Whenever I read a load of rubbish I feel a strange sense of duty – no doubt grounded in an oversized ego – to speak some sense, as if it might be a balm, or a counterbalance to bring the internet to some equilibrium between sanity and insanity. About 10 years ago this wonderful defense of gay marriage was made, and ten years later, no matter how late, I’ve come to destroy it.
This homosexual vindicator starts as any self-respecting modern essayist should; with indignation. Who decided the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman? Republicans? Straight people? Our country backs the definition, but where did they get it from? I would point out trifles such as biology, but it seems that for our man, a definition that’s always been there is just no good at all. Like that fights should be fair, or that murder is wrong. Who decided that, murder victims? Let’s be serious, the fact that a law has been written on our hearts for so long that we have no record of its origins does not lend credit to a small population of Very Cool People changing it.
“Marriage is not about procreation!” He then fired off, with all the authority of a brand new religion. Luckily for myself, I am friends with Socrates.
Socrates – What then is it about?
Defender of the Faith – Marriage is about love and commitment!
Socrates – Ah, so it is for very best friends, brothers and sisters.
DOF – No, silly Greek, it is for those in a sexual relationship who want that love and commitment.
Socrates – So there is neither love nor commitment in a sexual relationship without marriage? What changes when you marry?
DOF – It’s special –
Socrates – Why? Like you yourself say, it should not be the creation of any religion, it’s not special because of its age. Why then should the love and commitment of marriage be any different then that found in any sexual relationship?
Here I find that gay marriage proponents fall flat, because if marriage is a historically bigoted institution that has nothing to do with the raising of children, why on earth is it important? But there is a simple, practical test to decide whether marriage is about procreation. It follows reason that if it is the case, couples that are the least open to procreation will divorce the most, and vice versa. If marriage has nothing to do with kids, then married people who purposefully aren’t having children must be having great marriages? Right? Wrong. Couples that practice Natural Family Planning use no contraception and are thus open to children, and have the lowest divorce rates, 0.2%. Couples using artificial contraceptives, and thus reluctant to conceive children, have that embarrassing national divorce average of 50%, and gay couples, for whom it is purposefully impossible to conceive a child, have the highest rates of infidelity and divorce in the country. Marriage, it seems, is about procreation. Would it be a stretch to say that the commitment so applauded by our essayist is a result of children?
Ah, but then couples with infertility should not marry, correct? This is a mistake of principle. A couple having difficulty conceiving a child and two men who cannot POSSIBLY conceive a child are not one in the same. The very diagnosis of infertility implies that the couple is trying to conceive, but the same cannot be said for homosexuals.
Following this devastating argument, our man moves on to show that gay couples are, in fact, great parents. This seems like an odd point to make, what with the hubbub of marriage NOT being about procreation. But nevertheless, he is playing all the cards he has. He starts by pointing out that murderers and child-molesters can have children, so why not gay folk? I don’t pretend to be an expert on debate, but I sincerely doubt the “but murderers and child-molesters are doing it, why can’t I?” would work with my mother. And why this man puts himself of that plane is beyond me. But he makes a similar mistake of principle. A criminal might act as an excellent father, might turn himself around, might reform, might keep that life separate from his child. Or he might not. The government wisely does not pretend to know. But a gay man, no matter how inspiring his reform efforts, cannot be a mother. And this the government can know. Parenthood can not be regulated by how good or bad you are, as these things change like the wind. That’s why the eugenics movement failed. Parenthood can be decided on gender, however, as it is solid. And I’d be embarrassed if I didn’t know the psychological importance of being raised by a mother and a father. So there. This, of course, was followed up by the argument that all the homosexuals not having children will ease the burden of over-population. Would you make up your mind, Mr. Morally-Sound, Sir? Are you good fathers or childless earth-savers? And what over-population, by the way?
I’ll wrap it up with this gem: In a stunning rebuttal to all those claiming that homosexuality is unnatural, we hear that animals often have homosexual contact. Animals often rape and kill and eat their own offspring, sir.
My next post will be exactly why I am against gay marriage, a reason so sensible, few have heard it.