While driving across the state of Ohio (and back) to deliver my niece to a basketball camp, I stumbled upon some talk radio put on by an organization called StandToReason™ (str.org). They’re essentially a Christian™ apologetic organization. The guy talking, whom I believe was Greg Koukl, seemed pretty intelligent and adept at talking logic. I listened to him for a couple hours.

I went to the StandToReason website. I read an article by Greg Kookl on the morality of homosexuality. Like many moral arguments, there are words and words, sentences and sentences, paragraphs and paragraphs. But with astute eyes, one can boil down arguments to a single or handful of bases from which the argument stems.

http://www.str.org/articles/why-is-homosexuality-bad-in-itself#.VYgVmqbRxzo

“The simple answer to why homosexuality itself is bad is because it is a perversion of God’s provision regarding a deep and profound aspect of the created order. God made things one way because He's in charge. He created the world to function a certain way. There's teleology, a purpose to it, and when the purpose is fulfilled it's a beautiful thing.”

Human reproduction happens sexually, of course, but the offspring that have come from that sexual reproduction — in every generation — have operated in a myriad of different sexual behaviors and activities. And some of those activities lead to sexual reproduction amongst a heterosexual monogamously married couple — but most of them don’t. If Greg agreed that this is the “certain way” God created the world to function, then I’d have no qualms about what he’s arguing. But he’s not. He’s saying that only some of these behaviors/activities are God-ordained (I’m not sure of the nitty-gritty specifics since he’s not a Roman Catholic) while the others are perversions. And he’s got his reasons for his distinctions of what to put in the box of “appropriate sexuality”, but I argue it’s a totally human, artificial construct.

At this point, my mind's imaginary model of Greg Kookl outs me as a Moral Relativist. He rushes to the ReductioAdAbsurdum™ that selfless sacrifice to help the destitute is objectively the moral equivalent to a group of men gang-raping animals to death. And sure, objectively, it might be the moral equivalent, but it does not follow that I want that to happen. Or that I don’t want laws to prohibit such behavior. And the imaginary Greg says: “but what right do you have to cease that behavior?” And my response is that we don’t need objective-moral justifications for legally barring behavior, we simply need a strong enough manifestation of the WillToPower to bar such behavior (or punish/correct it post-act). And likewise, we haven’t needed moral justifications to bar gay marriage or legalize gay marriage, simply a stronger manifestation of the WillToPower. And in the past, that has been the case for why gay marriage wasn't allowed: because proponents for HeterosexualMarriageOnly™ were politically stronger.  But not for much longer, it seems.