I keep pleading: can we please talk about what it is we’re talking about when it comes to the desire for homosexuals to marry according to their preferred way of having sex? The vast majority of commentators are either ignorant of the assumed premise or they choose to ignore it. Let’s do a quick review that should help clear up the confusion.
There are biological males, biological females, and a tiny percentage of people with a chromosomal and/or physical deformity. That’s all there is. There are not L’s, G’s, B’s, T’s, etc. Just because a person self-identifies primarily by how they like to achieve an orgasm doesn’t mean they’ve expanded the types of human beings there are.
There are two categories of sexual relations: those that accord with teleological design and those that do not. To read more about some of the 547 ways humans become sexually aroused, click over to here and then peruse my series on paraphilias.
As many social conservatives continue to point out, it is ridiculous to believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will stop there. You don’t get to choose which of the LGBT-(etc.) letters you want to embrace. They all come together as a package deal, so get ready for increasing moral depravity in the name of “equality.”
Speaking of equality, here’s a writer over at The Federalist:
We get same-sex marriage, in other words, because (once heterosexual, single-pair marriage has been brought into question) there is literally no principled argument against it that doesn’t also undo the whole of the Enlightenment.
Think of it this way: Either we have equality, or we don’t. If that is the sole moral question of any weight, then it doesn’t matter if same-sex parenting proves socially better or worse than heterosexual parenting. It doesn’t matter if once-fixed categories of human nature are systematically erased. It doesn’t matter if the state must increasingly accept that sexual desire and sexual activity are, for the most part, unique moral objects that lie outside the realm of what can be judged right or wrong.
Got that? No principled argument against same-sex “marriage” is possible without undoing the whole of the Enlightenment.
Talk about ignoring the premise. Social issues lefties would have you believe it’s all very simple: we’re merely opening the door for same-sex couples to get married.
The little problem that’s being ignored is that humans not only get sexually aroused in many (evidently hundreds of) ways, they claim “love” exists in far more “relationships” than the naïve or dishonest would have you be aware of. It is foolishness to think many others won’t soon be demanding “equality” as well.
If marriage isn’t going to be about its original purpose, no enlightened argument can stop it from becoming anything two or more people want it to be.
Image credit: wallsistah.com.