, if we radically change it to include, for instance, same-sex unions, our society and its values will perish. Some may find this sufficient. But what exactly does it mean? How does it work? It is clear that we need to refine this argument, or at least flesh it out.
We start with the premise that only a society passionate about their values fights for those values; and, obviously, if they don’t fight, their values do not survive. More specifically, a society must be willing to fight both in the marketplace of ideas and if it comes to it, with military force.
On the other hand, if a society lack this passion, and their values are confronted with values held by passionate adherents, say, Islamic Totalitarians, surely the former’s values will die out and only the Islamists’ values will survive. The other people will more loudly and persuasively argue for their values in the marketplace of ideas; and, if they must defend their values with the tip of a sword, they will fight with more dedication, conviction and strength.
So whether you like the term “passionate” or would rather something like “fervent,” that’s fine. Regardless, I am sure we can agree that the values held by adherents less willing to preserve them are less likely to survive the test of time than values posited by those willing to do whatever it takes.
Still, we must determine what breeds this lack of passion/fervor. One source overtly presents itself. That is, a society's embrace of moral relativism. A moral relativist posits a world where most if not all of one’s values possess no intrinsically or objectively better characteristics than anyone else’s. Values, they argue, result considerably from what any given culture happens to deem moral. Thus, a society has little to no passionate relationship with its morals; they are merely that society’s cultural opinion or preference.
If that is the case, then why on earth would that society fight to preserve those values? If another country’s mere preference on a subject is different than ours, will we protest in the streets or go to war? I hope not. Therefore, evidently moral relativism breeds this lack of passion in one’s values.
But what does this have to do with homosexuality? A couple things. Firstly, a homosexual person is likely to adopt a moral relativist world-view. Initially, they will have two choices: live in sin under a Judeo-Christian-type moral framework or decide that framework is a relic of the past. More likely than not, the homosexual will decide to abandon the Judeo-Christian-type framework and replace it with some secular moral framework. And this type of framework is, by definition, a relativist one; it possesses no divine, and thus objective, authority for morals; collective human experience just does not cut it, as humans, with their diverse and subjective valuations and preferences, are still the driving force without God. As a result, the likely adherents to this secular/relativist ideology -- i.e. homosexuals and their supporters -- breed this moral relativism and the ensuing lack of passion in one’s values.
One can find yet another connection between moral relativism and a society’s sanction of homosexuality. Taking a look at the rhetoric of the same-sex special-interest groups, we see that they regularly advance the argument that one’s personal biology -- not some objective notion of morality -- is a primary determinant of what we deem moral. That is to say, they advance the notion that homosexuality is moral by finding persuasive the argument that homosexuals were “born that way.” Thus, they argue, society should tolerate -- if not celebrate -- homosexuality.
This argument, however, cuts both ways. If we accept this argument as compelling, then when other people are born other ways we must also find that conduct more acceptable as a result. Lets say, for instance, we come across a person born with a propensity to be sexually promiscuous, or even to be a robber or physically violent; one who gives this type of argument persuasive weight must at least think twice before condemning those conducts. In other words, when -- or actually, if -- these people decide to denounce these types of behaviors, they will likely do so with much less passion, for the objects of their condemnation were “born that way.” How can they blame them?
We see this constantly with people on the left who show more compassion for a murderer on death row than the victim and their family. Punishment and retribution are no longer virtuous endeavors of a criminal justice system, as these criminals were “born ill.” Therefore, not only do they hesitantly condemn the murderer, they hold candle-light vigils for that murderer and leave the mourning family with no choice but to look on in disgust. All the same, at this point one should be able to see how the values of other people who do not get swayed or distracted by this “born this way” argument will survive, and the moral relativist’s values will wither and die.
In the final analysis, therefore, because the homosexual movement furthers this crippling relativist agenda, we must not give it government encouragement in the form of legal marriage. To do so, is to invite our own demise.