Facing Intuitional Convictions: Public Advocacy of One Man, One Woman
Yesterday, I explained that when marriage is reduced to arbitrary reconstruction, it turns out that exclusivity can neither be used of same-sex proponents nor advocates of one man and one woman (OMOW). "Marriage" then becomes useless in meaning. But of course same-sex proponents do not argue the slipper-slope view. They recognize that marriage is something in particular and attributing it to other species or polygomy is an absurd line of reasoning. As I pointed out, the grounds to, at the same time, refute extending the matrimonial status to a father who loves his sister, while at the same time advocating same-sex marriage becomes self-refuting on their own merits.
Before I talk about what it is that homosexuals are actually asking society to do in tomorrows installment, I want to address methods on public advocacy of traditional marriage. How do we effectively persuade our neighbors, strangers, friends, and culture at large in believing that marriage ought to be held between one man and one woman? If you were to make such an argument in public you would be shunned and scorned for not being tolerant. Believing that man and woman were designed together seems almost politically incorrect these days. Is it really intollerant to make such a wild claim? Though to the secular culture it may seem that way, being entitled to our view that marriage is exclusively for male and females is really a modest claim. Notice that we are called intollerant for not being all encompassing in our worlview. Do you see how same-sex proponents are intollerant by their own standard for not encompassing our view.
Society relativism aside, how are we to communicate a viewpoint that speaks to an intuition we inherently have such as innocently taking the life of another without proper justification is wrong? On the surface, and even to its core, recognizing marriage described in culture as OMOW cannot be overlooked. As a society, we've kind of relied on the common sense notion, an intuition, about marriage that served us well. It's difficult, though, when intuitions are challenged. Intuitions are foundational concepts. They are not conclusions that you cite a long line of reasoning that precedes them. They are part of the building blocks of our thinking. In the past, and I still speculate with a majority of society today, their has been an understanding of what marriage entailed: Marriage begins a family. Marriage is not about loving couples. Love does not constitutes a marriage. Now I'm not suggesting that marriage and love be seperate, but one is not the other. Many people who love each other cannot get married, nor should they. For instance, a mother cannot marry her son. Marriage licenses do not require you to love your partner. Of course the two may pledge their love for one another, but the state who issues the license and society who implicitly confirms that relationship, doesn't care whether you love each other or not. You are never asked as a requirement, when applying for a marriage license, if you love each other. It ought to be self-evident that marriage not about love. Now I'm sure some of you may say, "Love is what thrusts many into getting married." You are correct. Being in love, often, is what motivates people to tie the knot. But that does not mean marriage is about love.
I, nor the government and state, are not limiting who can be in love. No one determines who can couple up according to their affections. The objection based on love is an explicit fog claim about privacy, which turns out not true, but it's really an implicit claim about Social approval. By social approval, I mean the government passing law, which then ought to be recognized by the State, and therefore the people. This is where I will pick up tomorrow when I discuss, "Homosexuality: Gaining societal acceptance, NOT private freedom."
Do you have comments, questions, or objections? I welcome you to leave comments or, if you would like, send me a personal email and share your thoughts and convictions.
Cross-blogged at Apologia Christi
Cross-blogged at Apologia Christi