Saturday, July 17, 2010

In Defense of Marriage

The Defense of Marriage Act has come under attack recently as unconstitutional. I contend the act is brilliant for its constitutionality, despite my disagreements with gay marriage.

The act says that states can accept gay marriage (under the 10th amendment) but that other states do not have to recognize those marriages as valid (under the full faith and credit clause). So unlike most bills passed, today the Defense of Marriage Act is on strong Constitutional grounds. The moral argument for gay marriage is another matter.

Most people who advocate gay marriage are decent people who simply want everyone treated equally. What they don't realize is that gay marriage is not about extending marriage, it's about destroying marriage.

Critics often point to high divorce rates to show that traditional marriage isn't succeeding. Though it's difficult to find consistent numbers in marriage studies, most agree that 40% of marriages will eventually end in divorce.

However, I fail to understand how pointing to bad behavior justifies more bad behavior. Parents do not want their children learning about the lifestyles of same sex couples. Nor do parents want sex education to include homosexuality. These are just the beginning of cultural changes that would take place if gay marriage is made acceptable.

Critics also point out that many states used to have laws against interracial marriages and that gay marriage is no different. However, even if someone is born with homosexual inclinations and desires, it remains a behavior that can be changed, unlike race.

And if two men or two women should have equal protection to marry, should one man and five women also have that equal protection? What about marrying minors? Or marrying a brother or a sister? What about multiple men marrying each other, or multiple women? Where would the equal protection stop?

The religious left will never accept heterosexual polygamy - it's far too politically incorrect. Once gay marriage becomes acceptable, the religious left will begin making the argument that minors should be allowed to marry whoever they want. NAMBLA and the ACLU have already begun working down this road and you can imagine how much this would destroy the status of marriage in our culture.

2 comments:

derp said...

Why do people who argue against gay marriage always assume that marrying minors is the next logical step?

Others like you drag marriage to animals into the argument too.

Do you fail grasp the concept of "consenting adults"?

It is a very clearly legal differentiation of who should be allowed to marry or not.

What kind of logic assumes that allowing consenting adults to marry will destroy the legal definition of "adult" and allow children to marry?

Why is that a logical next step to you?

It is much more likely that you are just throwing marriage to minors into the argument in order to appeal to the emotions of people who dont realize how lacking your conclusions are.

chemguru63 said...

You say that it is about destroying marriages, yet you make no case for it. How would two men or women getting married affect your own personal marriage? If it does, the fault is with your marriage. Similarly, how is it 'bad' behavior? 'How dare two people fall in love!', is that it?

Sure, some parents do not want their children to learn about homosexuality. Fine, don't teach your children about it. That is your call as a parent.

You say that sexual orientation can be changed. Perhaps in some situations it can be change to a small degree. But look at it in the reverse, you are heterosexual, and according to your statement that sexuality is changeable, you can be turned gay. With some therapy and other methods, you too could be gay. No, I think we are born with the inclinations we will have for the rest of our lives.

You discuss equal rights of various components of people. Let me just say that while I will never choose to be in a polygamist relationship, if certain people want to pledge their lives together, they should be allowed to. One man and three women? If that works for them, sure. But please do not use the tried and failed logic of minors, animals, and family. A marriage to a minor is and should be illegal because by definition minors are incapable of making life decisions for themselves. This is also terms pedophilia. Children/animals cannot give consent, period. Marriage among family members is referred to as incest and is wrong because it produces nonviable offspring.

I will say that I am in favor of marriage and it needs to be changed from the fickle system it is seen as today. People need to realize that, barring a horrid revelation, marriage is and should be for life, not a 4-6 year relationship.