Sunday, July 27, 2008

Gay Marriage is Wrong

I am tired of the Gay Marriage debate. Gays should not be allowed to marry each other. Many left leaning news outlets have taken to calling gay marriage "same-sex" marriage in an attempt to lessen the offense to regular (heterosexual) people.

My argument is not "Gay People are Icky." I know, and have known, many gay people. While I find their sexual behavior somewhat disturbing, it is none of my business. Gay people are no more (and sometimes less) offensive to me than straight people.

I, being a heterosexual man, have no more rights or privileges than a gay male. I can not marry another man. Gay marriage confers special rights on a group of people who claim victim-class status. It is the dream of modern liberalism to classify and label everyone into a group, and then decide which groups should get which rights. Like the pig said in George Orwell's Animal Farm, "some of us are more equal than others."

Traditional heterosexual marriage should be the only form of marriage approved and endorsed by the state because the stability of the state is dependent upon continuing the population of the state. Gays can have wedding ceremonies, commit their love for one another, and even have their union approved by a church. But their relationships should not be sanctioned by the state. Gays are not able to procreate, and therefore gay marriage is against the interests of the state.

What happens when gays want to get divorced? They throw the state into crisis. An example cited by the L.A. Times, about two women who married in Massachusetts, and who now seek a divorce in their home state of Rhode Island:

Then, after two years of marriage, the 10-year relationship soured, and Chambers filed for divorce. That put the couple into a legal limbo that is becoming increasingly common as same-sex couples married in one state try to divorce in another.

A judge in Family Court, where divorces are handled, asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court for a ruling on whether his court had jurisdiction, given that Rhode Island doesn't recognize gay marriage. The state Supreme Court decided that the women weren't legally married in the eyes of the state and therefore couldn't get divorced.

Chambers then tried filing for divorce in the state's Superior Court, but last month a judge there ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over marriage dissolutions. A Massachusetts divorce isn't an option because only residents who have lived in the state for a year can file there.


"They've given us no choice but to be married forever,"


Be careful what you wish for.

UPDATE: Maybe the women in the above mentioned article, who felt their union was important enough to travel to Massachusetts for legal sanction, should go live in said State for a year so that they are eligible for a "same-sex divorce," thereby keeping the rest of us out of their irrational legal problems.

11 comments:

Jonathan said...

According to your logic:

"Gays are not able to procreate, and therefore gay marriage is against the interests of the state."

A male/female couple that cannot or does not intend to procreate (such as a couple in their 60's) should not marry because their marriage "is against the interests of the state". Are you advocating:


1. Pre-marital fertility testing

2. A pledge to procreate, and if so, how many children will satisfy the state

3. Marriage nullification if the procreation quota is not met

4. ...


What about a parenting test to insure that if the couple does procreate, they raise decent children, not crazed maniacs.

Your rationale doesn't appear to be a well-thought conservative prescription. It's more of a liberal nanny-state approach. Perhaps you should think this through a bit more.

Polymath said...

I do not avocate any of your points, as they would lead to an increase in the size and scope of government.

Why should people who fall into the norm, and conform to existing law, jump through legal hoops to satisfy those who are jealous of their status?

Why do homosexuals and their champions wish to extract special rights and special staus when heterosexual people have no more rights or privleges, but only a perception of such? Just for the fun of creating a legal crisis?

My statements are not a prscription, merely an avdocation of existing (until recently) law and tradition. Your rationale, should you be in favor of gay marriage, is the one which needs thnking through.

Jonathan said...

poly,

I quoted your argument and I'll do it again because my comment was long and your reading comprehension is apparently faulty.

"Gays are not able to procreate, and therefore gay marriage is against the interests of the state."

That's your argument. If the state's interest lies in procreation, then it must defend that interest when it denies the right to marry. Marriage is a fundamental civil right. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry cannot be withheld even from convicted felons.

If the rationale for marriage is procreation, then the state is obliged to protect that interest. If you don't believe the state should protect that interest, you have no argument. As Jerry Seinfeld would say, this is a post about nothing.

