In the final analysis, same-sex marriage is an aggressive act of social engineering repudiating, by legal fiat, the natural and singular role heterosexual unions perform in civilization. By equating same-sex unions with heterosexual unions, it changes culture at its core. Three things rapidly follow.
First, homosexuality will officially and legally be declared normal, even if most cultures disagree. Second, anyone continuing to make the gender distinctions dictated by nature will run afoul of a law dictated by men. third, the definition of marriage will continue to expand as the state continues to tinker.
Those opposing homosexuality will be legally vulnerable. Adoption legislation, rights of association, religious practices, freedom of speech, issues of conscience all will suffer harm. Marriage, family, and parenthood will continue to be redefined. Polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and other creative variations will be justified by the same legal logic. These things are already beginning to happen in this country and around the world. And what's to stop them? Why would anyone think we can take an axe to the roots of civilization and not suffer consequences?
Challenge #10: How Will it Hurt Me?
Legislating Approval
Ultimately, same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It's about validation and social approval. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Even so, homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Though not universally approved of, homosexuals have the liberty to live as they choose without fear of reprisal. This is all anyone has a right to demand.
The Policy Issue
Rhetorical Considerations: First, the issue in question is same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. The difference is critical rhetorically, even if the same people are in view. With regards to the policy issue, the government does not care about sexual preference; it cares about gender. Homosexual individuals can already get married, as we'll see. Describing it as "gay marriage" gives the impression that the animus is against the sexual preference rather than a concern about the genders involved. Second, there is no "ban" on same-sex marriage; there simply is no legal provision for it. The use of "banning" terminology is imprecise and misleadingly casts homosexuals as victims singled out for exclusion. The state is not hostile to same-sex relationships, but neither does it promote them because it has no reason to do so. Finally, let no one get away with simple name-calling in responding to this issue. This guide raises principled objections to same-sex marriage that are in no way related to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, or intolerance. Responding with an ad hominem attack is not just bad manners, it's bad thinking. Bigotry, intolerance, and narrow-mindedness have no bearing on whether adopting same-sex marriage in our culture is a good idea as a policy concern.
The Meaning of Marriage
Marriage is not defined; it is described. Marriage is not invented by man, rather it is rooted in nature and a fixed feature of the natural order. Marriage relationships produce the next generation. Families consisting of a father and a mother are building blocks of society. This description has dictated the structure of every civilization from the beginning of time. Thus, changing language or laws doesn't change reality. Same-sex marriage never occurred until now because it was a contradiction in terms. Such unions would not be marriages even if declared so because nature decrees otherwise. Marriage licenses don't create marriages, they simply "map over" the natural institution already there from the beginning. Governments don't create marriages, so they can't ultimately redefine them. Governments can only cause damage by interfering with marriage instead of cooperating with its natural purpose.