The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 1 – Weak Arguments

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.

Introduction

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.

Beaverton, OR: Local Traffic Court Judge, the Hon. Les Rink, Makes Landmark Civil Liberties Ruling

July 11, 2014. The City of Beaverton, Oregon, one of America’s leaders in the constitutionally questionable use of traffic-cams as a source of city revenue, is at it again. Local municipal court judge, the Hon. Les Rink, is using the bench to stretch Oregon law beyond its original intent.

Distracted driving is only a few hours younger than driving itself. When car radios first hit the scene over 75 years ago, government officials gave serious consideration to outright banning radios from cars for fear of distracted driving. With the rise of the cellular age came an increase in auto accidents and fatalities directly linked to the use of mobile phones while driving. In 2010 the State of Oregon, with citizen safety in mind, banned the use of hand-held cellular phones while driving with the idea of getting citizens to keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. The sole intent of the law was to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road when the car was moving. You know what they say about the road to Hell.

In May 2014, Beaverton Police Officer, D. VanCleve, witnessed a motorist (not me, by the way) move their mobile phone from their lap to their center console. The officer pulled the motorist over and cited them for violating Oregon’s primary ban on Distracted Driving. The motorist protested, attempting to prove the lack of call history on the phone. The phone was not currently in use for speaking or texting. Officer VanCleve then inquired about the phone’s media playing capacity, noting that the phone was a blue-tooth enabled media player that was independently communicating with the car’s hands-free, Bluetooth audio system. Officer VanCleve stated this counted as “use of a communication device” and issued citation.

The motorist, now a defendant, believing that Officer VanCleve was misinterpreting the statute, entered a plea of not guilty and was issued a July 11 court date with the Hon. Les Rink. At the hearing the defendant produced cellular bills and the manual to the hands-free, Bluetooth system in the vehicle, demonstrating there was no active use of the mobile phone during the period of time in and around when Officer VanCleve issued the citation, and any potential use would have been hands-free in accordance with current public interpretation of Oregon’s distracted driving laws. Officer VanCleve quoted the law as any use of any device for “two-way communication” was illegal. The Hon. Les Rink sided with Officer VanCleve, a Beaverton policeman noted for ticketing motorists for using GPS units in their vehicles. The defendant was found guilty of violating Oregon’s Distracted Driving law because their phone was independently “communicating” with the car’s audio system. The City of Beaverton made $160 from the decision. From what I know of the case, this appears to be a common outcome in the Hon. Les Rink’s court.

The Hon. Les Rink is setting unchallenged legal precedents with his rulings in Beaverton’s Municipal Traffic Court. Oregon’s Distracted Driving law, originally meant to get drivers to stop talking and texting while driving, has radically evolved with the help of the Hon. Les Rink. It is now illegal for any driver in Oregon to actively or passively use any electronic device capable of any two-way communication while driving… at least in the jurisdiction of the City of Beaverton and Officer VanCleve. This includes media-players, GPS units, wi-fi enabled tablets, modern, integrated audio systems, and of course, any cellular device. The Hon. Les Rink has single-handedly, and with little challenge, called into question the legality of all hands-free devices. His rulings give tacit permission to any officer or deputy to ticket any motorist if they suspect any such device is in use in the vehicle… and it has nothing to do with holding the device in your hand and using it to talk or text. The device simply has to be turned on and engaged in some form of two-way communication with some other device.

This article is not meant to lambaste the Hon. Les Rink for gross misinterpretation of Oregon’s distracted driving laws and violating the civil liberties of Oregon’s citizens. America is a country of activist judges with a penchant for making law instead of enforcing or rationally interpreting law, so there is no rational expectation that this situation would be different. I am not advocating a class-action suit be brought against the City of Beaverton, nor an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. All I am simply doing is issuing a warning to Oregonians. New car dealerships also need to take heed, as most cars come equipped with potentially illegal audio equipment. Turn off your cell phones, GPS units, media players, tablets and the like before you step in your car and drive through Beaverton. It may be best for you to replace your current audio system with an antique AM/FM receiver circa 1970. If you don’t, and Officer C. VanCleve gives you a ticket, having both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road will be no defense, and the City of Beaverton will help themselves to $160 of your hard-earned money.