 |
 |
|
|
|
|
In the last few days we've heard two primary arguments advanced to support homosexuality. First, liberals claim that allowing gays to marry is a matter of "civil rights". Second, they say that 2 to 3 percent of the population will always be gay so it makes sense to allow gays to marry. CS readers know that all human rights must flow from moral obligations. You cannot have a "right" to particular conduct unless there is a moral principle that obliges others to respect your conduct. The moral basis on which America's founders staked our claim to freedom is identified by the Declaration of Independence as the "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", an 18th century legal term of art which means the Judeo-Christian moral rules of the Bible. Since God's laws do not support the liberals' argument, they bear the burden of articulating a comprehensive moral theory apart from God's laws that supports their claim. This they have not done and until they do their first argument must fail. The liberals' second argument also fails. What if thieves comprised a fairly constant percentage of the population? Would we be obliged to tolerate thievery? Of course not. The real issue at stake in the debate over homosexuality is whether that conduct is morally right. Stated more simply, the question is what is the purpose of sex? If sex is just a "toy" that humans may use as they wish then there is no logical, principled way to limit any form of sexual conduct. I can be gay, I can have sex with my sister or 100 near relatives, or with my dog, for that matter. There is no question of consent in bestiality because animals are simply chattels. I may be obliged to provide my animal food and shelter and not to harm it maliciously, but if sex is simply an activity for pleasure then I can use any of my property for sex, including an animal. On the other hand, the Bible tells us that God gave us sex to be the physical manifestation of a spiritual union between a man and a woman that He has brought together. Our law, up until last year, implicitly recognized this understanding of the purpose of sex by criminalizing sexual conduct outside of this union, regardless of whether it was consensual. Down through the ages it is this union that poetry, prose, and music have recognized and celebrated, not the sexual activity which it legitimizes. Those who support homosexuality must recognize that the principle they advance that "consensual sexual activity between two adults should be legal" does not provide a logical basis on which to impose any limits other than age and consent on sexual activity. It sweeps in not only homosexuality but also bigamy, incest, sadomasochism, bestiality, necrophilia, and even homicide if it is carried out as a sexual ritual. Are they prepared to argue that these activities are also morally right? Are you prepared to agree with them? It is interesting to see what happens to a society - and its wealth - that tolerates homosexuality. Human events - from the current to ancient history - have taught us the same lesson over and over: Societies that tolerate homosexuality decline in both population and wealth. To see why this is so, take a look at this mathematical model of a society that tolerates homosexuality and the accompanying graph (you may have to scroll down the page). |
|