We have been assured that changes to our social contract and guiding moral principles have morphed organically; coincidentally transitioning away from the Christian moorings that held sway for centuries to comport with more pragmatic secular sensibilities. This “evolution” of ethics tends to follow a predictable pattern. Moral imperatives always expand to favour the unbiblical and negate the concepts of restraint and self-control – especially with regard to sexual appetites. Once the transformation to accommodate our baser passions is achieved through a “will to power” approach, we are informed that the debate is closed and that all dissent must cease or be punished. This then serves as a launching point to further revisionist pursuits.

A point that can never be made enough is that without a moral lawgiver, the notion that there are objective moral duties is baseless. Yes, a society may adopt standards that more accurately reflect a common set of ideals that improve or correct what the public jointly believes to be errors of the past. Case in point, the utilitarian ethic that allowed for slavery was deemed to lack civility and distort our shared understanding of human worth. Advancing this framework sans a Christian ethic, however, can only rise to a perceived moral duty and demanding the expansion of rights to certain groups and individuals for the betterment of society is subjective at best. Under naturalistic evolutionary theory, one needs to explain how many of their causes advance society. Below are factors that should be part of the atheist’s calculus in arguing for societal course corrections.

• Are these changes bringing us closer to reality and moving from the primitive to a higher ideal – especially if the claim is that we are merely progressing  further from our naturalistic animalistic roots?
• What objective did the ethic they seek to change serve and will alterations undermine the probative value of the system that was in place?
• Does the newly minted shift in values remedy evident deficiencies in the system already in place or are they merely the fulfillment of emotional preference?
• Has the increased acceptability of these revised moral stances been achieved through greater understanding or through manipulation and abuse of power by those pursuing their own self-interest?
• Is it essential that everyone must conform to these changing values or are there concessions that grant dissenters their right to opt out?

Taken one at a time, it is easy to see the biblical mandate that spells out the design and purpose of marriage as between one man and one woman best satisfies each of these considerations.

• Considering that propagating the species has been the prime directive under evolution theory, it is difficult to see how same sex marriage furthers that end. Granted, one needn’t get married to procreate, but this would seem to lead away from the necessity of marriage as an institution; not serve as a basis for expanding the definition to include homosexual couples. That said, marriage is statistically proven to create the best outcomes for men, women and children, so, whatever the non-believer wants to conclude about the reasons why, eradicating marriage is ill-advised. The conclusion then should be that society should seek to advocate for traditional marriage, but opening it up to same sex couples still serves no apparent purpose.
• To the point above, the push for SSM followed a weakening of marriage, to expansion of open marriage, expectation of pre-marital sex, cohabitation and “open marriages.” One could easily conclude that arguing for same sex marriage was yet another step in the devaluing of marriage especially given the details above. As such, SSM was not adopted as a remedy to any inherent problem in the traditional marriage contract, but a further step in the desacralization of the marital bond.
• We know that the arguments made were promoted as extending rights to homosexual couples, driven by bromides like “love is love” to tug at the heartstrings of the populace. It was deemed a privilege being withheld from a segment of the population with no discussion on whether the expanded parameters for defining marriage would lead to the betterment of society. Fairness is hardly a ringing endorsement for the strength of one’s argument to transform an institution that has existed in the traditional form for thousands of years.
• This has been a full-court press to expand mainstream acceptability of marginalized groups with the homosexual community being among the most effective. Considering I am addressing the power of the state being brought to bear to compel Christians and dissenters to endorse and participate actively in recognizing these unions, bullying based on an “ends justifies the means” philosophy was more important that attempting to convince the public (i.e. diversity trainings).
• The determination to force Christian businesses and institutions to comply with their mandated revisions to marriage has not been explained, but it is fervently pushed. One of the clearest examples has been the Law Society of Canada refusing to allow graduates of Trinity Western University to practice law because the school’s code is based on the Christian view of marriage. This is hardly surprising as it is a private Christian university that people can choose to attend or go elsewhere. Apparently the zealously defended advocacy for the separation of church and state only favours the iron fist of the state.

Atheists will tell you that this is discrimination on a par with refusing to serve black customers or having segregated drinking fountains. This fails for several reasons. First, this is not about race which is a sacred and innate characteristic of the individual based on their inherent worth. In my last blog I addressed how many marital pairings are still not allowed (between siblings, parent and child, pet and pet owner, man or woman and corpse, polygamy). This is not a reflection on the value of these individuals, but because marriage is an institution that exists for a purpose. Homosexuals are free to live together and government could even sanction civil unions if they deem it to be consistent with the social climate. It is not, however, equality to make allowances for some while refusing others who could make the same emotive case based on their proclivities. To set aside any consideration for the purpose of marriage to move the goalposts to chase the prevailing zeitgeist serves no core principle while creating a needless schism that makes those who value the institution into villains.

Furthermore, the Christian baker, florist, photographer, etc., did not refuse to serve homosexuals, they refused to lend their artistic skills for a same sex marriage because of their stance on the sacred nature of marriage. Truthfully, if a business refused to serve people strictly based on their sexual orientation, race, gender, or any similar factor, I would not use their products. Yes, Christians firmly believe in loving the sinner while hating the sin. Anyone who insists that public businesses have no right to place restrictions on their clients, consider the following:

• A woman’s only gym necessarily excludes all males
• A kosher/halal deli that won’t serve pork products
• Businesses that have dress codes (suit and tie) and pricey menu items that the poor cannot afford
• A black or Jewish (or Christian) printer that doesn’t want to make promotional posters for a KKK or neo-Nazi rally
• Homosexual bakers that don’t want to decorate a cake for a “Defend Traditional Marriage” event
• A hippy restaurant that doesn’t want to cater a “Gun Rights” conference
• A Muslim-run taxi service that has a rule against transporting dogs in their cab
• A homosexual counsellor who doesn’t want to assist a client with overcoming their same sex desires (or the inverse where Christians would be permitted to do so)

Anyone reading through this list who believes even one of these businesses should not be forced to compromise on who they will serve is not against discriminatory practices; only certain ones based on their subjective comfort. In the case of Christians, our faith is the core of who we are and rights have always been extended to one’s religious practices. Christians don’t oppose SSM because we hate homosexuals, but because we love God and see marriage as sacred. We don’t expect the atheist to come to our way of thinking, but I’m puzzled by why the unbeliever wants to not extend us the same courtesy. Perhaps the problem that makes them so narrow is the lack of a Christian ethic.