Sunday, August 26, 2012

Lucia There is no conservative case for same-sex marriage

Today David Farrar has written a post entitled The conservative case for same-sex marriage, an oxymoron if I ever heard one. I've heard these so called conservative arguments a number of times, and basically they boil down to, if marriage is so great for society, then why not expand it?

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

If only we human beings had the power to redefine reality that Theodore Olsen, whom David Farrar quotes, assumes we have! This assumption that by expanding the definition of marriage, it somehow magically confers its benefits upon those who were naturally excluded is silly - reality doesn't work that way!

It's not that conservatives have decided upon a definition of marriage, and by deciding that definition, think it somehow creates the ultimate relationship! We know we don't have that sort of power - why don't liberals get that? For instance, we know it is not possible to confer the benefits of being a twenty year old, physically fit young man upon an eighty year old woman by decree. I cannot state that it is so, and it be so. Neither can Parliament. Sure, we can pretend that an eighty year old woman is capable of everything that a twenty year old man is, but that only changes how we think about the eighty year old woman, not what the woman is in reality. So it is with same-sex couples. We can say that they are married, and pretend that it is so, but in reality they will not be, and because of that reality, the benefits of marriage will not be conferred to them. That's just the way it is.

Marriage works best when defined as a lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman that is open to raising children, ie the Conjugal Definition. That definition is being the best definition of marriage. Children do best when raised in this sort of society where most people live by this ideal of marriage. So, expanding the definition will do nothing to confer that benefit upon those who are naturally excluded. It's silly to even argue that it will, and it's ridiculous to suggest that conservatives should support such a pretense!

David then quotes Olsen on history and interracial marriages, implying such marriages were illegal forever and thus implicitly throwing a spanner in the works of traditionalists who aren't awake.

It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

As if history began 40 years ago and only in the US! Interracial marriages have been recognised for millenia. The United States antimiscegenation laws are the historical anomaly, and they were about who was allowed to marry, not what marriage was essentially about. More silly arguments.

The rest of David's post just builds on all of this, so I'm not going to go into it in detail. I just want to finish with the statement that there is no conservative case for same-sex marriage, because conservatives don't seek to pretend that we can change reality like liberals do. Even if they try to give us potentially compelling reasons to pretend, we still can't. Sorry, we are just not wired that way.

Conservatives deal with reality, not make-believe.

13 comment(s):

Andrei said...

Nobody can give a rational reason why this radical change to the understanding of marriage is necessary.

Sure they can spew forth meaningless slogans about "equality" but when you break them down they mean exactly nothing.

Indeed the paws of Satan's deceit are all over this

Lucia Maria said...


The most rational it gets, is, "it's not fair" and "discrimination"!

This whole thing of trying to bend truth so that conservatives accept a redefinition is absurd, and I'm finding it's starting to annoy me as an argument.

Anonymous said...

This is how relevant you and your views are LM. Your attempt at a definitive response to Farrar's post yesterday (last glance - 120+ comments) draws only two comments. One from your blog's co-host, and one from yourself. A self-aware person just might draw some conclusions from that.

Ciaron said...

Ohhh, 120+ comments at the troll farm... SFW?

ZenTiger said...

Justin might be right. These views are not relevant to a baying mob. Stand back and let them hang the institution of marriage, and kill it good.

The traditional family is the real casualty here though, and children have no right to be raised by both a mother and a father, should they get past the first hurdle of no right to live once conceived.

Indeed, it is politically incorrect to suggest that there are even differences between men and women. It's therefore politically incorrect to note these differences are complimentary in nature, and that consequently a union in marriage is something to be promoted as a social good.

All this is to be thrown away, and the slow but steady decline in society will continue unabated as we ensure the highest good in society is based on how people feel, not how they should act.

And Justin wants to make it clear that 120+ comments on Kiwiblog is the standard for evaluating the validity of a proposition

Jeremy Harris said...


I find it no coincidence that bills regarding "gay marriage", killing our elderly and calling it compassion, gay adoption and (I'm guessing) a soon to be announced end to the legal challenge to abortion on demand, are occuring at the same time.

The post-Christian reality is here. The retreat into paganism and barbarity the Romans would have blushed about is almost complete.

When Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire many monks took vows of poverty and went into the desert to focus on love and charity, they feared being corrupted by the amalgam of Church and State. It's time for us to focus on these things again, 1 on 1 discipleship, love and charity within the Church in a more universal way then we currently practise.

Sure, we'll continue to have public debate about these matters but lets not expect anyone to regain common sense about such issues, we'll have the debate because it's the right thing to do, undergo the persecution and put our trust in God.

KG said...

Perhaps Justin shapes his whole worldview and morality based on the number of comments in a leftist blog?
In which case he deserves our sympathy. :-)

Anonymous said...

Actually, no: part of my "world view" is formed by reading this blog. Delightful topics such as "IVF is Immoral", together with counteless other selective references to biblical text to justify extreme views have taught me that I do not want to be smug, patronising, arrogant, judgmental and largely without a shred of compassion. So thank you LM et alia for showing me how not to be like you all.

Ciaron said...

Did you actually read and comprehend the posts, or did you just take a knee jerk reaction from the title and run with that?

Anonymous said...

Oh yes - I read the posts alright. I even commented on the disgraceful "IVF is Immoral" offerings. I read most of the posts on this blog with a mounting sense of dismay, for I cannot believe that fellow Christians (yes, I am one: born, raised and extremely proud of it) can espouse such judgmentally cruel and narrow views. As I think I said on the IVF post, that view (and by extension those which are similarly framed) do not represent the Christian values that I was brought up with; that my family and my friends still live by and - so far as I can tell - most Christian New Zealanders prefer to live by also. The small number of regular commenters here suggest strongly to me that your views are rightfully to be shunned.

I fully expect someone else to have the last word, and to sarcastically condemn me as unintelligent or shallow. Cue Andrei, KG et alia.

Lucia Maria said...


A surviving IVF child, whose siblings didn't get the opportunity to be born. That's one of the primary reasons it's immoral, because more children are made than can be born. One or two are born, the rest are aborted, frozen or disposed of.

I don't condemn you, of course, as you had no choice as to how you were conceived.

And I'm the one who has judgmentally cruel and narrow views? Is the only way to be a good person in your world, a person who says nothing and allows everything. Oh, you want to kill yourself, that's nice. Oh you want to create 20 embryos, but only have one baby, congratulations. Granny is getting old and senile, so we need to put her down, where do I send the flowers?

Is that the type of Christian you are used to, Justin? Would those sorts of views make you feel more comfortable here?

If my views are to be shunned, then what are you still doing here?

Matthew said...

Well put questions Cairon, Zen Tiger and Lucia. For the record they stand unanswered. The real issue is if course, our human heart and its tendency towards wickedness.

Justin, as a Christian I have one question for you: Do you believe one day that Jesus will judge everyone in the Final Judegment and we all will be eternally (i.e. forever, without end) put into one of two groups?

ds said...

Justin is being very honest, note he does not respond to your argument or say its false instead he pionts out its unpopular.

In otherwords the argument is, I have the cool popular views you don't.

As to what kind of Christian is Lucia, actually orthodox Catholic which means she holds the official teaching of the largest Christian denomination in the world, and most of the views she expounds are historically accepted by the other main denomination and have been for millennia. If Justin has never ran into this kind of Christian you live in a cultural and historical bubble.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.