Gay Activists assert that marriage is a human right. I’ve yet to hear an actual, valid argument supporting that. Also, the secular European Court of Human Rights recently agreed it’s not¹. Gay Activists are demanding the institution of marriage should be defined in law as including homosexuality. They also say it’s an issue of equality.
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” – Aristotle
So what are some examples of things inherently unequal being made equal?
How about “Affirmative Action”: the promotion, selection, or appointment of an individual based not in their merit or natural qualification, but based on their identity as part of a minority, when at the cost of a better qualified person not belonging to a minority. That is a form of much-resented inequality in the name of equality. Most people would prefer to be selected solely on their individual merits, and no-one wants to be passed over for an individual with less merit for any reason.
How about treating children equally? They demand that they should have the same rewards as their siblings, and their siblings should have the same responsibilities as themselves. Yet obviously they are not (usually) all of the same maturity, natural talents, physicality, or personality. Some need extra incentives where others don’t, while others need leniency where their sibling may need urging.
How about the need for a head of state such as the American President to be born in that country? Is that an immoral inequality that should be rectified as a matter of human rights?
The inconvenience of truth doesn’t change truth. Making unequal things equal is simply wrong.
So it is with marriage. The social benefit of the ideal construct for raising children² and nurturing healthy adults³ has never been a homosexual relationship. It is patently not equal to the societal benefits of a normal heterosexual relationship, regardless of whether you believe in evolution or intelligent design as your worldview. I’ve heard arguments that homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, but genetic and behavioral mutations aside, I’ve never heard of an animal with a same-sex mate for life. Even if there were, do we now justify our social design, morality and behavior on that of animals? That is a comparable failure of logic & relevancy to if it were used justify predatory behaviour!
Counter arguments about the possible negatives of a heterosexual marriage are irrelevant red herrings as the debate centres on the social endorsement and thus intended design of our society; not the unintentional (universal) possibilities. Where less-than-ideal environments do raise perfectly healthy, balanced citizens, it is likewise not a valid argument for the deliberate design of such an environment. It is a moral imperative to, where possible, design the best possible environment for raising children; and secondarily the health of all citizens.
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” – Abraham Lincoln
Calling marriage a human right does not make it so. Equality happens in the equal treatment of all individuals, not of all relationships.
To be very, explicitly clear: all individuals, regardless of religion, race, age, gender, sexuality or any other minority identification are and should be treated as equals. Equal rights to association, representation, free speech, assembly, education, employment, inheritance, insurance, respect & dignity and many more are God-given and socially beneficial. Universal marriage is not.
References:
1. ThinkProgress.org LGBT
2. Washington Times
3. Canada’s Gay & Lesbian News, & UNSW’s The Kirby Institute
