Frank Turek often participates in debates over the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. I’ve never seen him in such debates, but I’d be willing to bet that he uses arguments as illogical as the ones he uses in this Townhall column arguing against marriage equality.
The government has only three options in addressing human behavior. It can prohibit a behavior, it can permit a behavior or it can promote a behavior—the three P’s.
Our laws prohibit sexual relationships such as polygamy, incest and pedophilia. They permit homosexual relationships and non-marital heterosexual relationships. And due to the immense benefits the committed union of a man and a woman brings society, our laws promote marriage between a man and woman. (Notice any two people in our society are alreadypermitted to commit themselves to one another until death do them part. Since they don’t need the government to do that, this debate is not about tolerance. Same-sex relationships are already tolerated.)
No, it’s not about tolerance. It’s about equality. Those aren’t the same thing. And yes, society does get immense benefits from straight people getting married. But since allowing gay people to get married doesn’t do anything at all to reduce that benefit to society or the benefits that straight couples get for getting married, why is this claim at all relevant? Government does give enormous benefits to married couple. Does he think that straight couples won’t get married if gay couples get those same benefits? Are they that petty and shallow?
Some will ignore those biological realities and object, “But men and women are the same so there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships!”If that were true, no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. The very fact people demand same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different. If men and women were the same, no one would be spending time and energy trying to get same-sex marriage approved. They would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it.
That’s a lovely straw man you’re beating up there, Frank. And he seems to like eating word salad (that second paragraph is so incoherent that it looks like he put a Madlibs game in a food processor). The argument for marriage equality has precisely nothing to do with the idea that “men and women are the same.” And do you really want gay people marrying members of the opposite sex? That’s very unhealthy for everyone involved, especially if they have children. No one should want that to become the norm again.
And this argument that the law does not discriminate because everyone is equally free to marry someone of the opposite sex is absurd. It’s the same argument that was used in Loving v Virginia, that the laws against interracial marriage did not discriminate because everyone was equally prohibited from marrying someone of another race. It was a moronic argument then and it still is.