In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.
Despite growing up in a Catholic household, homosexuality was never on the radar at home or at church. Everything I learned about homosexuals as a kid came from the playground, the West Hills Market’s rack of dirty magazines, the Gay Pride movement, and my own hard-wired attraction to girls. In retrospect, it was homosexual men’s publicly flamboyant behavior running counter to my own predispositions that fomented my initial recoil from gay men. As a young boy and adolescent, before I actually knew about sexual mechanics, I felt there was something viscerally wrong with men publicly behaving like angry queens and manic fairies. It was the Pride movement’s unadulterated hedonism that ran counter to the system of ethics in which I was raised. In this regard, by coming out in such garish style in the 70’s and 80’s, they poked themselves in the eye with their own stick. They pinned the moniker, “queer,” to themselves with their unrepentant flamboyancy.
Sexual promiscuity always has been and always will be bad behavior, no matter the social mores of any given society. The logic proof is air-tight, and the damage promiscuity does to all societies is out in the open for everyone to see. HIV is a global epidemic. Everywhere American servicemen go they leave behind unwanted children, a huge problem today in the Philippines. Adultery destroys marriages. BUT homosexuality is not promiscuity. Despite what many detractors claim, in the vast majority of cases sexual orientation gives all appearances of being in the wiring and not a choice. Promiscuity is purely a choice. This fundamental difference is why I took the time to challenge my own thinking on the matter. Does my visceral response hold up under the scrutiny of logical argument?
This is a very lightly read blog and readers rarely make comment. In this matter, it is my hope that anyone of strong opinion on either side will take the time to counter anything or everything I say. Though in a civil tone, I hope.
Part 1 – Weak Arguments:
Same-sex marriage will fail at domesticating men.
Huh? I cook and clean, and gay men cook and clean. We both mow our lawns and wash our cars. We have day jobs in all walks of life. What on earth do work and chores have to do with same-sex marriage? Bachelors have to do dishes. Same-sex roommates have to clean up after themselves. So what? I bet there are plenty of gay guys who hunt and drive trucks, and plenty of lesbians who like home decorating, and plenty of straights who are exactly the opposite. In reality, compared to a few centuries ago, modern society has domesticated all American men, gay or straight. Even those Duck Dynasty guys. Indoor plumbing and grocery stores do that to a fella.
Same-sex marriage is not capable of natural procreation and generation of a family unit.
While this is true, procreation has never been a legal requirement for marriage in any society in the history of man. Plenty of straight couples either cannot or choose not to have children. Can anyone out there show me a single case where any marriage has been legally invalidated based solely on the lack of offspring?
Marriage thrives on the partners playing gender specific rules.
This does bring up a rather odd observation about same-sex couples. Very often there seems to be a dominant male persona and a weaker female persona, regardless of the gender of the couple. I do not know what to make of that, but even in the homosexual relationship it appears important. I do not see this is a logical argument to ban same-sex marriage, but it does appear that gender-like roles exist in those relationships. What I find even more unusual are those heterosexual marriages where the woman clearly wears the pants and the man clearly wears the apron.
Same-sex marriage would promote sexual infidelity.
Certainly. The more marriages there are, the more opportunities there are for adulterous infidelities among all sexual orientations. But this is like saying that gun violence is the only sort of violence that counts, and all other violence is tolerable as long as it is not gun violence. The institution of marriage decreases overall promiscuity, just like the right to bear arms decreases overall social violence. Once you sign the marriage contract, you are less likely to sample goods elsewhere.
The English word “marriage” is defined as a covenant between one man and one woman.
According to my ‘43 Webster’s Dictionary, a book not tainted by modern progressivism or political correctness, marriage is: The act of uniting a man and a woman for life. The legal union of a man and a woman. A close, intimate union of any kind. A marriage contract or betrothal.
There are several kinds of marriage – civil marriages, common-law marriages, Morganatic marriages, Scotch marriages.
And there it is. Webster’s defines the English word marriage as a close, intimate union of any kind, and same-sex couples are not specifically excluded. While American legal tradition limits marriage to one man and one woman, the literal definition does not.
A quick side note – According to my ‘43, the word GAY does not mean homosexual. It means jovial and merry. That means just about anyone of good humor qualifies as a member of LGBT.