I Object!

Through posts and links, we've given a brief overview of the natural law argument against homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. In short, we said that everyone pursues what they take to be good for them; reason tells us what is in fact good for us (that which fulfills the purposes of our essence or the nature of our various faculties); therefore it is good to pursue what is in fact good for us and bad to not do so. Homosexual behavior, and by implication, same-sex marriage, are contrary to the purpose of sex and marriage and are therefore not good. Other provided links clearly laid out the biblical case against homosexual behavior, and it was hopefully clear that natural law simply compliments and provides a common ground foundation for what the Bible says. Let's briefly look at a few common objections to the arguments against homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

1. "I was born this way." or "I'm naturally attracted to the same-sex."
It's important to clarify what natural law means by "nature." It does not mean genetics, biology, environment, etc. It means WHAT something is; its essence (i.e. human, tree, dog, etc.). The good for us is determined by what we are, that is, our nature. So think back to the example of the alcoholic. According to what it means to be human and the purposes of our various faculties, it is not good to drink in excess. This fact does not change even IF alcoholism were completely genetic. It would certainly mean that alcoholics may have a terribly difficult time fighting their urge to drink in excess, and some may find the struggle too much to bear and thus give in. But that reflects a weakness of the will and does not somehow make alcoholism a good thing. Such a fact would, however, mean we should have that much more compassion on someone struggling through such a battle. Likewise, even IF homosexual desires were purely genetic, it would not mean that homosexual behavior was good anymore than having a genetic propensity to drink in excess, or a genetic cause of blindness, or a genetic desire to compulsively steal candy from babies would be good things. Finally, we all have desires that we know we ought not act on. Simply having a desire, for whatever reason, or however strongly, does not necessarily mean that desire is good and should be pursued (even IF refraining from acting on that desire is extremely painful and difficult).

2. "Culture is evolving and morals change; you're just old-fashioned."
This assumes that morality is necessarily changing for the better. But how could one know this without arguing that objective morality exists so that the changing morals are more closely approaching the moral standard? But one would then have to make an argument for the existence of objective morality. If immaterial realities like human natures don't exist, however, or in a more ultimate sense, if God doesn't exist, then they have no foundation on which to argue for objective morality other than majority opinion or might makes right. Of course, if that's the case, then once upon a time slavery would have been okay rather than being objectively wrong in all times. Virtually no one arguing for same-sex marriage holds such a view since they are in fact arguing that those opposing same-sex marriage are objectively wrong. But that just brings us full circle in that we must ask the questions, "What is moral?," "How do we know it?," "How do we ground it?," etc.

In addition, moral progress would be impossible if morality is constantly evolving because there is no goal to progress towards. Ironically, since the moral reformer would be going against the majority opinion and the powers that be, he would in fact be immoral according to this view. So much for Martin Luther King, Jr. being a hero. Lastly, from a technical standpoint, this objection commits an appeal to age fallacy by claiming an idea is wrong or right simply because of its age.

3. "The church and state must remain separate. You can't set up a God-run government (theocracy)."
As I've said, I'm arguing from a natural law perspective. This ultimately leads to the existence of God, but one could, theoretically, accept these arguments and be an atheist (as some people do and are). Moreover, the Bible claims that murder and stealing are wrong. Yet no one is proposing such laws be removed from our government due to separation of church and state issues. This objection is simply inconsistent. Moreover, everyone is doing philosophy. The question is, are they doing it well or poorly? When the government takes a stand on a particular issue, or even when they decide to stay out of a particular issue, they are in fact making a moral, and thus philosophical, decision. They cannot be neutral regarding philosophy in general, and metaphysics (the study of being as being) in particular. This great short piece goes into a bit more detail regarding why that is the case.

4. "Homosexual behavior is often observed throughout the animal world."
Animals often eat their young too. What conclusions should we draw from this? Remember that moral goodness enters the picture when rational animals (i.e. human beings) know what is good for them and choose to act according to that or against that. Animals are not rational and thus are not bound by moral laws. We don't put lions on trial for murder when they kill their prey or even when they kill another lion.

