Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage
The Dennis Prager Show ^ | October 30, 2012 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 10/31/2012 3:05:54 PM PDT by iowamark

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.

That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?

When added to Americans' aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.

Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?

The answer is that one can -- namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?

Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.

There are two responses:

First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or "gender" as it is now referred to) are analogous.

They are not.

While there are no differences between black and white human beings, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral.

Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism was advocated by every great moral thinker. Moses, for example, married a black woman, the very definition of Catholic is "universal" and therefore diverse and has always included every race, and the equality of human beings of every race was a central tenet of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other world religions. But no one - not Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Aquinas, Gandhi, not the Bible or the Koran or any other sacred text, nor even a single anti-religious secular thinker of the Enlightenment -- ever advocated redefining marriage to include members of the same sex.

To argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is immoral is to argue that every moral thinker, and every religion and social movement in the history of mankind prior to the last 20 years in America and Europe was immoral. About no other issue could this be said. Every moral advance has been rooted in prior moral thinking. The anti-slavery movement was based on the Bible. Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost the "Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." and he regularly appealed to the moral authority of the scriptures when making his appeals on behalf of racial equality. Same-sex marriage is the only social movement to break entirely with the past, to create a moral ideal never before conceived. It might be right, but it might also be an example of the moral hubris of the present generation, the generation that created the self-esteem movement: After all, you need a lot of self-esteem to hold yourself morally superior to all those who preceded you.

We now return to our two primary questions.

Is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn't. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage.

But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals.

So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived -- indeed completely changing its intended meaning -- is good for society.

It isn't.

The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage.

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.

Some examples of this war on gender:

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.

It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today.

And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be a someone of the same sex. "Will you marry a boy or a girl?" will be the only non-bigoted way to ask a young person about their marital plans.

The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking." That explains, for example, the entitlement state. It sounds noble and seems noble. But the long-term consequences are terrible: economic ruin, a demoralized population, increasing selfishness as people look to the state to take care of their fellow citizens, and more.

By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - unsustainable dependency and debt -- so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren - gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.

It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.

There are reasons no moral thinker in history ever advocated same-sex marriage.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa; US: Maine; US: Maryland; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes; sodomy

1 posted on 10/31/2012 3:05:54 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Why should anyone be fair to coprophiles?


2 posted on 10/31/2012 3:14:08 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Lots of dancing around here, but hard to get around the base fact: Marriage is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Re-writing the dictionary, trying to change language, does nothing to change this fact. It is and will continue to be an affirmation by the government of a religious ceremony. If the government believes it no longer has an interest in regulating this ceremony and issuance from it, it can get out of the business.

Shame Romney didn’t take this line, and instead starting handing out marriage licenses to those who aren’t qualified.


3 posted on 10/31/2012 3:15:19 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I think it’s perfectly fair to sinners to tell them we won’t help them sin, especially against the will of others.


4 posted on 10/31/2012 3:15:23 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis...


5 posted on 10/31/2012 3:16:23 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (cat dog, cat dog, alone in the world is a little cat dog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

That’s easy - because there’s nothing good about “same-sex marriage”.


6 posted on 10/31/2012 3:17:41 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue... -- Dennis Prager

That's utterly absurd, Dennis. There never are good people on the side of evil. Period. There are clear, unambiguous moral absolutes and any tolerance of this abomination (as defined by God Almighty) is indefensible.

7 posted on 10/31/2012 3:23:07 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

he’s making this way too hard


8 posted on 10/31/2012 3:28:16 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Marriage also is limited by age and blood relation. If "what the partners want" is the only criteria we can use, then marriage has to be allowed between consenting people of any age and any blood relation, such as two brothers, two sisters, a father and his 12-year-old daughter. Even if we leave sexual relations illegal between these people, we would have to legalize marriage, since same-sex marriage tells us that the kind of sexual relations you have have no bearing on whether you can get married or not.

His best points are quoted below. These are the inevitable results of legalized same-sex marriage. They are still possible results otherwise, but legalizing same-sex marriage makes it totally impossible to win any fight against the below.

