Tuesday, April 16, 2013

fallen illogic

All of us struggle being consistent in all our thinking. One should not be surprised to find this very common among those enslaved to sin. Here's Robin Phillips speaking to some of the illogic around homosexuality ...

Let’s take the Democrats logic one step further. Once we legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ on the grounds that its prohibition represents discrimination against a certain orientation (namely homosexuality), then it will be hard to argue against those who suggest that we should legalize marriage to children on the grounds of not discrimination against those with the sexual orientation of paedophilia.

Such an argument would be strengthened by the biological determinism that is increasingly coming to characterize debates about paedophilia. An article earlier this year by Alan Zarembo for the Los Angeles Times website noted that “Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.”

Another fairly obvious consequence that we could see quite quickly is an overhaul to the prohibited degrees of kinship based on consanguinity and affinity. These laws were originally based on the idea on the notion, not simply that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but that it is a specifically sexual union publically recognized because of its potential fecundity. This idea was eroded long before same-sex ‘marriage’ came on the scene thanks to the contraception mentality. As a result, the purpose of marriage gradually shifted to little more than a romantic relationship pursued for individual fulfilment among two consenting adults. If same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized, this will be the nail in the coffin of the idea that marriage has any natural organic relationship to procreation.

Think about it. If the institution of marriage is not at least about procreation (whatever else it may be about), then why should a man be prohibited from marrying his sister? Or why should a man be excluded from ‘marrying’ his brother (if he is a homosexual), or his son’s daughter (if he is heterosexual), or his husband’s daughter’s daughter (if he is bisexual)?

Incest produces genetically unhealthy children, but Tauriq Moosa at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, has already pointed out that because of contraception this shouldn’t concern us anymore. He writes:
“people claim that incest creates ‘deformed’ children…..this assumes sex acts are solely for having children, whereas this is nonsense, since we have effective contraceptives and other measures to prevent pregnancy. …why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).”
Then there’s the equality angle to the whole thing. Certain adjustments to the rules about consanguinity and affinity will probably seem reasonable within a same-sex context since members of the same sex can’t produce children together. So even if you could justify a prohibition on a woman marrying her brother, this wouldn’t apply if the same woman wanted to “marry” her sister. However, once those adjustments are introduced, you would either need a two-tier system, which shows that same-sex ‘marriage’ really is qualitatively different, or else those same adjustments would have to be mapped over onto the laws regulating real marriages. After all, are we going to say that a homosexual man can marry his brother’s son but deny a heterosexual man the privilege of marrying his brother’s daughter? Are we going to allow a lesbian to ‘marry’ her ‘wife’s’ sister’s daughter but deny a heterosexual woman the right to marry her husband’s sister’s son? These are the difficult questions that few people are asking.Then there’s the constitutional angle, which parallels issues that arose last year in the debates surrounding the constitutionality of Obamacare. The four liberal Supreme Court justices claimed that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act should be upheld as part of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce delegated to it in the Constitution. Critics pointed out that if the federal government could force people to buy health insurance as part of commerce regulation, then in principle it might also be able to force people to buy vegetables or certain cars as part of this same authority. In a similar way, it needs to now be pointed out that if the 14th Amendment really does allow the federal government authority to force states to recognize same-sex unions in the legal definition of marriage, then in principle the constitution also allows the federal government authority to force states to accept many other unions as legal marriage, including those currently prohibited by the laws of consanguinity and affinity.

No comments: