Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Emotionalism, Misrepresentation, and False Arguments: The Case for Homosexual Marriage

Jeninne Lee-St. John wrote an editorial on homosexual marriage posted at Time's web site yesterday. She said:

"The anti-miscegenation laws that were enacted in much of the South were rooted in interpretations of the Bible. Interracial intimacy was seen as unnatural. Blacks were put forth as filthy sub-humans who wanted to muddy white bloodlines and thus destroy the goodness of the white race. Race mixing was akin to bestiality. Sound familiar? 'Defenders' of marriage, from Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to Justice Antonin Scalia to Pope Benedict, have tossed out arguments just like these in their quest to keep same-sex couples from the altar....Anti-integrationists were plain wrong then; black people had no master plan to destroy the institution of the white family. Who's to say the forces against gay marriage won't be proven Chicken Littles as well?"

I must have missed all of the examples of Santorum, Scalia, and Ratzinger using arguments along the lines of portraying homosexuals as "filthy sub-humans". I live in Pennsylvania, and I've followed Santorum's campaigns for the Senate to some extent. You would think that his opponents would have quoted him making these comments, if he'd ever made them. You'd also think that Ratzinger's comments, for example, would have been in the news earlier this year, when he was chosen as Pope. Lee-St. John ought to give some examples.

And which opponents of homosexual marriage have been arguing for a "master plan" to "destroy" heterosexual marriage? Some opponents of homosexual marriage may carelessly make such comments occasionally, but I don't think it's something that can be considered a popular argument. You don't have to believe in a "master plan" in order to think that a group of people is attempting to do something that's wrong.

As is so common with proponents of homosexual marriage, Lee-St. John doesn't address the Biblical evidence against the practice (which would have to include an addressing of the evidence for the Divine inspiration of the Bible), but instead makes dismissive comments like:

"But let's set aside the moral question of gayness."

No, let's not. And let's also not set aside the larger implications of arguments like those of Lee-St. John, such as the applicability of her arguments to polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and marriage to animals, for example. Let's also consider the implications of disregarding the revealed will of God on this issue, for which we have a large amount of verifiable evidence.