It will mean that those who, for religious or other reasons, wish to retain the man-woman definition of marriage will be legally and morally as isolated as racists are today.

And it will mean that teachers and other adults who ask little boys and girls who they would like to marry, will, in order to be in sync with the morality of our times, have to make it clear that it might be a someone of the same sex. "Will you marry a boy or a girl?" will be the only non-bigoted way to ask a young person about their marital plans.

9 posted on 10/31/2012 3:28:58 PM PDT by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
That’s easy - because there’s nothing good about “same-sex marriage”.

Nothing?

To the degree that it cuts down on promiscuity and the spread of STD, it's "good".

I believe that is what is called 'damning with faint praise'...

10 posted on 10/31/2012 3:34:54 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1380 of the Obama Regime - Barack Hussein Obama an enemy BOTH foreign AND domestic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
"Because only G-d gets to define Marriage"

Jeepers.

11 posted on 10/31/2012 3:36:32 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0BAMA CHOSE to watch a MUSLIM SNUFF FILM rather than a HEROIC AMERICAN RESCUE FILM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

The simple definition for marriage is that it’s an institution which offers a model to society of the reproductive family unit. Marriage is all about encouraging responsible reproduction. If there was no such thing as reproduction, there would be no need for marriage to exist. It makes absolutely no sense at all for a society to encourage homosexuality or incest. There is no benefit to be had for society from those activities.


12 posted on 10/31/2012 3:37:55 PM PDT by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

(wiping tears of laughter from eyes)

You really think homosexual relationships are monogamous?


13 posted on 10/31/2012 3:41:39 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Because He made them male and He made then female for His own purpose.


14 posted on 10/31/2012 3:41:52 PM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Trying to figure the logic of the headline.
There is no such thing as same sex marriage, there is civil unions which should be any two people (or more) agreeing on some sort of ‘union’.
Marriage is and will always be something God ordained between ONE man and ONE woman.
Marriage is a representation of Christ and His church.


15 posted on 10/31/2012 3:42:38 PM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
To the degree that it cuts down on promiscuity and the spread of STD, it's "good".

By institutionalizing a model of homosexual relationships that children will be taught at the youngest ages, homosexuality will be encouraged. More homosexuality in society is almost certain to increase promiscuity. I'm pretty sure I've seen studies that say, married or not, there's no such thing as a monogamous homosexual male. And promoting monogamy among homosexual females would have little effect on the transmission of STDs since they are far less likely than heterosexuals or homosexual males to transmit disease.

Also, promoting abstinence from premarital sex, if 100% successful, would stop the spread of STDs almost dead in its tracks. So why don't I see the same people who promote homosexual marriage promoting abstinence?

16 posted on 10/31/2012 3:47:55 PM PDT by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Do you understand what "TO THE DEGREE THAT" and "DAMNING WITH FAINT PRAISE" mean?

Besides, do you really think even all heterosexual relationships are monogamous?

17 posted on 10/31/2012 3:48:43 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1380 of the Obama Regime - Barack Hussein Obama an enemy BOTH foreign AND domestic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Poor guy, doesn’t even know what marriage is.

Next he’ll be debating with himself whether people should be allowed to keep unicorns as pets.


18 posted on 10/31/2012 3:49:49 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

“he’s making this way too hard”

Prager is from CA. He goes after people who have accepted the liberal premise.


19 posted on 10/31/2012 3:52:47 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
So why don't I see the same people who promote homosexual marriage promoting abstinence?

Yep. Why indeed?

And promoting monogamy among homosexual females would have little effect on the transmission of STDs since they are far less likely than heterosexuals or homosexual males to transmit disease.

With the exception of HIV, I'm not aware of any STDs that lesbians are less likely to spread than normal people. Enlighten me.

20 posted on 10/31/2012 3:53:37 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1380 of the Obama Regime - Barack Hussein Obama an enemy BOTH foreign AND domestic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Understanding Marriage
21 posted on 10/31/2012 6:37:16 PM PDT by alphamainetv.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Abundy; Albion Wilde; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; bayliving; BFM; cindy-true-supporter; ...