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

I've posted a link to your article from July 30th - Protection of Marriage, conference call expanded

What troubles me is that if we are going to engage in social experimentation then shouldn't we have a voice or a vote; an honest engagement of the issue?

If the court is free to redefine words then they could of redefined the word female to be no different than male.

Polymath said...

Jonathan: Marriage is not a fundemental civil right. It is a traditional right granted to a man and a woman.

I disagree with the Supreme Court on many issues, including the decision allowing incarcerated felons to marry.

I find it amusng that the only part of my argument you attempt to dismantle is my position on the state's interest in procreation. Just because the state should not be required to defend traditional marriage does not mean that the state's interests do not lie there.

If this is a post about nothing, then your comments are more worthless than the post itself.


Wayne: Thank you for the link. While I do not consider myself a religious person, I appriciate your support for my argument.

Social experimentation in the form of gay marriage is a reckless attempt by a loud minority to extract special rights and special status from the majority. If the GLBT lobby wants to make gay marriage legal, let them put it to the voters throught the amendment process, and NOT through judicial activism.

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

I would like to add, on marriage of people who can not have children, That they support the tradition of the family structure by being a role model of an ideal family structure.

jonathan said...

Poly,

There may have been some critical thinking behind your arguments. You were given a chance to defend your post, and you failed. Sometimes we need to engage other people to learn from them. It was worth a comment or two to expose your lack of depth and understanding.

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

A similar argument (although not the one made by Polymath) is at townhall

I guess if you don't see the benefit of traditional marriage to society [or as Polymath says to the state] then you miss the point. I've come to accept that not everybody does see the benefits of traditional marriage.

Jonathan said...

Wayne,

Have you noticed that while I addressed Poly's central argument and demonstrated that it is arbitrary, discriminatory and impossible to enforce, you have assigned an argument to me:

"I guess if you don't see the benefit of traditional marriage to society..."

Which I don't hold. I fully support traditional marriage, that's why I'm a marriage equality traditionalist. If you want to address the arguments that I actually make, not the ones that you make up yourself and assign to me, search for "marriage equality" on my web site.

You may want to start here:

http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=550

Polymath said...

Jonathan,

Some reactions to your "'Conservative' assimilationists" post:

Who are the "conservatives" arguing in favor of "same-sex" marriage - why not?

Same-sex marriage is a tool used to undermine marriage as a conservative institution. It is a tool used to undermine tradition. It is a tool used to undermine the role of fathers, specifically, a father living in the same household as his children and their mother. A tool can be used as a weapon.

"Blankenhorn is genuinely interested in reducing the harm to our community. He agonizes because he understands that regardless of legal status, same-sex marriage will continue to be practiced in idyllic Ozzie and Harriet Loudoun and suburbias beyond."

Fine. Once again, I have no problem with people who choose to commit their love to one another. The world will be a better place for it. Just don't ask me for a legal sanction.

"Scare-quotes or not, we will continue to assimilate and someday we won’t be “scary”. We’ll be ignored for the right reasons."

Most people do not find homosexuals scary. What they find scary is a constant chipping away at the foundation of tradition, of the Constitution, of everything American, by leftists, gay and straight with their own self-interest at heart. If you want to be ignored, try leaving the rest of us alone.

"Failing to do so [legalize gay marriage], over time, will tar marriage as discriminatory, legitimize co-habitation and other kinds of non-marriage, and turn every successful gay couple into a cultural advertisement for the expendability of matrimony."

I did not know that co-habitation was illegitemate. Marrage should be discriminatory, my point exactly. You would turn every successful straight couple into a cultural advertisment for the expendability of matrimony

It is amusing that you find a small point of my argument, say that it is illogical/indefenseable because I don't believe in your suggestion of ham-handed governmetal enforcement, while you ignore the rest of my points. You claim victory where you have none. Why do you want to force the state to recognize something which would give you special, elevated status at the expense of the common good?

In short, why do you hate my country?

Polymath said...

I neglected to add:

Your high esteem of your own intelligence and firm belief in the righteousness of your statements has blinded you.