The latest issue to get the "dead horse" treatment is gay marriage. Not being content with one radically derailed blogpost, the staff at the Aristophrenium have taken it upon themselves to write about it again and again. Personally, I figured they'd be too busy arguing whether the talking snake in Genesis was actually real or not to write another article, but lo and behold, I was wrong.
A lovingly titled Marriage: more than "equality of love" was posted by Mathew. I'll give you a few minutes to read it over before I start tearing into this shit sandwich of an argument.
...
Ready?
Alright, let's begin.
The argument is: Paul and David can marry with the same restrictions, therefore they are equal. While on its face that may seem like a coherent line of reasoning, thinking about it for more than 5 seconds will yield a drastically different answer.In the advertisement, we are introduced to the twin brothers, David and Paul. David is married, Paul is not. The brothers relate to the audience how the two of them used to share and do so much with each other during their growing up. But now, or so we’re told, they cannot share in the experience of marriage. See, Paul is gay and speaks fondly of his homosexual partner whom he can’t legally marry.
Cue the emotional rhetoric.
Ignoring the fact that Paul can indeed marry with the same restrictions as what his brother David can (sounds equal to me!), do you see the presumption that’s made?David: “So why are we different now? I can get married, and Paul can’t. Who you love should have nothing to do with that.”
Paul: “Yeah. It shouldn’t matter.”
Replace the word "gay" or "homosexual" with "black", and you'll have the basis for marriage restriction in America 150 years ago. Under Mathew's reasoning, these restrictions would qualify as "equal rights".
*********************************************************************************************
So what exactly is natural marriage, and how is it different than, say, procreation and child rearing? And why is this at all important in a legal matter, which necessarily has to do with governmental institutions? It seems Mathew's going a bit off topic here and putting forth a notion he hasn't explained or defined in any context. The link he gave to cite the "uniting of the sexes" phrase was a quote from an anti-gay book entitled "Marriage on Trial", in which the author vaguely claims that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, anywhere in the world. What he fails to note is the stigma surrounding homosexual union and its effect on that society, as well at what relevance ancient tradition has to do with the issue at hand.
Marriage is not, as the vast majority of gay “marriage” advocates often spout, a social construct or even a religious institution. Marriage, in all its forms and in all known cultures across the world and throughout history, predates both governmental and religious regulation and has always been about the uniting of the sexes4. That being the case, the best that governments and religious institutions can do is describe, or recognize, natural marriage, but they are never capable of prescribing what marriage is.
Also, if a governing institution amends its policies on who can legally marry who, how is that NOT prescribing what marriage is?
*********************************************************************************************
Marriage is public. It is public because marriage impacts how society is shaped and how society views marriage impacts the health and prosperity of that society. In the words of promiment natural marriage proponent Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, “The essential public purpose of marriage is to associate mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.”6 Marriages are the seedbed for families and it is the family unit that utlimately builds our societies. That’s the core obligation of marriage: parental responsibility to all children resulting from the union.So taking that argument to its logical conclusion, heterosexual couples who can't, or don't wish to produce offspring shouldn't be allowed to marry. Right?
*********************************************************************************************
Love in marriage is important, but it is at best a property that individuals bring into or cultivate within the marital union, not a property only obtained by marriage. Therefore, on the viewpoint of social conservatives like myself, marriage has a critical societal function of which the love between the spouses in marital union only serves. While Paul may sincerely love his same-sex partner, their romantic love cannot contribute in the same manner to society as the romantic love of a man and woman can. Period. But not being able to legally marry does not prevent Paul and his partner from continuing to love each other.So because Paul can't contribute in the same way to society (biological children, I'm assuming) as a heterosexual couple can, same-sex marriage should be illegal. Got it.
A few questions to that:
1. What about those couples who are infertile?
2. What about those couples who are fertile, but don't want children?
3. If the couples in (1) and (2) get legal incentives and rights for simply being together in a lifelong and legally binding commitment, why shouldn't Paul and his consenting adult partner?
*********************************************************************************************
That doesn't make any sense, and it's obvious that Mathew hasn't read the material he cited. Let me elaborate:
So family is the real purpose of marriage. While it is now common place to have other types of family variations (such as single-parent families, step-parent families, biological co-habitating parent familes, etc.) studies show that children from families where their biological parents are married perform better on just about every measurable indicator7.
While it is true that being married with biological parents does show notable improvement in the indicators of the study (school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, difficulty finding employment), children of same sex couples were no better or worse off than children of divorced heterosexual couples.
If Mathew is deriving his argument straight from indicators of a child's well-being, anything less than the optimal situation should be illegal. So out goes divorce, out goes single family households, and out go economically poor households, because they all score lower than than those households with two biological parents.
In addition, here is what it states in its conclusion:
This being said, most children not living with married, biological parents grow up without serious problems. In individual situations, marriage may or may not make children better off, depending on whether the marriage is “healthy” and stable. Marriage may also be a proxy for other parental characteristics that are associated with relationship stability and positive child outcomes. The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage help to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thrive—consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society. Marriage is not a guarantee of these conditions, however, and these conditions exist in other family circumstances, but they are less likely to.