5. "You're just an intolerant, homophobic, bigot."
In logic, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy. That is, it attacks the person rather than the argument. First, it's only possible to tolerate things I disagree with. If I agree with you, I'm not tolerating you by virtue of the fact that we agree. Also, the fact that I disagree with a position does not equal my intolerance of the person holding that position. All people are created equal, but all ideas are not. Therefore, homophobia is bad, and we should certainly love those who have homosexual desires. But my disagreeing with homosexual behavior does not equal my fearing the person practicing that behavior. Finally, I'm offering solid arguments from reason and revelation (which we have reason to believe is true) as to why I think homosexual behavior is wrong. Thus, I'm not ignorantly holding a view against a person, and therefore I'm not being a bigot. And ultimately, even IF I were being all of these things, that does nothing to say whether my arguments are sound or not.

6. "Not allowing same-sex marriage is violation of human rights."
This simply assumes the very thing in question. What is marriage? What are human rights? How do we determine those things? If natural law is correct, in agreement with the Bible of course, then marriage is a particular type of relationship for a particular purpose and same-sex couples could not be considered a married couple any more than a square could be considered a circle. Thus, there is no violation of rights because they have no right to marry someone of the same sex. On the other hand, everyone already has equal rights to marriage. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry any consenting adult is of the opposite sex and not a close relative.

7. "People used to think interracial marriage was immoral, but now they don't. It's the same for same-sex marriage."
This is known as a category mistake, comparing two different categories of things (think apples and oranges). Race/ethnicity is not the same as gender. One's race has nothing to do with whether one can marry and procreate. One's gender, however, has everything to do with whether one can marry and procreate. Terrible arguments were used against interracial marriage. Thankfully, we've moved past that. But we must learn, as Frank Turek observes, to treat equal things equally and non-equal things non-equally. A man and woman of different races are equal as persons with the ability marry and procreate. Two people of the same sex, while equal as persons, are not equal when it comes to marriage and procreation.

8. "Marriage is simply a construction of society, a contract for two people who love each other."
There are several issues with this. One, if marriage is not a particular kind of thing, with a particular essence and thus particular purposes and goods, then marriage is ultimately anything and thus nothing. If marriage can be whatever we want it to be as a society, then currently society has said it's for one man and one woman. Thus, by the objection's own logic, no rights are being violated by denying same-sex couples a marriage license. In fact, those being counter cultural by arguing for same-sex marriage would be immoral if this view were held consistently. Also, notice the smuggled in notion that marriage is in fact a particular kind of thing "for two people who love each other." Who says it has to be two people? Who says it has to involve love? Who says it has to involve people? That's a very narrow minded view of marriage! That's so intolerant! Finally, is it unchangeably true that marriage must be about love and involve people or can that be redefined as well?

9. "So, you're saying that people who can't have kids shouldn't marry?"
Not at all. A man and woman who are sterile and married are still a procreative KIND of relationship even if their relationship is not procreative in EFFECT. They are not doing anything contrary to the purpose of sex and marriage. I'll leave the answer at that since going any deeper would open up many other cans of worms not directly related to the issue at hand.

10. "A homosexual couple getting married will not hurt your marriage."
While it may be true that it would not directly hurt my marriage (though that's debatable), that's not why I'm against same-sex marriage. First, as a matter of truth, it's simply wrong just like homosexual behavior is. Secondly, I think it ultimately harms those involved, even if they don't realize it. Thus, I'm against it for that reason as well. Third, and finally, it will lead to many harmful implications for society as a whole and children in particular. I would refer you to here for more information about that, and I would also recommend Frank Turek's short book on the topic.

We've already destroyed marriage through no-fault divorce, the "hook up" culture, pornography, and other such nonsense. God forgive us. No doubt we must strengthen our marriages and families and honor God through them. May we not, however, continue down the wrong road and think that same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior is no big deal or that we have no good reasons to oppose them. We are called to love those struggling with homosexual behavior, but sometimes the most loving thing to do is speak the truth and/or help others to see the truth for themselves. May we do so with gentle and respectful boldness.

Recall that the Apostle Paul calls us to destroy arguments and every lofty thing built up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10_3-5). He calls this spiritual warfare, and the way you destroy bad arguments is with good thinking and better arguments. As Edward Feser notes here, "If Christians and conservatives are not prepared to defend traditional sexual morality in general, then they are going to lose the battle over 'same-sex marriage.' And that means that they are going to have to be prepared to criticize homosexual behavior itself, as well as sex outside of marriage, divorce, pornography, and all the rest. The other side is motivated by a moralistic fervor, and they frame the debate in terms of rights, justice, compassion, and so forth. That sort of rhetoric cannot effectively be countered except with equal and opposite moral force.…So, Christians need to rediscover their intellectual heritage." I agree.

For His glory,
Adam