There are really two different ideas of marriage being debated in our society right now, and they cannot coexist: Marriage is either a conjugal union of a man and a woman designed to unite husband and wife to each other and to any children who may come from their union, or it is a relationship for the mutual benefit of adults which the state recognizes and to which it grants certain benefits.
In our society, marriage wasn’t invented by homophobic Christian radicals in the 1930s. It developed in every single nation on earth as the building block of our various societies.
Even in societies in which the model is polygamous, in every case the relations are heterosexual because it is the only model in which our society propagates itself.
As an institution, it predates Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.
Our society has four components to marriage:
- Age
- Number
- Gender
- Blood
All of these components are necessary, not so much to protect the participants, but rather to ensure the ideal situation for the offspring.
Age: Persons entering marriage are making a contract. To do so, they must be of an age that will make their contract legal. It is of their own volition, and they cannot be forced into it.
Number: Although in some societies there are plural marriages with many partners, our society has deemed that the ideal model for the children is to have one father and one mother. Psychologists have long determined this to be the ideal for children for very many reasons.
Gender: Twenty years ago, this would be a no-brainer; however, our messed up, socially regressive society no longer sees the importance of having two genders. Without two genders, it is physically impossible to have offspring. As well, the ideal situation for a child to be raised in is to be raised by his or her biological mother and biological father.
Yes, some children are raised in orphanages, but the guardians are not parents. And let us not forget that the role of the father differs from the role of the mother… significantly.
Blood: Blood relatives cannot marry because if they do, they will have defective children. There is not much else to say about this.
So, given all of the above, how can one argue for homosexual couplings to be put on the same level as marriage?
Maybe they want recognition. That’s fine, but they cannot have children, which is a necessary component of marriage. If it weren’t then why the four components above?
They may think that it’s against their rights, and hey, it won’t affect you and me right? Right? WRONG! It reduces the roles and rights of fathers and mothers to that of “generic parent.” To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children. Marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.
So, this leads me to my final point: Why does the state (eg: the government) offer various tax-incentives to people that get married? Put simply- to encourage it, because it is good for the state. In short, it makes new people and sustains the state.
The larger picture that’s becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it’s a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination. Hell, I’m all for equal rights for blind people, but I don’t want them driving cars! And that’s my point: you can restrict or discriminate based on disability when it makes sense. Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.
That, my friends, is why we must continue to fight against redefining the definition of marriage.
