Homosexual Marriage Law

allaboutlove
This is "Homosexual Marriage Law" point three in a six point case regarding the same-sex marriage debate. The case is outlined here.

Homosexual Marriage Law - Point Three
The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.

Homosexuals understandably want their relationships to have equal social status with those of heterosexuals, and they see the law as their weapon to force that acceptance on the public. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile believes that same-sex marriage is “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us.”37

Andrew Sullivan agrees. He writes, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, 90 percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.”38

Homosexual Marriage Law - Civil Acceptance
Now we’ve reached the real reason homosexual activists are fighting so hard for government-backed same-sex marriage. Their relentless push for same-sex marriage isn’t really about civil rights—it’s about civil acceptance. Government-backed same-sex marriage is the one law that will normalize homosexual behavior everywhere else.

Sullivan and Signorile are right about this. They recognize the power of the law to change behavior and attitudes over the long-run. The law is a great teacher—many people think that whatever is legal is moral and, therefore, should be accepted. We only need to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country—slavery and abortion—to see the power of the law to influence attitudes and behavior.

Homosexual Marriage Law - Examples
At the onset of the Civil War, our country was basically split on the issue of slavery, but today virtually everybody believes that slavery is morally wrong. What changed? We certainly haven’t become more religious or pious. No, what has changed is the law. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has helped teach each new generation that slavery is wrong.

Unfortunately, a change in the law can also lead new generations astray. When the Supreme Court issued its Roe vs. Wade opinion in 1973, most Americans thought abortion was wrong as evidenced by the laws in each of the fifty states which outlawed or restricted it. But today, the country is about evenly split. What happened? The law changed. In a situation that is the reverse of slavery, what was once considered immoral (and thus illegal) suddenly became a right created by the federal government. Legalization led to more social acceptance of abortion and a sixteen-fold increase in abortions nationwide. If same-sex marriage receives government backing, we will likely see an increase in homosexual behavior as well.

A third example of the law’s impact is divorce. Homosexual activists are right when they say that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce. Given the negative impact of divorce on children and society, I think divorce laws should be tightened. Divorce should be an absolute last resort.

But the fact that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce is not an argument for same-sex marriage. In fact, the recent history of the law and divorce actually argues against same-sex marriage. The vast social problems we are experiencing since the liberalization of divorce laws should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family and the country. When you pass laws that weaken the family, the entire nation gets sick. This should cause us to protect marriage, not weaken it further. When a patient has a disease, giving him another disease is not a prescription for wellness. How would same-sex marriage hurt natural marriage? Read on to point 4.

Keep Reading!

Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.

37 Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT Magazine, May 1996, pg. 30.

38 Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, (USA, Vintage Books, 1996), pg. 185.


Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others. What is this?