Neil Steinberg Calls Gay Marriage Opposition Sick, Twisted, Inhuman
If the superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments that constitute the sum total of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg's indictment of conservative positions on homosexuality were not so dangerous, they would be laughable.
In a rant in the Sunday Feb. 14 Sun-Times, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to faux same-sex marriages and civil unions as "sick," "twisted sexual" obsessions, "creepy, fixated" fundamentalism, "religious prejudice," "intolerant," and "inhuman."
He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage--sexual complementarity--to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.
Ah, yes, I can hear the mellifluous tones of tolerance wafting through his rhetoric.
One wonders if Mr. Steinberg applies these same epithets and feckless analogies to opposition to jettisoning any of the other defining features of marriage, like the binary requirement, or the blood kinship requirement. Are those who oppose adult consensual incest or polygamy sick, twisted sexual obsessives, and creepy, fixated fundamentalists?
Mr. Steinberg's cliche non-arguments lead me to wonder if he has ever engaged with the substantive arguments of real intellectuals, either in person or through a thorough study of the best writing of conservative scholars. I think not because nary a substantive counter- argument can be found in his thicket of epithets.
Here are some questions for the moral philosopher, Mr. Steinberg:
- Is homosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If so, what is your evidence for that claim?
- Is homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality? If so, what are your justifications for that belief?
- Is marriage an utterly private institution, or does it impact the public good?
- If marriage is an utterly private institution with no impact on the public good, then why is the government involved at all?
- What is the basis of the government's involvement in marriage?
- Is the government in the business of simply affirming affection and sexual desire?
- If so, why not affirm through legal mechanisms like marriage or civil unions the affection and sexual attraction some siblings feel for each other, or the affection and sexual attraction polyamorists feel for multiple people?
- If the government's involvement in the marriage business is wholly severed from supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born, why limit it to two biologically unrelated people. (After all, in Mr. Steinberg's moral universe, no one should be permitted to impose his intolerant, inhuman moral views on others. How very sick and prejudiced it is for anyone to prohibit those who love and want to express that love sexually to their siblings or multiple people. Moreover, how could a marriage between two siblings or five people hurt anyone else's marriage?)
Islam, Orthodox Judaism, The Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations believe that volitional homosexual acts are immoral, and that marriage is by nature a heterosexual union. Before writing another anti-religious screed devoid of intellectual substance, it would behoove Mr. Steinberg to spend some time studying the work of the following scholars:
Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Henri Blocher, Joseph Bottum, Michael L. Brown, Don Browning, D.A. Carson, Tim Challies, Charles Chaput, Mark Dever, Anthony Esolen, Douglas Farrow, John S. Feinberg, David F. Forte, John Frame, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Arthur Goldberg, Wayne Grudem, John Finnis, Harold James, Stanton Jones, Walter Kaiser, Meredith Kline, Peter Kreeft, Daniel Lapin, Al Mohler, Douglas Moo, Russell Moore, Jennifer Roback Morse, Mark Noll, David Novak, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Patrick Henry Reardon, Leland Ryken, Thomas Schreiner, Roger Scruton, Janet E. Smith, Katherine Shaw Spaht, John Stott, Seanna Sugrue, Bruce Ware, Thomas Weinandy, W. Bradford Wilcox, Christopher Wolfe, N.T. Wright, and Ravi Zacharias.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
* Is homosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If so, what is your evidence for that claim?
No, it is ontologically equivalent to heterosexuality
* Is homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality? If so, what are your justifications for that belief?
Yes, in that they are both morally neutral. My 'justification' is that x-sexuality is just an aspect of our biological makeup... such a question is as relevant as asking if right handedness is morally superior to left handedness.
* Is marriage an utterly private institution, or does it impact the public good?
Marriage has both public and private impacts. In the public field Marriage promotes the stability of society by providing legal protections to pair-couplings, which are a more stable unit then single individuals.
* If marriage is an utterly private institution with no impact on the public good, then why is the government involved at all?
See above
* What is the basis of the government's involvement in marriage?
To provide legal support of couples in long term relationships.
* Is the government in the business of simply affirming affection and sexual desire?
No, there is no requirement for either affection or sexual desire in a legally recognized marriage.
* If so, why not affirm through legal mechanisms like marriage or civil unions the affection and sexual attraction some siblings feel for each other, or the affection and sexual attraction polyamorists feel for multiple people?
