June 27, 2015

A Common Sense Argument Against Same-Sex "Marriage" [repost]

In the currently raging controversy over "marriage equality" one simple fact seems to have been overlooked:

Homosexuals already have the right to get married. . . . They just don't want to.

A gay man can marry any woman he chooses. A lesbian can marry any man she wants. They simply don't want to get married. Because that's what marriage is: a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals don't want marriage. They want something else entirely, and they want the rest of us (the government in particular) to treat this union as if it were a marriage. This is utter nonsense.

A less emotionally charged example will illustrate the absurdity of this whole debate:

I am bald. A few years ago, my hair started falling out, so I shaved the rest of it off. I would like, though, to have a full head of hair. Should I then demand that everyone else start referring to my (non-existent) long, flowing locks and treating me as if I actually have a beautiful head of hair? Of course not. The very suggestion is absurd. If I was actually deluded enough to demand that others treat me and speak of me as if I had a ponytail or a pompadour, the most loving thing others could do for me would be to ignore my requests and give me a reality check. I'm bald. No one should feel the need to refer to my shaved head as if it were actually adorned by a thick mane of hair.

In the same way, the opponents of marriage (because that's what the opponents of "traditional marriage" actually are, they are simply opponents of marriage) need a reality check. They are deluded. If homosexuals want to get married, then they should go ahead and do it because they already have that right. But that is not what they want at all. And the rest of us should feel no obligation to go along with their delusion.


P. S.

For those who believe the answer is for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely, I tend to agree. Despite this, I believe that a case can be made for the government recognition of one type of union (traditional marriage) and not the other (same-sex "marriage"). The following is my attempt to provide this rationale:

Government recognition of traditional marriage helps propagate the family unit. The nuclear family (a real family that is, with a mom, a dad, and children) is the basic unit of civilization. Parents have children. Children need parents. Society needs both. The government has an interest is preserving this sort of thing. The propagation of the family unit means the propagation of society itself. Conversely, homosexual unions, by their very nature, do not produce children. There is no reason, then, to privilege same-sex unions because they provide none of the societal benefits provided by an actual marriage. Any argument, then, for same-sex "marriage" could be applied to virtually any other union between two (or more) individuals. Why shouldn't the government recognize unions between tennis doubles partners? Or poker buddies? Answer: It has no reason to. The government has good reason for recognizing actual marriages. It has no business, however, getting involved in unions between homosexual partners.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Follow by Email

Support C&C by Using One of Our Amazon Associate Links