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


22 posted on 10/31/2012 7:27:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Opponents of same-sex marriage also ask:

If homosexual, why not cousins? Why not brothers and sisters? Why not multiple partners?

Why allow homos but not cousins to marry?

Until you fight for cousins’ rights to marriage - which are specifically banned - you aren’t truly about “being fair” or “open”. You’re in it only for yourselves/homos.


23 posted on 10/31/2012 8:12:16 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Cousin marriage is a bad analogy.

First cousins may legally marry with no restrictions in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.

Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah, and Wisconsin allow first cousins to marry under certain circumstances.

The rest of the states have prohibited it. However, as far as I know, none of them refuse to recognize as valid cousin marriages that were performed in the states where it is legal.


24 posted on 10/31/2012 8:42:29 PM PDT by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The United States of Fairness. How can that go wrong?


25 posted on 10/31/2012 8:54:13 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; ...
RE :”That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public’s attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?”

Is it fair that opposite sex couples in most situations can marry one another, but same sex couples ‘in love’ are not allowed?

Well..

Is it fair that most opposite sex couples under 40 can reproduce naturally, but same sex couples ‘in love’ can not?
Is nature fair? Should we pass a law to make it fairer?

This is what you get when morons vote.

26 posted on 10/31/2012 9:03:26 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is still a liberal. Just watch him. (Obama-ney Care ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hepsabeth

No it’s not. It’s a valid law in most states and widely-assumed premise everywhere. The point is close-family relations is anathema as is polygamy and under-age. There are laws on the books. Meanwhile I’m unaware of ANY old laws that specifically prohibit male-male/female-female marriage - that was just assumed!


27 posted on 10/31/2012 9:19:10 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; iowamark; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker
This is what you get when morons vote.

gullible voters are the tools of evil in our decaying Republic, as well as in every civilization in history...

queer *marriage* is akin to a square circle...God defined the terms, if it isnt *fair* then these morons need to argue with Him...

we can legislate marriage to the extent that we can legislate against the law of gravity...sure, we can manipulate it a bit, but we cant change the fundamental nature of it...

our society/culture is on the backside [pun intended] of the toilet trap, and the sucking sound is the next flush thats pushing us down the line toward the tank...

28 posted on 11/01/2012 2:28:44 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; Impy; DarthVader; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; NFHale; All

“This is what you get when morons vote.”

Bring back the Poll Tax!!!


29 posted on 11/01/2012 6:05:01 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Glove don't fit, but it's better than a burqa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

you can pass a million laws and it still wont change nature


30 posted on 11/01/2012 6:06:38 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


31 posted on 11/01/2012 7:12:08 AM PDT by sauropod (For Barack so loved the poor, he created millions more of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

I think everyone here is being too hard on Dennis. I think he makes a compelling argument that is best suited for our friends and family that may disagree with our conservative stance on marriage.

This is pretty much how I’ve argued it in the past and I’ve had great success. People who are not practicing or religious tend to shut down when presented with any moral argument based on religion.


32 posted on 11/01/2012 8:07:47 AM PDT by Skeez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skeez

Agreed. It was a pretty good piece. 1 I will post to my ultra-lib cousins when they Facebook me garbage like “Isn’t Obama’s Health Care Wonderful?”


33 posted on 11/01/2012 9:06:14 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: null and void
To the degree that it cuts down on promiscuity and the spread of STD, it's "good".

Well then I am sure you would support monogamous pedophiles as well....

You employ moral relative argument. There are absolute truths that one can not simply compromise away.

34 posted on 11/01/2012 9:32:21 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Ever hear the phrase “damning with faint praise”?


35 posted on 11/01/2012 10:06:31 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1381 of the Obama hostage crisis - Barack Hussein Obama an enemy BOTH foreign AND domestic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

Repeal the 19th!! That will end this so called gender gap!

In all seriousness, basic intelligence test should be required, and the test conducted in English.


36 posted on 11/02/2012 4:28:50 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson