Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
On Monday, May 23, the newspaper published an edited version of my letter in the print editon and the full version on their website.
My Unedited Response
Those who believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other often use the practical components of the issue as a strategy to persuade people to accept their position. These practical arguments often include the economic benefits or consequences of allowing or not allowing same-sex marriage, the perception of tolerance which a community or state displays, the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage among young people, and the emotional hardships which homosexuals endure. Those who promote same-sex marriage also frequently allude to examples of hate speech by those opposed to homosexual marriage, the “close-minded” attitudes of those opposed to homosexual marriage, the exodus of talented homosexuals from a community or state, and warnings from “big business” of the consequences of prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Although those who advocate in favor of same-sex marriage are often eloquent in their debating, the arguments they use are irrelevant to the issue. If a particular behavior is immoral, then any argument in favor of allowing that behavior is a side issue and not the main issue. Side issues such as economics, tolerance, emotional hardship, the wrong behavior of those opposed to same-sex marriage, or the views of “big business” do not have any relevance to the final decision.
If a particular behavior is immoral, then that behavior should not be made legal. The entire homosexual debate is ultimately about whether homosexuality is immoral or not. This is not a “rights” issue but a moral issue. Those who wish to prohibit homosexual marriage believe that homosexuality is immoral and should not be legitimized through the legal code. Those who wish to allow homosexual marriage believe that homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality and therefore society should allow homosexual marriage.
I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I believe homosexuality is immoral. Therefore I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry is wrong. My decision is not based on hate, anger, or the common perceptions of narrow-mindedness. I am narrow-minded only in the sense that if certain behavior is wrong, then that behavior should never be allowed. If that makes me narrow-minded or close-minded, then I accept those labels. My mind is “closed” to the possibility of allowing same-sex marriage because I believe the arguments against homosexuality are insurmountable.
Let's be honest here. The reason “big business” does not oppose same-sex marriage is a business decision, not a moral decision. Those in business see the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in our society and therefore do not want to alienate customers and consequently lose profits. But if homosexuality is morally wrong, then neither profits nor any other practical consideration should be a factor in making a decision.
Are we as a society willing to maintain moral standards even if a large segment of society is alienated and angry about those standards? Apparently, more and more people are not willing to do so. And the reason has nothing to do with morality, but just plain greed and moral compromise.
Emotional appeals by those in favor of same-sex marriage are an attempt to reach the soft hearts of many people, persuading them to make an emotional decision rather than a reasoned decision. Arguments suggesting a mass exodus of people are a scare tactic. The fact that young people are more open to the idea of same-sex marriage indicates more the collapse of moral values in our country rather than the wisdom of younger generations.
Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are some of the significant moral problems of our time. Tragically, we are seeing growing numbers of people openly accept the legitimacy of homosexuality for reasons of self-interest or, even worse, too scared to say what they really think.