Sunday, September 26, 2004

Same-sex "marriage"

There are very good reasons to strongly oppose same-sex "marriage" that have absolutely nothing to do with appeals to religion or morality, and even have nothing at all to do with gayness (which is why I call it "same-sex").

This is an important issue because it strikes at the very foundations of the most basic of human civilizational institutions, and is pertinent due to decreed legalization in Massachusetts, which will lead to possible national imposition via the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution -- all that will take is the whim of 5 unelected liberal Supreme Court justices.

The first objection is procedural. The second is on the substance (or lack thereof).

First, marriage cannot possibly be a Natural Right, since what they're really asking for is the benefits that come with it, which are, well benefits. And as such are rightfully the province of of the Legislature, not of the Courts. Otherwise we are ruled by an aristocracy.

I mean, what, is same-sex marriage more obviously an inherent Constitutional Right than, say, oh, woman having the vote?

That's a plainly stupid proposition and you all know it.

And yet, did the Suffragettes go and get a judge to declare women should have the Right to vote? No, they did not, because it was not Constitutionally obvious.

Instead, they did what the rules of our system dictated, and went out, and made their case, and got the XIXth Amendment passed.

And it was a long struggle, and they earned that Right.

And yet somehow it's clearer that marriage, the oldest human institution, that predates all known religions and even civilization itself, and was never ever anywhere in the world in any culture at any time ever applied to same-sex couples, is more fundamentally a Right than women having the vote.

Yeah. Sure. If I were a woman, I'd be outraged at the notion.

I'm outraged enough as it is!

I mean look, the whole thing has been turned on its head: instead of gays having to make the case why same-sex marriage is a great idea and trying to pass an Amendment to say so, we've been put in the position of having to pass an Amendment to squelch what should be an obvious absurdity. It is truly insane that this claim of an abridgement of an imaginary "right" is taken seriously for more than a nanosecond.

Now, our libertarian friends will claim that it's not government's business who gets married to whom, and shouldn't be up to government to decide who can and can't. Which is up to a point true: government (and society) really doesn't care who is shacking up with whom, as far as that goes. But it's a silly argument to make, when they then turn around and claim that then all of a sudden government should administer certain legal protections and benefits to the married couple!

Talk about wanting it both ways!

This also takes care of the "Equality" argument. The fact is, gays already have all the Equality they could possibly hope for when it comes to living their lives!

First of all, gays can get married -- to someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. And that's not a facetious argument.

Second, there's nothing stopping any of them from having a ceremony to declare their Lifepartnerhood with their beloved, and having all their friends and family applaud and recognize their love, and then living openly as a gay couple for the rest of their lives, especially with the Lawrence v. Texas decision which outlawed anti-sodomy laws.

From the libertarian point of view, then, gays have already achieved full equality and freedom in their relationships, without any government interference.

Nobody is stopping them. And if some church or whatever group wants to hold a ceremony, more power to them.

But when they then demand government step in and force everyone else in the country to not merely tolerate, but outright celebrate their union, and bestow it with a special set of benefits, it is completely disingenuous to not expect society (by way of government) to have any say in defining who can be married!

The point that is missed is that marriage is not merely about Lifepartnerhood.

If it were, then of course there could not be any objections to same-sex "marriage".

But marriage is specifically about, at its core, uniting the two different sexes of our species.

That's what it means.

That's what it's for.

That's always been its point.

Which gets to the substantive argument that same-sex "marriage" is a gargantuan oxymoron.

It's only because we've forgotten what marriage is about, in our modern world of abundance and leisure, that revolves around our self-gratification. Marriage has come to be seen merely as an expression of self-actualization, and perhaps a declaration of love for another individual.

And that's nice and all, but really, who cares?

I mean good for you if you found your Soulmate, but why does anyone expect the rest of us give a damn?

Why does that in itself justify any recognition or support from society?

It doesn't.

People have become so accustomed to entitlements that they just assume for some reason that declaring "marriage" is somehow license to essentially open a big bridal registry to be satisfied from the public till.

They forget marriage is recognized and supported and subsidized by society because it serves a useful social purpose: bonding a male to a female.

And by definition, same-sex unions simply do not serve that social purpose!

Bonding a male to a female benefits society in two key ways. First, obviously the Tyranny of Testosterone dictates that it is males that cause almost all mischief, violence, and mayhem in society -- and especially "rogue", single males. But when bonded to a woman, this instinct is calmed.

That's just a fact. That's why, for instance, driver's insurance rates instantly drop for when when they tie the knot. It's in the cold, hard, actuarial tables that married men become safer, less aggressive drivers.

The female is clearly a civilizing influence on the male, when a relationship is committed to. And clearly, a same-sex union does not produce this effect.

The second key reason is of course the children that are expected to be produced. Even couples who do not intend to have children will always have the future option to. And a man-woman couple is better for raising children than a same-sex couple.

Yes, that's right! Now of course I'm not saing a gay person can't be a fine parent.

Don't put such a silly argument into my mouth, and simmer down, and listen to what I'm really saying, rather than having a hissy-fit.

I take it as given that a gay person can be just as good a parent -- no better, no worse -- than a heterosexual person.

But the average hetero couple will ALWAYS be FAR better than the average gay couple as parents.

Why? Because the hetero couple provides the child with both important psychological role models of a male father and a female mother.

Lacking either a mother or a father is a serious, serious blow to a child.

And a gay couple will always lack one of those!!!

There's no way around that fact.

We might wish it to be otherwise, but it's not.

The unpleasant truth is gay couples do their children a disservice. The child is in fact put in a terrible, untenable position of feeling like they should defend their gay parents out of loyalty, and yet knowing they were deliberately robbed of half their developmental experience.

And society should not celebrate that fact.

Sure, you can show me some anecdotal cases of outstanding gay couples raising children, and of poor hetero couples who are terrible as parents. So what? Public policy should never be driven by the exceptions!

There will be some overlap, but everyone must concede it's mathematically certain the average hetero couple will be better, because of the male-female synergy, unless you resort to claiming gays are somehow individually superior as parents. And thus the best will also be better than the best gay couples.

And that's even if they decide to have children, which most won't, which again points out the lack of a reason for society to recognize it. Social-policy and Law are meant for the general case; the exceptions -- in either direction -- are not relevant.

And now we see why the claim that opposing the "civil right" of gays to marry is the same as attempts to outlaw marriage between the races fails, because the male-female bond between different races is not diminished, and thus there's no good reason for banning such unions because they serve the same basic purpose for which marriage is intended -- which same-sex marriage does not.

It makes no sense for society to give the same recognition to different things that are of unequal utility. If we intend to do so merely out of magnanimity, the risk is great that marriage will be further weakend as its true reaons for existence get further and further ignored. It will indeed then be dumbed-down to mere Lifepartnerhood.

We've apparently already gone far in that direction; time to reverse course!

Look, it's like arguing that the numbers "1" and "2" should be equal. I mean, look, poor number 1 is always feeling overshadowed by 2. Wouldn't it be nice if they could be the same? Yeah, it would, but guess what, 1 does not equal 2, no matter how much we might wish it so.

And I repeat, nobody is stopping any gay couple from having a ceremony to declare their unending devotion! It's claiming their relationship has the same social utility, and hence status, as marriage that is absurd on its face.

All the relevant rights to live as they choose are already granted; remaining legal issues can be handled by private contracts.

The burden of proof, then, is on the gays to convince us of why their relationship should have special societal recognition, when weighed against the risks of weakening an institution that's already in decline. And that cannot be done.

The real reason people support gay marriage is merely to show how ostentatiously "tolerant" they are, which is nothing but Vanity.

And that's a Deadly Sin.


Blogger Classical said...

Perhaps the attention the same-sex marriage advocates are calling to the institution of marriage will strengthen it in the long run, by reminding us of its original purpose.

Thank you, Scholar, for getting your messages out there.


12:05 AM, October 02, 2004  
Blogger jusdunno said...

my personal feelings is sodomites should shot, lesbians...they can be tolerated for entertainment purposes.

11:22 AM, January 05, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a load of BS. Marriage has evolved with human society. In many countries, including this one not so long ago, men own(ed) their wives. In some countries at various times, including the present, polygamy and adult male bisexuality were (are) commonplace. In a recent report, a villager in Sudan was forced to marry a goat after committing sexual acts with it. Today, same sex marriage is the law in at least 3 European countries. All of these are acceptable variations of marriage in human society.

Obviously, marriage is different things to different people. Marriage has never been an unchanging social institution. Your definition of marriage happens to be unconstitutional in Massachusetts. It is also bigoted and mean spirited.

6:06 PM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger RDS said...

Your points mean nothing. Rather than address my argument, you dismiss it just BS, and then show nothing but a minority of historical aberrations and imply that means something. It doesn't.

Your example of marrying the goat is stupid, for example, because it proves my point that ridiculous "marriages" like that should be avoided.

Your bisexual male example is wrong too because it wasn't considered marriage in the same sense, it was just an accepted "relationship". So what?

Obviously people have tried different models, like polygamy, and they aren't as good as what I am defending.

Ah, but now we get to your real argument: I'm being mean. Ooo!

This has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with trying to extract undeserved benefits from society.

9:19 PM, March 19, 2006  
Blogger Gigaplex said...

You probably won't believe this but I know someone who is gay and I have successfully convinced him that the government should NOT "legalize gay marriage". Thank god he didn't read your dissertation first. I don't think your dissertation will convince anyone. I am not sure if that was you aim, perhaps it wasn't, but it should be.

The truth is, the position is very "pro-gay". I mean we are advocating that the government stay out of the lives of gay people. I wish I got that kind of attention - I wish they'd stay out of my life too!! :) That's probably something that should be emphasized. Not only should the government stay out of gay marriages but they should stay out of straight marriages too. Now THAT'S equality.

Maybe we should look at the reason why the government needs to get involved at all. The two big reasons that come to mind are the income tax and divorce law. I don't think you would need divorce law if people just made a contract when they got married laying out the terms. If they don't want to make a contract, that is their choice, and they will pay the consequences having to deal with a mess when they do get divorced. I'm probably not going to lose sleep over it.

Then there's the income tax. I don't know if you are for abolishing this or not. Classical liberals want it abolished but neocons need it to pay for perpetual war. Hopefully you go the classical liberal route here :) Anyway, that's how you solve that problem - just get rid of it (of course you have to cut spending to do that).

So when you look at it, it appears that this whole thing would not even be an issue if the government wasn't involved in the first place. That seems to be a common theme. Straight people and gay people can be put on equal ground by keeping the government equally out of both people's lives. While it may disgust you, I believe you are helping the gay community. Once again, the path of liberty is the correct route.

10:19 PM, August 26, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home