One argument I often hear from those who promote same-sex "marriage" is that heterosexuals in general apparently have quite a disregard for the sanctity of marriage as evidenced by a high divorce rate. It is true that the divorce rate is high. It is often cited as 50% of marriages as a whole in the United States. Other issues are often cited such as domestic abuse or heterosexual rape. I won't delve into specifics here, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the state of marriage in America is a particularly healthy one. So there is some merit to the accusations. The argument then continues that heterosexuals have no right to ban homosexuals from marrying as a result of widespread disregard among heterosexuals regarding their own marriages. For the moment, I'm not even going to bother addressing whether homosexuality is sinful. For the purpose of this article, I'm assuming it is. I can address that particular issue later. Right now, I simply want to address the argument.
However, before I continue addressing the argument, I simply want to point out a basic principle of morality. One evil does not justify another evil. Or put another way, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone steals, does that justify a lie in order to conceal the theft? If someone commits adultery, does that justify murdering the other adulterous party's spouse for fear of retaliation? If someone commits rape, does that justify slandering the rape victim in order to discredit her accusations against the rapist? Obviously not.
So my question here is this: In light of this observation, why would the argument that the widespread disregard of the sanctity of marriage among heterosexuals justifies homosexual "marriage" have any validity? The answer, quite simply, is that it doesn't. The reason is that the basic assumption underlying the argument is "one evil does justify another evil."
So the next time someone presents this argument to you, ask them "Do two wrongs make a right?" In all likelihood they will answer "no." If they answer "yes," you've got another issue to deal with before you come back to this one, but if they do answer "no," then follow up by asking, "Then why are you telling me that the evils committed by heterosexuals justify approving of the the evils of homosexuals?"
The answer to moral decay is not the promotion of further decadence. The answer to moral decay is repentance.
Valid argument, unless you are arguing with an atheist who doesn't care what our morals state. The thing about arguing with people who do not believe as we do is that they think we should not hold them to our beliefs. They are not Christians so why should our laws apply to them?
ReplyDeleteI would love to see your next blog on this subject, because as a Christian it is one of my biggest conflicts. How DO you hold someone accountable to our morals who does not practice our religion? I know the scriptures about not letting our brother fall into sin.
Also, how about those who state the Bible was misinterpreted and antiquated and added to over the years and is no closer to being accurate than any other book of that age? I am quite honestly disturbed when I hear this and it makes me so angry to be called ignorant because I truly believe this book to be the inspired Word of God.
As I stated in the blog, my intent was narrow - to analyze the validity and rationale of the argument itself - not the moral status of homosexual activity. However, there are a couple of routes you could take in addressing the issue of homosexuality (or any moral question, for that matter). You could take the route of demonstrating the evidence for the divine authorship of the Scriptures. However, particularly with the atheist or agnostic, the route with a higher probablity of success is to make a case for morality based on natural law. Natural law is based on an analysis of the created world and human beings in particular and arriving at conclusions through the use of reason. Therefore it can be demonstrated that the moral law can be deduced by reason alone.
ReplyDelete