Visionaries,
Susanna wonders why we cannot just continue to recognize marriage as contractual monogamy, expanding it only with regard to the sex of the spouses? She says she can light a cigarette without starting a forest fire, and should also be able to marry her same-sex partner without exposing herself to the unwanted attentions of King Fahd.
This is only the case when the logic used to justify the same/sex marriage does not apply equally well to other alternative unions. But this logic can be used just as readily by them. If Wilson does not get to impose his morality on homosexuals, then why do the homosexuals want him to be able to impose it on polygamists? Some citizens don’t want marriage restricted to heteros. Other citizens don’t want it restricted to couples. By what standard do we make decisions about marriage law? Is it religious? Secular? Pragmatic? What standard do you want imposed, and why? All law is imposed morality. What morality do you want to impose — and why are you so sure you are right?
Justin says that equality is his standard and is backed by the United States Constitution. Which in its turn is suspended in midair on a great epistemological sky hook. What was your standard, Justin, when the Constitution was okay with slavery?
Chad says that the whole issue revolves around consent. So tell us — at what age does sexual consent become possible? Should teenagers be legally permitted to experiment with their sexuality? Are you guys abstinence crusaders now?
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.