You probably already know that most of the outcry for homosexual marriage is from the standpoint that traditional marriages get some economic and legal benefits that other unions don't. Joint tax returns, exemptions on property tax, next-of-kin status... stuff like that. And if society is going to recognize their unions as acceptable, then maybe they should receive those benefits.
But that doesn't make their union a marriage.
What is marriage?
Marriage is defined by society, not the law. Whatever a society chooses to recognize as marriage then becomes the definition. It should be noted, however, that even in societies that tolerated homosexuality, a same-sex union was never considered an acceptable environment for rearing children. In cases where one or both parents were missing, close relatives or society in general would step in to provide those children with the appropriate role models.
It is a demonstrated tendency -- as well as the private experience of most people -- that when we become parents, we immediately find ourselves acting out most of the behaviors we observed in the parent of our own sex. We have to consciously make an effort to be different from them.
We also expect our spouse to behave, as a parent, in the way we have learned to expect from the experiences we had with our opposite-sex parent -- that's why so many men seem to marry women just like their mother, and so many women to marry men just like their father. It takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern.
So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family.
Orson Scott Card, Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization
What we need
Let's talk for a moment about biological needs. And we're going to pretend that we only know about the primal needs. Men need to mate. Women need someone to be devoted to her. The best way to approach these needs is by monogamous unions. "Polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society" (OSC again).
Civilization is based on the idea that people will sacrifice their own base instincts and desires for the common good. Or, at least, for the good of their children. Historically speaking, the societies that have given the most males and the most females a chance to successfully mate (and thereby have given their children the greatest chance for survival to adulthood) have been the ones that lasted the longest.
Violating our rights
When court judges decide that they can create new laws and make vast, sweeping changes to the law, everyone's constitutional rights are violated. We live in what was intended to be a democracy, where vast changes to our social structure would be made only by consent of the people.
However, in Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and a handful of other states, the judicial system has taken it upon itself to also legislate- a function which it has no business sticking its nose into.
I'm also reminded that there is currently no law preventing homosexuals from being married. Nowhere in the constitution nor in any federal statutes or state laws is marriage ever limited to a man and a woman (actually, the idea that we have to define it as such in California this year shows just how misunderstood our marriage laws have become). Thus far, only societal restrictions (and not even written ones) have prevented these unions from occurring. However, homosexuality has become more and more acceptable in US culture, and so now more homosexuals are declaring their unions valid.
So,
In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.
Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their... wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.
However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were...
...Just because you give legal sanction to a homosexual couple and call their contract a "marriage" does not make it a marriage. It simply removes marriage as a legitimate word for the real thing.
If you declare that there is no longer any legal difference between low tide and high tide, it might stop people from publishing tide charts, but it won't change the fact that sometimes the water is lower and sometimes it's higher.
Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization. (OSC again)
Why is it that it takes years of careful planning, permits, code inspections, and intensively-researched environmental impact statements just to add a runway to an airport, but a couple of "progressive" judges can redefine and reorder the fundamental unit of society without any sort of political recourse?
Okay, so I've said my bit. A little disclaimer: I want to say that I have some friends back home who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender, and they're great people. I'm not against them at all. I love them dearly. When you read this essay, you can disagree with me if you want. That's okay, I still love you.
You'll find that many of my ideas are just rewordings of this essay. Also for reference, here are some links to a study and a few awesome articles.
Also By Orson Scott Card:
The Homosexual Relationship
Judicial Activism, Libertarianism, Federalism, and Gay Marriage
Upholding the Constitution
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
1 comment:
Good article! Though I think he uses a lot of logical debate fallacies, he makes some very important points. Plus, I have a lot of respect for him as a person.
Post a Comment