Tags

, , , , , ,


This week the Supreme Court heard arguments involving gay “marriage.” Whatever the decision the court makes it is going to make a lot of people very unhappy. If let the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stand or decide against same sex “marriage” in any way the gay lobby will go into overdrive. If they decide in favor of gay cohabitation being a form of marriage they will be cutting to the very heart of society.

In the annals of cultural history there is probably no other universally accepted societal custom than that of marriage and family. This is no mere coincidence, families are the method by which traditions, and culture is passed down. They also lay the foundation of identity that connects past generations with future ones and thus allowing cultures and societies to survive. That is all in jeopardy now. There are those that see such history as inconsequential and in the name of “fairness” seek to change all that has come before; their arguments are few but the implications for society are huge.

It is a Right Denied:

This is the most common argument put forth by those that support the idea of gay’s being able to declare themselves married. The foundation of this argument is that marriage is a right of human beings  One that has at least a superficial appearance of legitimacy, of course appearances can be deceiving.
 
The question whether marriage is a right or a societal convention is pivotal to this legal argument. It is one outside the question about what a marriage is or is not but by implication it can be deemed relevent. If it is a right than it cannot be denied but if it is not then the majority has the right to declare what conventions it will and will not accept.
 
The foundation of the rights argument is that marriage is a civil right in the vein of the right of contract. While marriage is indeed a form of contract it also has special blessings and privileges granted by the state. These privileges are given at the pleasure of the government in response to the people or their representatives. That these privileges that define a relationship as a marriage are based on societal convention is self-evident. As such, the rights argument has no foundation.
 
Marriage is a relationship created by societies to advance families and the raising of children. It is not a right but a convention created by mankind for societal benefit. As such it is subject to the will of the majority of the state. The Supreme Courts has no say in marriage than it has on what color the state seal should be.

Homosexual Partners are as Good as Heterosexual Parents at Child Rearing:

This argument goes to the heart of marital function. The fact is marriage at its heart is not about the individuals involved but potential offspring and the proper care of the next generation. It is the need to rear children that has driven all societies to create some form the marital bond. To divorce marriage from child rearing is near to divorcing nourishment from eating. As such it is the effectiveness of homosexuals as parents is integral to the marriage debate. This is especially true for female partners who through in vitro fertilization can have their own children without intimate involvement with a man.
 
Different arguments are used by homosexuals to advance the idea that they are as good as heterosexuals at child rearing. Common arguments often revolve around failure rates of traditional marriages as well as the many examples of dysfunctional children raised in traditional sittings. The flaws in these arguments are obvious; first off this is not about traditional households it is about gay ones and secondly success for the greatest numbers is critical for a society to survive, exceptions do not matter.
 
The reality is there simply has not been enough data to do a real study on children raised in homosexual households. Despite this there is plenty of other relevant data and anecdotal evidence. The fact is study after study shows children from broken homes or raised by single parents do poorly overall. These studies show conclusively that two parents of the opposite sex do matter, especially biological ones. A man acting like a woman or vise-verse simply cannot give the same effect. As common sense would indicate and previous experiments with babies and children have shown, following the example of nature always brings the best results.

Gays are Products of Genetics and to Make Them Fit into a Heterosexual Mold is Immoral:

This is based on the already disproven theory of the Gay Gene. The entire human genome has been mapped and no gay gene was found. This is reinforced by the fact that identical twins with opposite sexual preferences exist.
 
The fact is people are far more likely to “discover” they are gay during high school, college or even later than seem connected to opposite sex traits from the start; something that would not be the case if biology was the primary factor. Additionally some people experiment and then go back or even keep a foot on both sides of the fence. Sexual gratification in individuals can come from a variety of sources, a side effect of the brain being the body’s primary sexual organ. Defecation, urine, pain, animals, death and many other things can become sexualized by human beings and even become prerequisites for sexual gratification. That all of these have as their basis a psychological component(s) is irrefutable. For those that claim that homosexuality is the one area of human sexual behavior divorced from psychological influence is not logical to the point of being delusional.
 

The fact is on every level the arguments for the existence of gay marriage let alone its legalization fall apart. It cannot be a right because marriage at any level is not a right. It has its origins in societal convention which is outside the realm of rights. Neither can two men or two women be a realistic substitute for natural parents. To pretend they can be is an example of fantasy driving reality. Homosexuality can also not be claimed to have purely genetic origins.

Millennia of experience across thousands of cultures do not bode well for the arguments for a homosexual version of marriage. Marriage may be a societal and religious convention but it is also an integral part of nature. In fact marriage (according to its real definition) is so intertwined with the history of mankind that it goes beyond tradition and custom and falls under the heading of natural law. Those that support the idea of “gay marriage” undermine society and are tinkering with its very survival.

All of this should be self-evident and the path for the justices well laid out. Unfortunately history has shown that the court does not always follow precedent, history, common sense or even the constitution.

“The Conservative Mind”

If you like this Pass this on

Advertisements