|
Seriously, I think it might be useful to try to unfathom the unstated assumptions that the two sides have in this debate, which are in conflict and are preventing any kind of meaningful resolution.
The core question is whether marriage should be redefined. Now think about what I just wrote. Why is this such a heated question? Who cares how a word is defined? Seriously. Who cares? It’s just a word.
This is really what it all boils down to. It’s not an issue about any specific legal rights. I haven’t seen any anti-gay-marriage people object to any specific legal rights that “marriage” would confer on gay couples. They’re all in favor of gays visiting each other in hospitals, sharing health insurance, sharing estates, etc. None of that is a problem.
What they object to all boils down to a single English word, and that is “marriage”.
Why?
Here’s why (IMO): many of us have a personal relationship with or understanding of God. That relationship is the core, defining, unifying principle of our lives, out of which the totality of our ethical, political, spiritual life flows. And for many of us, the idea of marriage is closely intertwined with the idea of God. God sanctions our marriage, blesses it, makes it spiritually right and legitimate, gives it purpose and meaning far beyond just two individuals. So “marriage” is a lot more than that list of legal rights. It is a spiritual entity in and of itself.
So why then is gay marriage bad under this view of marriage? It is bad because God does not sanction it. In God’s eyes, homosexuality is a sin. It is depraved. So it is inconceivable that two same-sex people could enter this sanctified state of union. It is almost blasphemy merely to suggest it.
So that’s the unstated assumption, namely: gayness is depraved, sinful behavior that can never be sanctified.
No argument is ever going to refute this, because it is a primitive assumption of the anti-gay-marriage position.
Is there a gay gene? So what. There are genes that cause criminal behavior too, does that mean being a criminal is OK?
Miscegenetion? Irrelevant. Being black is not depraved. Being gay is depraved.
Gay animals? Irrelevant. Animals can't get married either.
It looks to me that this is essentially the reason this debate goes around and around in circles. The unstated assumptions are in conflict, and they never get touched. This is a theological debate, where the theology is well concealed.
I don't see any other conclusion, given that the legal rights question is never an issue. It's all about "redefining" that one word.
For the record: Paul Martin is a great human being.
|