Johns Hopkins Becomes Latest Battleground On Same-Sex Marriage

There’s controversy brewing at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University over remarks made by designated commencement speaker Dr. Ben Carson. Already a noted critic of the Obama Administration, Carson has compared same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia, and his status as commencement speaker is now in doubt.

Carson has sort-of apologized for his remarks. The pseudo-apology was admirable on two counts—he acknowledged that his wording was poorly chosen, but made no backtracking on the fundamental principle itself.

I would agree that the wording was poorly chosen, and not just for PR-related reasons. There’s no automatic linkage of same-sex marriage to pedophilia and other aberrant practices. The path from Barney Frank to Jerry Sandusky is not inevitable. At least it doesn’t have to be. In a recent post on the redefining of marriage, I said that when same-sex marriage supporters say that don’t want this practice extended further, I’m inclined to believe them.

But in that same post, I added another question, which is relevant again here in the Johns Hopkins case, and it’s this—on what basis do you stop the redefinition of marriage as just being between two people, regardless of gender? The entire crux of the same-sex marriage push has been that these are people in love, and it’s hateful  and intolerant to draw a line at them marrying.

Well then, why is not hateful and intolerant to stop a man from being with a 16-year-old if they’re both “in love”? Why is not hateful and intolerant to stop someone from having four or five wives if everybody’s in love? In short, what is your basis for drawing the line? Or do you believe there is no line? If same-sex marriage supporters believe there is a line, let’s hear it. Or if they believe that all boundaries are hateful and intolerant, let’s hear that.

If there is no line, then the downward path into all kinds of sexual aberrations that I think most same-sex marriage supporters would be horrified by, becomes all too realistic.

In my earlier post, I laid out the case for the line being at a man and a woman, one I believe stands up on non-religious grounds. I won’t reiterate it all here. I will point out that this breaking of boundaries did not start with the same-sex marriage movement. Monsignor Charles Pope, in a thoughtful article, says that the roots of the current crisis were planted long ago, when pleasure started to become the exclusive basis for heterosexual relationships.

Once “being happy” and “being in love” become the accepted norm between a man and a woman, what basis was there to stop the same from being extended to those who experience attraction to those of the same gender? There was none, and to borrow Msgr. Pope’s words, we are now “reaping the whirlwind” of what was sowed long ago. I suspect there are very among us who can claim innocence in this regard.

But in acknowledging that the current climate was prepared for long ago, going back at least to the late 1960s and arguably before, we can find hope. The cultural victories of 2040 and 2050 will be won by laying the groundwork today and regardless of how this plays out in the short-term, that’s where the focus needs to be.

6,004 views

Categories:Marriage

18 thoughts on “Johns Hopkins Becomes Latest Battleground On Same-Sex Marriage

  1. Madeline P. says:

    Supporters of same-sex marriage, and the gay men and women who desire these marriages, may be the “bigots” of 2023, when they protest polygamy and the other marriages identified here, just as supporters of original marriage are being vilified today.

  2. anthony says:

    The four marks of the church says that we are one holy, Catholic, and apostilic church. the church is contradicting its teachings by one not being accepting to the gays and ; the church preaches about love above anything else, yet it denounces gays loving each other.

    1. Joe M says:

      The Church teaches that gay relationships are harmful to the participants. It would not be loving to condone people harming themselves.

  3. Melissa says:

    Although the question of limitation was a good point, the back up comparisons made had nothing to do with gay marriage. Marriage should be thought of not as a baptism where the parents decide the childs fate(arragned marriage/general child marriage) but as a confirmation where the child has grown and matured and is now able to reason on its own to find their own path and come up with their own choices. This is going into a more psychosocial view of the church because an individual has to pass certain stages to be able to make big, life impacting decisions such as the contract of marriage.

  4. Melissa says:

    I believe that the question raised regarding the limitations is a good point however the random comparisions trying to back it up were completely off point. It is obvious that kids can not be married because as stated in the comment above, marriage is like a contract meant never to be broken and minors are not fully done developing to be able to understand the importance. Marriage should not be like a baptism where the parents get to choice(fixed marriage), if not it should be like a confirmation where you are grown and have had time to reflect and deside yourself what to do. This all hints at a more psychosocial issue because a person has to go through different stages to fully develope and be able to make decision that will effect the rest of their lives. So the author’s comparison with clid marriage and gay marriage has nothing to do with each other since in gay marriage both partners are fully developed.

    1. Joe M says:

      Melissa.

      In Arkansas, you must be 19 to marry. Does that mean that 18 year olds in Arkansas are having their constitutional rights violated?

      The problem that Dr. Carson and others are referring to is that the gay marriage movement is arguing that these types of laws can’t be decided by voters.

      Age limits and other definitions are decided by our legislative process and vary between states. If a court decides to strike down the voters right to make those definitions, it creates a legal precedent from which to challenge all of the restrictions created by our legislative process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.