From Laurie Higgins:
When it comes to the topic of homosexuality, I find most Chicago Tribune editors and columnists intellectually feeble in their efforts to normalize homosexuality. They rarely—if ever—respond to the best conservative arguments being made by the best conservative scholars (e.g. Francis Beckwith, Michael L. Brown, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Maggie Gallagher, and Robert P. George). In addition, they rarely—if ever—respond to the most foundational assumptions, preferring instead to treat the assumptions embedded in terms like “sexual orientation” and discussions of equality, as if they’re proven facts.
Examples of this kind of intellectual feebleness permeate Eric Zorn’s Sunday editorial in favor of “gay marriage.” He posits what he believes are the “top six arguments” against gay marriage and then pontificates on why they all fail. Before I discuss his six specific analyses, I want to list a few of the fundamental questions he fails to address:
- What is marriage?
- Why is the government involved in marriage?
- Why is marriage restricted to two people—a restriction even many homosexuals and their ideological allies seek to retain—and why should it continue to be?
- What is homosexuality? That is to say, what constitutes homosexuality?
- Are there any ontological differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality?
- How is homosexuality analogous to race?
- What reason does the government have to recognize, regulate, and promote a type of relationship that is by design an inherently sterile type of union?
Here are the arguments that Zorn believes are top arguments against “gay marriage” and Zorn’s “reasons” why these arguments fail…
