Saturday, May 17, 2008

More on gay marriage: I don't have much time to be drawn into debates (in fact, I'm on the road as we speak) but at times the goading of readers makes me want to bite, and unlike some, I think issues connected to the institution of marriage are important.

There are many available arguments against gay marriage, the most obvious one being that the majority doesn't want it.

But allow me to take another tact--I'll steal from Aristotle. We can infer the purpose of something by its design. By examining the construction of a hammer, we can see that it is meant to hit things. (And here I'll use "penis" or other related words as a shorthand for the whole sexual reproduction system). By examining a man's parts, it is clear that their purpose is to impregnate some object, and we can see from studying the design of a woman that she is that object.

Now, clever humans manipulate sex to get pleasure without reproduction, but a penis pointed at a woman is likely to achieve its intended purpose sooner or later. One thing that ensures that the penis will not ever get around to serving its purpose is if the object of arousal is another man. It's, for example, like erectile dysfunction. As long as it persists, the purpose of a man's parts is thwarted. So same-sex sexual attraction can be seen as a dysfunction or a chronic health condition--probably one with no cure at the moment.

You might respond that a disability doesn't deprive one of his rights, like voting for example. But marriage is not a right. People can set up house with whomever they want. Marriage is the state recognizing a particular union. The government is putting its stamp of approval on the arrangement. It is holding up the relationship and saying, we like this and want to encourage it.

Throughout history, society via the law has venerated marriage for a variety of reasons, but it makes no sense to enshrine a relationship based on a disability. That would be like the deaf community that wants the government to put its stamp of approval on deafness, and to declare that it is just as good as hearing, and it should be venerated and encouraged as much as hearing.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Legalization doesn't necessarily mean moral approval, does it?

In fact a state can discourage gay marriage through other means (i.e. education) without legally dissallowing it.

Anonymous said...

Let's make masturbation illegal. What could be more logical?

Vanishing American said...

Homosexual acts are no longer forbidden by law. In that sense they have their freedom or license to do what they will in private. The push for legalizing 'gay' 'marriage' is a way of extracting social acknowledgment of their cohabitation.

All marriage is a way of obtaining social sanction and respectability for a couple's relationship. That's the nature of marriage through the ages.

The government, (at least in theory) is supposed to be us; it supposedly embodies the will of the people, and the majority of the people.

The majority are not in favor of granting their mass approval of homosexual 'marriage'. Call it a legalistic argument, but that's how our representative system works. It's injustice under our system if a minority can impose its will on the majority. Unfortunately noisy minorities are doing exactly that, while the harried majority keeps backing down.

Anonymous said...

Homosexual acts are no longer forbidden by law. In that sense they have their freedom or license to do what they will in private.

Can they inherit each other when one dies? Does the law guarantee that their commonly acquired fortune will be divided evenly if they separate?

Jason said...

So the government shouldn't recognize the marriages of the deaf?

No, I'm not being facetious. If you oppose the marriage of homosexuals on the basis of dysfunction, then it also falls to you to explain why that dysfunction in particular should be singled out. Why should homosexuals be denied access to the institution of marriage if deaf people aren't? And no, it's not about reproduction. We regularly issue marriage licenses to couples with vasectomies, menopause, and hysterectomies.

Outland said...

In the Netherlands we've had gay marriages for years now. It really doesn't matter one bit for anyone if gays get married -- except some gays are more happy when they get married. It gives them a sense of dignity. Well, good for them.

Most gay couples don't marry anyway, they're fine just living together. I used to be skeptic too, especially when it comes to adoption. That's another question.

Same sex marriages may be a stick in the eye for Christians who believe homosexuality to be a sin. Well, true Christians leave it to God to judge other people. Really, even from a conservative outlook, I really don't see the problems anymore.

Anonymous said...

Is it not reason enough that your concerns about gay parenting leads you to concerns about gay marriage?

c.o. jones said...

Marriage is not just society legally recognizing a relationship, it's also a legally enforceable contract, as anyone who has been divorced can attest to.

I see the whole gay marriage thing through the prism of "Murhpy's Law," if you will. There will of course be abuses of the system; the one that jumps first to mind is that this will open up a new avenue for immigration/marriage fraud, which means there will probably be an identity theft angle to it as well.

