This has been quite the issue lately, as everyone knows. Personally, I don't object to allowing homosexuals to get "married" in the "church" of their choice. I do object to the forced legal acceptance of that marriage by everyone else on the planet. (Liberals argue about how Republicans and conservatives enforce morality on others...HELLO, KETTLE??? THIS IS POT...YOU'RE BLACK!!!) Regardless of how you feel about the subject, for whatever reasons, work with me for a moment to look at the possible implications of allowing such "unions" to be permitted and legally recognized. There are several grounds upon which a successful argument may be built for a definition of marriage as one man and one woman (and thus against same-sex marriage).
The first argument is historical. At no time in human history, in no culture or society regardless of "level of advancement", has homosexuality ever been truly acceptable from a moral and social standpoint. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was practiced, but that doesn't mean it was accepted or acceptable; murder and rape are practiced every day in the U.S. and those are not accepted or acceptable behavior. In ancient Rome, Augustus enacted laws against homosexual practices, because they prevented more Romans from being born (more on this idea in a bit). Many liberals will say, "Well, those cultures and societies were savage, not as advanced as ours." I don't know...ancient Greece and Rome produced some amazing thinkers and some concepts and ideas that are still in practice today. In the Muslim world, homosexuality will get you killed. The same liberals who tell me that Islamic culture is acceptable and those ideas should be handled with tolerance and civility, will also try to tell me that Islamic culture is barbaric because of how they handle punishments for homosexuality.
The next argument is constitutional (basically). This is terribly amusing to me, particularly in light of the discussions of constitutional amendments to protect marriage (I'm personally against that, but that's another story). What's always so revealing about the Constitution is not what the Founding Fathers put in, but what they left out. Why is no definition of personal privacy enumerated therein? Why is marriage not fully spelled out? Why are rights emphasized but the concept of personal responsibility not mentioned? In those times, those were another part of the truths that are self-evident. Those things were considered as God-given, understood truth, so why should they waste their time enumerating those things? Who would ever possibly need to be told about those things? Those aren't things that get crushed by governments...they're defaults, they're understood, they're things no sane person would ever argue about. Aren't they obvious?
Another argument is moral and legal. If there is not definition of what marriage is, with the way our judicial system works, what's to prevent my marrying a close male friend who's out of work and needs a hand? Then I could just put him on my health insurance and he would have all the protections of being my "spouse". Sure, it's a sham, but no harm, no foul, right? Oh, it's MORALLY wrong. It's legal, and that's what counts. Then, what's to prevent the Mormons from coming back and arguing for polygamy? Why should gay people be allowed to get married, but a married man who has another woman who wants to be his wife be denied? They're all "consenting adults," right? Oh, it's MORALLY wrong...I'm so sorry, I must not understanding properly. Let's try one more. The folks who run NAMBLA should be coming up next...their argument is identical to all of the homosexuals' arguments. OH, THAT'S MORALLY WRONG, TOO?? How silly of me...I guess I just don't understand morality.
The final, ultimate argument is biological. (DISCLAIMER: this is going to sound very cold, but logical analysis is always cold, and science is always logical. I personally don't feel love and marriage are meaningless, but we're talking about the species, boys and girls.) You've got to admit, ol' Augustus has a point. What is marriage based on? Love, you say? Well, what's love based on, then? The desire of two people to be together? Why? What for? Companionship? You're still way off. Biologically, marriage is about one thing: SEX. And why do human beings have sex? To PROCREATE. In fact, biologically, why does sex have to feel good? Seriously, think about it. Sex feels good so that humans (just like any other animal) will be encouraged to procreate. Dogs and other animals go into season; humans have orgasms. Take the orgasm out of sex, and what do you have? Something that's a heck of a lot of hard work and that looks really stupid, just so you can propagate the species. In fact, I would argue that if you took the orgasm out of sex, there would be NO homosexuality. Homosexual sex is one of the most selfish, useless things mankind has ever devised. It serves no useful biological function, it provides no benefit to the species, and it provides nothing to the individual except for pleasure. (There are lots of times that I would argue that pleasure is not a benefit; eating sugar, drinking alcohol, smoking, and driving too fast feel great to the people doing those things, but everyone agrees that those things are bad for you.) Don't talk to me about love and bonding and close relationships and all that; this is SCIENCE. Consider this: with average human lifespans, if every living human being went gay at this very moment and had sex merely for pleasure, the human race would be extinct within 100 years. And don't try to tell me homosexuality is biological, or worse, genetic. There's no scientific proof of genetic disposition to homosexuality. When there is undisputed, corroborated scientific proof, we'll all know about it, and THEN we'll talk.
So let's go back to love and marriage. Marriage and love are both social, cultural constructs that arise from the basic biological, evolutionary needs of the human race. Human beings need to procreate and raise and nurture their young, else the species will die. Love (or falling in love, anyway) gets you pregnant, and marriage makes you raise the kids. Some cultures ignore the idea of love in marriage entirely (a very biological, realistic view) and arrange their marriages.
So where does all of this lead us? Homosexuals still want to get married. As I said, let them go to the Universal Unitarian "church" and get "married". If that makes them feel better about themselves, so be it. But don't make me accept that. What are the benefits of enforcing legal recognition of same-sex marriage? None, except for them. What are the risks, the historical, constitutional, legal, moral, biological risks? Frankly, far too many to count. It continues to amaze me how willing some humans are to endanger everyone else, just for their own pleasure.
Thanks again for reading along.
No comments:
Post a Comment