Teaser from the next issue of Salvo–Interview with Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute

Ok, I may get in trouble for posting this early, but it’s really good and it also addresses something that is very much in the news these days (see previous post by Terrell Clemmons).

You’ve become a go-to person on the topic of same-sex marriage. People often argue that we should just let same-sex couples do what they want, since they’re not hurting anyone. What do you say to them?

We actually are allowing them to do whatever they want. What we’re not allowing them to do is redefine the institution of marriage to be a genderless institution. We’re not allowing them to take over the primary institution of society, which defines parenthood and defines the relationships between the generations.

Many arguments around this issue are confused between the personal, private purposes of marriage and the public purpose of the institution of marriage. The public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. It’s an issue of justice that everybody in society recognizes, that these two people are the parents of the child and nobody else is. Not grandma or the babysitter or a previous boyfriend, or all the people who might possibly show up wanting to be the parent. No. These two people are the parents of the child. That’s what marriage is designed to do: to attach to the biological mother the man who is the father of her child. And the marriage institution has social and legal norms of sexual exclusivity and permanence attached to it. Those are key features of marriage.

If you look at same-sex couples, both at what they say and their behavior, neither permanence nor sexual exclusivity plays the same significant role. In other words, if you’re in a union that’s intrinsically not procreative, sexual exclusivity is not as important. Once you start thinking like that, you’ll see that everything people offer as reasons why same-sex couples should be “allowed” to get married—all of the reasons are private purposes. Sometimes it’s nothing more than how it will make them feel. It’s not the business of law to make people feel a certain way. When you see that redefining marriage is going to, in fact, redefine the meaning of parenthood, removing biology as the basis for parenthood and replacing it with legal constructions—then you see that there is quite a lot at stake in getting the definition of marriage right.

Is this well thought out and logical answer actually hateful? Is it right that a business sharing this view will get bullied around by activist politicians? The answer is of course no. You should check out the Ruth Institute website too.

You should also subscribe to Salvo today so that you can read this entire interview! And check back often for more info on the next issue.

11 thoughts on “Teaser from the next issue of Salvo–Interview with Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute

  1. That answer is not the slam dunk we want it to be :/

    The counter will simply be one women can be artificially incemenated while the spouse, even though not part of the reproduction, will be the legal custodian bound through the legal contract (agreement) of two consenting adults entereing into a loving union recognized by the state…we can high five each other with our intellectual reasoning, but this won’t alter status quo public opinion, you are either for or against…..we’re headed down a slippery slope and will not be able to stop the momentum without looking bigoted….

    The only way to stop these movements is via the Christian worldview…if we cannot even set the Darwinian agenda right, what chance do we have for all the natural consequences that occur when secular progressives make the rules and define what’s rational and reasonable :(

    I stil

    • I’m not sure why you think your example is a counter. I don’t see how it is. In fact, it is these exact sorts of situations that are driving the redefinition of “mother” and “father” as side effects of redefining marriage.

      Not only that, but Dr. Morse has considered the situation from nearly every angle imaginable, including the world-view/religious one. She is a very orthodox Catholic. It’s a mistake to assume her naturalistic defense of marriage is somehow not from God.

      Here is something she wrote that may shed some light on the situation you describe and how it impacts the defintion of “mother” and “father”:

      http://www.marriage-ecosystem.org/gaymarriagefacts.html

  2. ‘Once you start thinking like that, you’ll see that everything people offer as reasons why same-sex couples should be “allowed” to get married—all of the reasons are private purposes. Sometimes it’s nothing more than how it will make them feel. It’s not the business of law to make people feel a certain way.’

    Playing devil’s advocate…the LGBT and other pro-gay advocates will play the equal rights-civil rights issue till they get their way….how do we counter that? this is the crux of the matter, IMHO….thanks! AC

    • I think we can counter that with the original answer that was this blog post. I mean, what else can be done? Giving reasonable answers (yes, sure, lovingly) is the best we can do. When that doesn’t work anymore, the backlash will just happen naturally when the bottom falls out and everyone is miserable and alone and people return to traditional marriage because it actually works as a social good i.e. stable family structure.

      • Yes , I agree….I work in social services and I was told by a worker in a sister agency, child welfare, that sex abuse and child molestation and even child to child sex assaults and gang rapes continue to be prevelant in foster homes and other ‘monitoring’ situations… Very tragic world we find ourselves

  3. Just to clarify the child on child rapes and assaults that are running rampant in the juvinile and child
    Rehab & protection systems are of the homosexual variety….. Wondering if those numbers will continue to rise as homosexuality is normalized (gains widespread acceptance)….very sad…. I guess on second thought I am wrong with my cynicism, it’s worth the fight! In terms of natural health and civil society these are points that should be made, I just don’t think need to
    remove Gods natural order from the equation…. Why can’t we make these arguments with God in the forefront…. Why must God be taken out of these debates, more of a general question for Salvo to chew on, thanks!

  4. Pingback: Signs of the Times | The Blog of Salvo Magazine

Leave a Reply