page 23
 
Further, they will dismiss all discussion of "moral" issues; in fact, they will point to this legislation as authority for the proposition that there is no one moral ideal, and they will question the authority of government to assert certain moral claims in the area of human sexuality and family. (These arguments are already being made.19) Will these people prevail soon? Probably not. But we can expect them to persist, just as homosexual activists have persisted in changing laws.

Do Advocates of Same-Sex Unions Have Any Legitimate Concerns?

The answer is "yes," but not enough to warrant a change in the definition of marriage. For example, all people should be allowed to designate a close friend or relative who can visit them in a hospital or who would be in charge of their remains when they die. But to make those changes does not require adopting same-sex marriage or abandoning the definition or ideal of marriage. These privileges should be available to anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation and regardless of the presence or absence of sexual activity in their lives.



19 A double issue of the academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) was devoted entirely to a discussion of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives." In an article entitled "'The Main Thing Is Being Wanted': Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children," Chin-Keung Li, PhD, reported that about one third of his informants who exhibited pedophilic tendencies felt they were born that way. "This understanding of the innate nature of their pedophilic desire underlies my informants' feeling that they cannot change, and that they have the same right as people who are born otherwise to pursue the expression of their sexuality." Id. 133.


Return to Mars Hill Forum #67
Questions from the Audience