But back to the contract law aspect. There are already legal channels for distributing an estate to whomever you want it to go to, just as I am sure you can have a contract drawn up between any two people of any marital status that would spell out the allocation of the assets in the event the "business arrangement" were to go sour. Taking the time to think things through beforehand saves you headaches down the line in almost any situation. I mean, does anyone reading this blog really want the government involved in deciding how your assets get distributed when you die?

Anonymous said...

"Can they inherit each other when one dies? Does the law guarantee that their commonly acquired fortune will be divided evenly if they separate?"

Of course gays can inherit from each other, you effing moron. Just write a damn will. Your cat can inherit from you, your friend can inherit from you, your alma mater can inherit from you, and so can your same-sex lover.

Honestly, all of these complaints about gays not being able to govern their own lives is pure BS.

Gay marriage is about two things: gays wanting the government to sanction their lifestyle, and gays wanting to undermine traditional marriage. Nothing else.

RobertHume said...

The main purpose of marriage in modern times is as a support system for children. The state grants benefits to married folk in order to help raise children well.

It used to be that all married people had children, so the benefits were not mis-allocated. But now many heterosexual couples do not have children, so they reap benefits to which they are not entitled.

So homosexuals have noted that there were benefits that they could not get that heterosexuals could get ... without carrying the responsibility of caring for children.

In this case homosexuals have a good "equal protection" argument.

The solution is to modify the law to tie marriage benefits to having children, not to being married.

There is no reason, for example, for two working people living together without children to be able to have one covered by the other's employer's health care plan.

Then homosexuals will not feel the urge to be married, they will not have an equal protection argument.

RobertHume said...

The main purpose of marriage in modern times is as a support system for children. The state grants benefits to married folk in order to help raise children well.

It used to be that all married people had children, so the benefits were not mis-allocated. But now many heterosexual couples do not have children, so they reap benefits to which they are not entitled.

So homosexuals have noted that there were benefits that they could not get that heterosexuals could get ... without carrying the responsibility of caring for children.

In this case homosexuals have a good "equal protection" argument.

The solution is to modify the law to tie marriage benefits to having children, not to being married.

There is no reason, for example, for two working people living together without children to be able to have one covered by the other's employer's health care plan.

Then homosexuals will not feel the urge to be married, they will not have an equal protection argument.

RobertHume said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RobertHume said...

Another reason we don't want to have marriage generalized is that it will give credence to polygamy.

Then many of us men will have no access to sex. We'll be more aggressive and wars and crime are likely to result. Also, there are studies showing that if most men have a wife, then they cooperate better and the economy prospers.

Looking at the defects of Muslim societies which sanction polygamy suggests that the above arguments are true.

MensaRefugee said...

Thomas Sowell wrote a bit about this a few months back.

Basically his argument was Marriage is crafted for a Man and Woman, not same sex.

For instance, a woman loses beauty as she ages - so the man cant run away and leave her in the lurch with marriage.

Of course that doesnt apply to Same Sex relationships.

Of course like any good conservative, he doesnt talk about the stuff that Devlin did

Frankly I think, as liberals took control of institutions their bias of not having respect for distilled wisdom of the past ages, even if we dont know the rational behind some aspects of it has made the law look at marriage as about 'Emotions' and 'Romance' rather than something that keeps Society functioning.

From that point of view its obvious that Gay Marriage is A-OK.

Anonymous said...

"There is no reason, for example, for two working people living together without children to be able to have one covered by the other's employer's health care plan."

Good lord, another effing moron.

The "reason" for one spouse to be covered by another spouse's employer health care plan is called CAPITALISM. That is, economic freedom and competition. If employers decide to offer benefits of various kinds to employees, that is sufficient "reason" for whatever they decide to do.

Does this idiot think the government should tell employers what benefits they can and cannot give to people, based on whether their employees have children? The socialist mentality has seeped so deeply into our national consciousness, I doubt we have a future as a free nation.

MensaRefugee said...

"I doubt we have a future as a free nation."

Reminds me of the end of the book "Vision of the Anointed" by the aforementioned Thomas Sowell.

The anointed (mostly liberals) still have a little conservatism in them from the environment, and the conservatives (broadly defined) are still vocal in their opposition.

But as time goes on, the conservatism in the anointed will disappear, and the conservatives will become used to the changed environment.

(Not Verbatim)

We are in deep doodoo.