Saturday, July 20, 2013

Talking Points

Let me step back and sum up all the arguments we've all heard ad nauseam. The opponents of gay "marriage" say marriage is for having children. The advocates respond, "Well, if that is so, then why does the law allow even obvious barren heterosexual octogenarian couples to marry? Marriage is in its essence is not about children at all. It is about the commitment between two people. That's it." The opponents: "Why two?" 

Some advocates say because it is just natural to have a commitment between two people, while others have no objection to legalizing polygamy (to name just one example, Martha Craven Nussbaum)." The opponents then point out, or at least I do, that if marriage in its definitional essence has nothing to do with children, then why do advocates of gay "marriage" put so much effort in attempting to show that child rearing by homosexuals is just as good (if not better than) as that done by heterosexual couples. Why did Judge Vaugn Walker go out of his way in that now well-known opinion to declare an identity between homosexual and heterosexual child rearing? If the intent to raise children can have no part in the legal definition of marriage, then why the deuce dilate on the subject, as Judge Walker does, in a legal opinion? The reason for this, as Judge Walker makes clear, is that in the social meaning of marriage, children and marriage are inextricably linked.

If homosexuals are to have full equality with heterosexuals, they must be allowed to "marry" and have children just like heterosexuals. And this is the point where I, as my readers (all none of them) well know, just cannot repress the urge to declare that this is simply absurd. How am I not to think that children will be used as pawns to achieve for homosexuals the same respectability that supposedly attaches to normal married couples with children? How am I not to think that this insistence that because basic, fundamental human biology is completely irrelevant to the determination of family law and is trumped by considerations of "equality", that the law in its drive for 'marriage equality' will NOT soon declare all parenthood to be a legal fiction? And how am I not to think that homosexual families will never be the same as normal families because the former can only be adopted? And finally how can I not think that the law is silly and stupid for trying to tell me otherwise?

No comments: