Homosexual Marriage – Why? (Part 1)
When I first started making notes for this book, I hadn’t planned on addressing the homosexual marriage issue. Just a few years ago, it was quite an inconceivable concept; it never would have occurred to me that I needed to defend marriage and explain why homosexual unions don’t fall into the category of ‘marriage’.
I slightly understand their perspective. One day I tried to imagine how I would feel if the government had told me that I couldn’t marry my husband. I tried to imagine how hurt and lost I would feel if I was told I couldn’t build my life with the person I loved so much that a life without him would have been inconceivable. Because I can’t picture a life where we aren’t together, we would have moved somewhere else, where we could be married. The thought of someone else dictating whether or not I could be with my husband helps me to sympathize with what some of these homosexual couples are experiencing.
There are obvious differences, however. My husband and I didn’t live together before we were married; and without marriage that wouldn’t have been an option. That is what marriage symbolizes to me; living together, being physically intimate, raising children together, sharing a bank account and a housing loan, knowing that our lives are inexorably intertwined. Without being married I wouldn’t have taken any of these things; not being married would have meant sacrificing a life together. But that is not the case for the proponents of gay marriage. Most gay couples who want to be married are already living together, sharing everything, putting both their names on purchases and accounts, and some have children. Are there any gay couples out there who are saving sex for marriage? If they can have everything marriage used to stand for without being married, why are they so determined to push the legal status? They say that laws defining marriage as between a man and woman are discriminatory. This is not true; laws against homosexual marriage do not take benefits away from homosexuals, it simply does not provide them benefits others are eligible to receive, if they choose not to marry a member of the opposite sex. People who choose not to marry at all are also ‘denied’ these benefits, but single people do not typically complain that current marriage laws are discriminatory to them. They claim they are being treated unequally. This is also not true; the same laws apply to them as apply to everyone else. Homosexuals can marry, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex. Heterosexuals also cannot marry someone of the same sex. They also can’t marry more than one person or someone they are closely related to. The same laws apply to everyone, which means they are not being treated unequally.
Homosexual couples can live together, buy houses together, have children, set up retirement funds and legal documents benefitting each other, and otherwise act like they are married. So why are they so adamant about being legally married?
Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?
I looked at groups opposing Proposition 8 in the 2008 California election. ‘No on Prop 8’ said it is “wrong and unfair”. They didn’t go into any reasoning, but the opening paragraph on their website said, “Every Californian should have the choice to marry the person they love. It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.”
It is unfortunate that is the best argument they could come up with for legalizing gay marriage, because not a word of that particular statement is true. There are many laws in place that don’t allow people to marry whomever they love. Cousins, siblings, parents and children cannot marry. The reasons for these laws were to prevent children being born with defects; but these days, even with sterilization readily available, they remain against the law because they are unnatural. Is there an argument against a father marrying his daughter that doesn’t come down to; it’s just wrong? I actually can’t think of one. If a father and daughter fell in love when she was 20 and he was 38, and they were both willing to take measures assuring they wouldn’t produce a child, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Saying that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love is also wrong because marriage involves two parties. How many people fall in love with someone who has no interest in them? Obviously, they don’t have the ‘right’ to marry that person. There are many requirements for couples intending to marry. Sometimes they need to provide proof of immunity or vaccination to certain diseases. Is that discrimination? What if the consenting adults don’t mind if one or the other has a certain disease? The law still says they can’t marry. There are laws, of course, concerning blood relatives. Some states do allow first cousins to marry, some allow cousins to marry if one is sterile. So, why not sterile siblings? Why not two brothers, inherently sterile?
Many states require you provide proof of divorce from any previous marriages. Why? Isn’t that an infringement on my personal rights? If I’m already married to my husband, and fall in love with another man, why don’t I have the right to marry him? At one point in my life I was in love with two men at once. I was engaged to my husband, and he left for a couple of years. While he was gone I became very good friends with someone, and eventually fell in love with him. I knew that I would never be able to marry him, because I was marrying my husband. But I loved him, and I had to choose not to be with him. Leaving him was one of the most painful experiences of my life. Why did I have to make that choice? After all, according to the gay lobby, all consenting adults have the right to marry the person they love. I loved them, they both loved me. We should have had the right to marry. What about a bisexual? The homosexual lobby is convinced that they have the right to be married to someone of the same sex, because they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Bisexuals are sexually aroused by both sexes, so the homosexual lobby should support their right to have a spouse of each sex. They shouldn’t have to choose to deny their natural sexual urges their entire life because they can only marry a spouse of one sex. That’s what this is all about, after all. Homosexuals can’t be required to deny their natural sexual urges by marrying someone of the opposite sex. So allowing just heterosexual and homosexual marriage would immediately discriminate against bisexuals. What about two couples? My husband and I have some very good friends. What if we fell in love with another couple? I think people occasionally have sex like this; couples who engage in ‘swinging’. What if two couples got together and kept spending time together, and eventually fell in love and wanted to be together? They wanted to live together, raise their children together, visit each other in hospitals, and be recognized as married. Swinging is not illegal. They could even choose to live together. They could raise their children as a group. They could write up legal documents giving the others inheritance rights. They could all sleep in the same bed every night, or have a couple of beds and choose who they want to sleep with on a daily basis. None of that is illegal. But it is not marriage. So, every adult does not have the right to marry the person they love.
Next they claim that, “It’s a personal and fundamental freedom guaranteed by the California Constitution.” I don’t know if any of them have read the California Constitution, but I have been through parts of it, specifically the ‘Declaration of Rights’, since if gay marriage was a constitutional right, it would probably be found declared among the rights. (Interestingly, the Preamble is, “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” Just a shout-out to all the atheists who swear that the government has nothing to do with God.) The ‘Declaration of Rights’ only references marriage when talking about property rights. Marriage is again mentioned in Article 13 and 13a, about taxation (and tax limitation, as though such a thing existed). It does not detail who has the right to marry. So, the California Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to marry whomever they choose. They may be assuming the right because nothing in the California Constitution specifically forbids it. There are many things the constitution does not forbid, but ‘constitutionally protected by omission’ is not a valid argument for homosexual marriage. If there is some deeper reasoning for claiming that homosexual marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, I haven’t found it. If it is just a catch phrase, it sounds good, but it’s completely false.
Many people say that homosexuality is natural, and so keeping homosexual marriage illegal is akin to discriminating against someone based on their race. People are born black, if they are also born homosexual then they can’t help it. Some studies have been done which claim to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, genetic trait, which would lend credibility to the claim that they can’t choose the way they are. There is also reason to believe that these studies are biased, since many of the researchers involved were homosexual, and so had a vested interest in a specific outcome. But, for the sake of argument, let us allow that homosexual attractions are natural. There are many natural urges that people simply choose not to act upon. That’s the great thing about being human; we’re all capable of exercising self control. It is quite natural for men to want to have sex, and they often find themselves attracted to women around them. Some of them choose not to have sex with everyone they are attracted too. Maybe they don’t want to risk pregnancy, maybe they don’t want to get a disease, maybe they want to wait until they are married. If they are married, sometimes they choose not to have sex with other women. They are naturally, inherently, physically attracted to women they aren’t married to. Does the fact that it is a natural urge make it good to act on it? Many men like pornography, some men just like to masturbate. Both natural urges. Some men choose to avoid those activities. Maybe it hurts the women they are with. Maybe they just want to control themselves. Whatever the reason; they are strong, natural urges that don’t have to be acted on. Some people are naturally turned on in an BDSM setting. That’s how they like to have sex, that’s how they were born, that’s what turns them on. Some of them choose to participate in BDSM sex. Some choose not to.
My point, of course, is that being a natural tendency does not automatically make it something wonderful or something to be celebrated. And it certainly does not automatically make it something to be given legal benefits.
What is the difference? The only difference I can see is that society has grown comfortable with homosexuality. As long as there are two willing partners, it doesn’t matter. So people have grown used to not denying that particular urge, and now they want to move what used to be considered a perversion to a legally protected union. What, exactly, is the difference between being born with an attraction to children and being born with an attraction to members of the opposite sex? If homosexuality is a natural urge, which I’m sure it is, then so is pedophilia. Why is one a perversion, even when not acted on, and one lobbying for equal rights with married couples? They are both born with those urges, they can both choose not to act on them. The only difference I see is the object of their attraction. Giving one sexual perversion a legally elevated status seems like a very bad road to begin traveling.
Posted on June 20, 2011, in Homosexual Marriage and tagged constitution, constitutional rights, discrimination, equality, gay marriage, gay rights, homosexual marriage, homosexual rights, marriage discrimination, marriage equality, natural rights, same sex marriage, ssm, why I'm Conservative. Bookmark the permalink. 61 Comments.