“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” – Pope Benedict XVI
Morally logical arguments draw from the same wellspring, and as such, they remain consistent. Morally relative arguments draw from multiple well springs, and as such, they are inconsistent. When one argues from a position of relativity, their argument has no foundation aside from that which they themselves have created, or have adopted from another. Given that, inconsistencies arise which must be dealt with. However, rather than deal with the inconsistencies generated by their relativism, many moral relativists simply ignore them, or use circular logic to defend the indefensible.
During a heated debate between CNN’s Chris Cuomo, and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore regarding gay marriage, Cuomo, fed up with Moore’s insistence that our rights are God-given, said:
“Our rights do not come from God. That’s your faith. That’s my faith, but not our country. Our laws come from the collective agreement and compromise.”
In less than thirty words, Cuomo summed up the entirety of moral relativism. Good job, Chris! While Moore was arguing from the standpoint that our rights are inherited from a singular higher being, and thus only pliable within a predetermined framework, Cuomo argued back that it is not a higher power that determines our rights, but rather we who determine our own rights.
This argument–specifically with regard to the debate over gay marriage–has a special relevance. Moore’s belief–which is shared by many of faith across the country–contends that once the definition of marriage is expanded beyond the union of one man, and one woman, the dam will be broken, allowing untold new definitions to arise.
Appearing on Good Morning America, Moore made just such a contention:
“Do they stop with one man and one man or one woman and one woman? Or do they go to multiple marriages? Or do they go to marriages between men and their daughters and women and their sons?“
Moore is correct. More importantly, his argument is logically sound. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, one must also accept that there are other definitions which fall like dominoes after it. These definitions include plural marriage, incestuous marriage, and same-sex incestuous marriage. All of these relationships include men, and women of legal age, and as such, they should be legal, if we are to follow the arguments made by the moral relativists.
SIDE NOTE: There are those who argue that beastiality, and pedophilia follow in the same logical line, but I disagree, due to the ability–or lack thereof–of an animal, or a child to consent to sexual activity in the same manner as an adult. The lack of sentience on the part of an animal, and the lack of development in a child preclude them from this particular logical line. That is an argument for another day, and another form of relativism.
The main argument in support of gay marriage lies in three words: “Love is love.” Proponents of gay marriage argue that sex, and gender are irrelevant because what matters is consent. They contend that it is simply “different love,” but love that isn’t harming anyone because both parties are consenting adults. If this is the case, if all that matters regarding marriage is consent, new definitions must arise.
Plural marriage, polygamy, and bigamy must be legalized, because as long as all participants are of legal age, it is simply different love. Who is it hurting? Incestuous marriage, whether it be between siblings of differing genders, parents and children of same genders, or all variations possible, must be legalized because as long as everyone involved is of legal age, it is simply different love. Who is it hurting?
There are desperate moral relativists who argue that incest can lead to genetically malformed children, and that is the reason it must not be legalized. However, those who support gay marriage generally tend to also support abortion, so to them I say: just abort the messed up kid. Or better yet, use birth control. Problem solved.
Once one argues from a position of relativity which they have created, they cannot tell someone else that their opposing position is wrong. From where, or from whom do they get the authority to do so?
There are those who argue that plural marriage, and incest are wrong simply because they’re “gross.” To them I say: who are you to judge? Are you the arbiter of right, and wrong? And if so, that makes you God. You are not God, so unless you can tell me exactly why they are “gross,” you have no argument.
Ah, but then there are the even more clever relativists who argue that it is not the individual who creates morality, but the culture, and the society. To them, I have just one question: Is slavery wrong? If so, why? Because culture says it is? Well, in the 1700’s, black slavery was widely culturally accepted. According to relativists who argue that it is culture that defines morality, slavery was once morally sound.
So at this time, perhaps plural marriage, or incestuous marriage is viewed unfavorably, and therefore seen as wrong, but in time, should it become popular, will it then be morally right? If one follows the logical through-line of culturally defined morality, one must reply affirmatively “yes.”
Do you believe that you create your own morality? If so, you cannot judge others who create morality that differs from your own. Do you believe culture defines morality? If so, we are merely being directed by changing tides, where nothing is certain forever. Once again, judgment is impossible, because as Ravi Zacharias said: “With no fact as a referent, what is normative is purely a matter of preference.”