The incest taboo is a long standing one (though cousins can get married ). Polygamy presents numerous legal issues that are not easily addressed.
* If the government's involvement in the marriage business is wholly severed from supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born, why limit it to two biologically unrelated people. (After all, in Mr. Steinberg's moral universe, no one should be permitted to impose his intolerant, inhuman moral views on others. How very sick and prejudiced it is for anyone to prohibit those who love and want to express that love sexually to their siblings or multiple people. Moreover, how could a marriage between two siblings or five people hurt anyone else's marriage?)
There is no requirement for people to have children in a legal marriage... if that is the sole basis for legal recognition then people who cannot conceive (either from illness/injury or age) should be prohibited from getting married.
And I would agree with his statement that people getting married to their siblings or to a number of other people does would not harm my marriage to a woman .
"Islam, Orthodox Judaism, The Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations believe that volitional homosexual acts are immoral, and that marriage is by nature a heterosexual union."
The point being? The USA is based on secular law , not religious law.
Very nicely put MikcyC and MrBook.
The arguments against gay marriage just seem so ludicrous, mean-spirited and anachronistic. This is the 21st century. Don't people have bigger things to think about? Why obsess over other people's sexuality when there is hunger , third world debt, climate change and such like to ponder?
I wonder whether some religions are making themselves less relevant by continuing to focus on issues that most people made their peace with years ago. Not for the first time, religion is acting as a drag on social progress.
Aside from the list of "scholars" and the usual " religion " rant, there is little to support opposing same sex marriage in this article.
" Is homosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If so, what is your evidence for that claim?"
Is heterosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If it is, then you have your answer about homosexuality.
"Is homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality? If so, what are your justifications for that belief?
Whose morals? Since all cultures and for that matter all people have variations in morals, which do you consider the "right" morals and who's are not? Homosexuality is as moral as heterosexuality to many people.
"Is marriage an utterly private institution, or does it impact the public good?"
Marriage impacts the public good which begs the question as to why anyone would want to stop people from getting married . Marriage has always been a building block of society so it would logically follow that the more married people, the better.
"If marriage is an utterly private institution with no impact on the public good, then why is the government involved at all? "
It does impact the public good and as such it behooves the government to support all those who want to marry, not just a select few with special privileges based on genitalia.
"What is the basis of the government's involvement in marriage? "
Pretty much the same as it has been in all societies and most cultures. It is there to encourage stability in couples and families and provide for the support and protection of children of such unions . Obviously, we should want that for all people, not just a select group.
"Is the government in the business of simply affirming affection and sexual desire? "
Since no marriage requires any type of sexual desire or any type of sexual activity, I fail to see this as a logical question.
"If so, why not affirm through legal mechanisms like marriage or civil unions the affection and sexual attraction some siblings feel for each other, or the affection and sexual attraction polyamorists feel for multiple people? "
Once again, since no "affection" or sexual attraction is required for legal civil marriage, this question has no basis in reality. Certainly there are those who wish to marry based on "love" but it isn't a requirement by any state or government. Polygamy, polyandry etc are separate issues one embraced by the LDS church . Many religions around the world still support those types of marriages but that really isn't the discussion for today.
"If the government's involvement in the marriage business is wholly severed from supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born, why limit it to two biologically unrelated people. (After all, in Mr. Steinberg's moral universe, no one should be permitted to impose his intolerant, inhuman moral views on others. How very sick and prejudiced it is for anyone to prohibit those who love and want to express that love sexually to their siblings or multiple people. Moreover, how could a marriage between two siblings or five people hurt anyone else's marriage?)"
I personally have no problem with two related people getting married. First cousins can marry currently in half of the US States and Second cousins in all US states. Marriage does not require procreation or even the intention of procreation in this country. That being said, many same sex couples have children either biologically or through adoption , which begs the question as to why they are being discriminated against by not being allowed to have married parents. If marriage is important to the welfare of children, shouldn't it be important to the welfare of ALL children regardless of their parent's choices?
In the end, all the Illinois Family institute has to support it's cause are personal religious grounds which as we know can not be forced on the population as a whole. If the Illinois family institute wishes to address logical reasons to oppose same sex marriage devoid of personal "ick" factors, personal prejudice and religious dogma, then let's see it. I see NO logic in any of this article.