What Homosexuals Find Offensive

Written by Scott Pruett

A few years ago I happened to catch an episode of Larry King Live where the issue of same-sex marriage was being debated. The participants included such notables as conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager, author and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson, as well as former (and openly homosexual) talk show host Charles Perez. One point in the discussion particularly caught my attention. It included the following dialog:

The Homosexual Agenda

PRAGER: I'd like to ask Marianne [who has ceremonially joined homosexual couples in the past]: would you marry an adult brother and sister who loved each other?
WILLIAMSON: No, I would not.

PRAGER: Why not? Why isn't their spirituality honored by you?

WILLIAMSON: Well, I don't really know. I would have to think about how to answer that, Dennis, but I would say that you know in your heart and every viewer knows that that's a whole different kind of question.

. . .

PEREZ: I am insulted by this brother-sister thing you keep bringing up.

PRAGER: I don't know why you're insulted.

PEREZ: Because you're talking about an incestual relationship. You're talking about something radically different.

PRAGER: So to you, that is ugly. To [others], your thing is ugly.{1}

It was a significant point but, unfortunately, not one that the same-sex marriage advocates on this show sought to pursue – the subject was quickly changed. Since then, I have seen various exchanges of this sort – I've engaged in some myself – and the response when this point is raised is always much the same as that offered by Williamson and Perez, and seldom any further elaborated.

Let me summarize the challenge being offered here. Homosexuals wish to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. While we are in the business of redefining marriage couldn't we also include brother-sister pairs, three or more partners, or even cross-species arrangements? And this is not just a rhetorical question; there are indeed advocates for such things.

Now, there are actually two possible responses that homosexuals could give. The first would be to say that they have no real objections; if someone wants to pursue such things then they should have the right to do so. The second response would be to grant that some or all of these things are actually immoral. The fact that they react by either taking offense or scrambling to divorce their position from these things implies that they are making the latter response. The real trick is to get them to offer up a reason why they think this is so.

The closest answer I have seen can be paraphrased as follows: "It's 'ridiculous' or 'insulting' because these things are morally out of bounds and not worthy to be compared with homosexuality." But to go beyond this – to clarify the difference or moral concern – is to tie their own noose. To argue against these things is to affirm moral principles that can be turned back upon their own position. Their own usual arguments – "no one's being hurt," "it's a civil rights issue," "as long as there's consent," "it's a matter of love" – must be trampled down in the process.

Now, you will not find a group who are more keen than the gay community to use the language of inclusion. Terms like "tolerance," "diversity," and "freedom of expression" are deeply rooted in their vocabulary. But this is all just bluster if they are not willing to share these sentiments with people of other persuasions; they are exercising the same intolerance and discrimination against these people as they accuse others of practicing against them.

Given that broad inclusivism is most consistent with their own philosophy – not to mention the prevailing spirit of moral relativism – why don't they just concede that these other arrangements are equally legitimate and disarm this whole challenge? I think the reasons for this are twofold.

First, in spite of everything homosexuals may say and believe to the contrary they cannot deny their moral intuitions, which these other lifestyles manage to violate. Yet, to many in our society, homosexuality seems morally outrageous and a violation of the self-evident natural order for sexuality. Why would homosexuals think these other "orientations" deviant but not their own? I'm sure that the advocates for polygamy, incest, or bestiality can make equally impassioned use of the homosexual's own arguments for a genetic cause or misunderstandings regarding Scriptural condemnations. Perhaps it is merely because these particular desires and temptations are not their own that homosexuals fail to muster sympathy for them, or at least to lack the incentive to stand up for them.

Second, they don't want to risk spoiling the soup by revealing just how extreme their position is, or by providing a peek at the end of the road down which they are intent on traveling. Any public sympathy they do have will quickly turn against them if they allow the logical conclusions of their moral philosophy to face public scrutiny.

It has been well said that the institution of marriage is not defined by society; it is simply recognized by it. By once "redefining" it, it essentially becomes nothing at all – it is completely relativized. The natural, objective definition and boundary for marriage is lifted, and in its place comes an arbitrary social construction. But when this is accomplished, what is to stop it from evolving, and what "objective" measure can be offered to constrain the drift? The real question is whether homosexuals do not understand this or if they are simply refusing to admit it.

So, the next time you are faced with a defender of the gay agenda, offer this same challenge to them. If they reject the legitimacy of these other groups, welcome them to the ranks of the intolerant, narrow-minded, and judgmental – they are essentially in the same club as us conservatives, and we are all just squabbling over membership requirements. But if they won't reject these other groups then God help us all, because in the world of libertarian freedoms and socially defined morality that they are advocating, what taboos can ultimately stand? And even those things guarded by such feeble, arbitrary qualifiers as "consent" and "no harm" may be defined away when the wrong people are in control of the social machinery.

1. Larry King Live, March 9, 2000

Related Articles: