What do you think they will be?
Let’s imagine the Constitution is amended to allow for gay marriage. What will be the cultural and political consequences, and why do you think that these things would happen?
Well, I think it’s kind of secondary, which incidentally is a point mentioned by Edward Feser in the opening chapter of his
The Last Superstition.
The primary thing is that homosexuality
is itself a moral evil, and this would be true even if there were no ruinous social consequences of homosexuality. If sodomy made flowers spring from everyone’s noses, it’d still be evil. So state-subsidized sodomy (i.e., evil) is a special form of evil: it amounts to a kind of compelled complicity in evil.
Unfortunately, the rate of stability in two-parent, two-gender families is woefully small.
OK, so it’s worth asking: why is that so?
Well, we know why it’s so. The state liberalized “divorce,” and did so on grounds similar to what you’re suggesting should be used to legalize gay “marriage.”
As you point out, this has been absolutely ruinous for families. So clearly, the solution is to get rid of it. Legislate divorce away, and legislate into effect ruinous consequences for parents who destroy their families for no good reason. That’s not even a theological issue at this point. Divorce has done extraordinary harm to society and introduced nothing substantively good.
It surprises me that gay “marriage” advocates always say this, and it surprises me because it’s not really a good or even particularly interesting argument. Somehow the logic goes:
- Heterosexuals divorce a lot.
- ???
- Therefore gay marriage.
Sorry, but I don’t see it. The same people who say the heterosexual divorce crisis somehow legitimates gay “marriage” are the same ones who precipitated the heterosexual divorce crisis in the first place – i.e., liberals, with the complicity of mainstream Protestants and heterodox Catholics. Obviously, these people should not be trusted with any more power than they’ve already been given, since everything they touch turns to ****.
Look, it’s like this. Suppose I have a dishwasher with two factory settings: A and B. On A, the dishwasher cleans my dishes. One day, I decide to turn it to B. It melts my dishes and spews dirty water all over the kitchen. Is it rational for me to decide that this proves that A wasn’t really all that good, since the second I moved away from A, bad things happened, therefore I must keep at B forever and wait until things improve? Because that’s kind of the logic here – as soon as we legalized divorce, people started divorcing, therefore traditional marriage never worked in the first place and state-subsidized sodomy for everyone!! Err, no.
Obviously, it’s not a very sound way of thinking. A worked. B doesn’t. Therefore we should abandon B and go back to A, unless we want to deal with spewing jets of dirty water and molten ceramic. Likewise, traditional family structures worked (that’s why they’re “traditional” and not “peculiar to a particular place at a particular time”), and all the ruinous innovations introduced largely by perverts to satisfy their obscene lusts without social consequence haven’t worked, i.e., they’ve given us broken families, feminized poverty, homeless/illiterate kids, etc. Among certain subcultures where this nonsense has hit the worst (i.e., American blacks), the effect has been absolutely ruinous – a whole generation of American blacks have been left effectively fatherless (the illegitimacy rate being north of 75%), a sizable portion of which has wound up murdered or in prison. People deserve a better and saner social order than that. They deserve to have one that reflects basic considerations about human nature rather than gnostic (and frankly Satanic) ideas about what human nature ought to be, ought to look like – if only we were gods! So perhaps we should throw the perverts in jail or burn them at the stake or something and go back to traditional family structures like every other sane, healthy society for, like, the entire history of mankind.
Of different genders of course.