What happened, Mathew? Did you forget to read the entire article before you made the decision that it agreed with your rant and cited it anyway?
The fact is, stigmas and views of marriage are changing. In a survey in which married couples were asked "What Makes Marriage Work?", children came 8th, after good sex, sharing chores, adequate income, and a nice house - and only 41 percent of those respondents mentioned children at all, a 24 percent decrease since 1990.
*********************************************************************************************
A marriage license is not a license to love; if anything, it is a license of parental obligation. And it’s this obligation that the gay “marriage” lobby constantly shy away from.
Swing and a miss!
A marriage license is a document issued by the state allowing a couple to marry. That's it. It's not inherently about family, child rearing ,or any other stretch you want to attempt to make homosexuals the bad guys. Married couples don't have to have kids - in fact, a growing percentage don't want to - so what's the issue with having a same-sex couple marry?
*********************************************************************************************
First off, no one's saying they're the same in every aspect. There are differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - real ones, like social stigmas and pressures. These have to be taken into account. Since procreation isn't necessary for marriage or vice versa (as evidenced by my previous arguments and sources), a truly objective view would be to regard marriage itself as a legally binding institution between two consenting adults.
Like it or not, there is a very natural and objective difference between the romantic love of heterosexual couples and the romantic love of homosexual couples: one sexual act lends itself towards procreation; the other cannot. One couple combines complementary genders (also important for the healthy development of children8); the other comprises members of the same gender (which intentionally deprives any children involved of at least one of the biological parents). To argue that the heterosexual and homosexual couple are the same really borders on the preposterous and ignores sound scientific data.
*********************************************************************************************
So what? If someone has a view that isn't based on sound reasoning, and not open for change via rational arguments, then who cares what they think? Is it the "gay marriage advocate's" fault that the conservative's views are in contrast with demonstrable reality? At what point does accountability come through in evaluating one's position on a particular issue?
Further, if the conservative position on marriage is that it is fundamentally a public institution wherein the highest social obligation is that it bonds fathers and mothers to their children and to each other, gay “marriage” advocates have done little – if not next to nothing – to allay these concerns.
*********************************************************************************************
That's all?
Australian Marriage Equality‘s advertisement is testament to that fact. What’s more, if the gay “marriage” lobby truly desire to alter the definition of marriage, then the burden of proof rests squarely on their shoulders to demonstrate how such a redefinition will not harm society but benefit it.
I can name 5 ways off the top of my head right now, and I'm not even part of the "gay marriage lobby".
- State revenue will increase (legal ceremonies, administrative costs)
- Local revenue will increase (personal and religious ceremonies, receptions, etc.)
- Increase the number of children adopted.
- Encourages individuals to give up high-risk sexual lifestyles
- Introduces financial incentives for lifelong commitment between partners, strengthening the economy.
*********************************************************************************************
Further, pronouncing defenders of natural marriage as religious bigots and / or homophobes is not only intellectually dishonest but incredibly disengenuous and a veiled attempt of silencing debate. The claim that marriage ought only consider whom you love is equally unfounded and is no more than the West’s skewed romanticization of the marital institution.I wouldn't go so far as to call you a bigot, but you are definitely misguided and you let confirmation bias lead you. You have tunnel vision regarding this issue, and it seems like you won't see the other side of the coin, no matter how clearly it's shown to you. To treat gays as a threat of your way of life is a bit laughable, but I can see how it can get you out of your comfort zone.
By the way, a tagline doesn't have to outline the entire issue. Has it ever occurred to you that what Australia Marriage Equality was hoping to do was show one facet of the issue, and try to sway the opinions of those that perhaps haven't thought of it in such a light? There are plenty of proponents that don't use emotions of love as an argument, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.
*********************************************************************************************
If, as a group, as a whole and by nature, the natural marital union create families, it is in society’s best interests to protect, promote and strengthen the age-old institution of man-woman marriage. And if children do best in households where their biological parents are married to each other, it therefore stands to reason that marriage should hold a unique value in society.
I just explained to you that procreation isn't necessary for a fruitful marriage, and just because children do best in one household doesn't mean you should outlaw all other kinds of households right off the bat, especially if children aren't a primary factor in that household.
*********************************************************************************************
Marriage – all things being equal – is a child-centered institution while, in contrast, the concept of gay “marriage” would be an adult-centered institution by necessity.
Marriage is not a child-centered institution. Raising children is a child-centered institution. You can't use the terms interchangeably, since one doesn't necessitate the other. Also, why would an adult-centered institution necessarily be a bad thing? By definition, a childless marriage would be an adult-centered institution, and last I checked, those were fully legal.
*********************************************************************************************
You still haven't defined what "natural marriage" is. How is one married by nature, and since homosexuality happens in nature, why is this not applicable to same-sex couples?
It continues to mystify me that there are segments within our society that would seek to redefine marriage which, as it stands, provides the best environment for the rearing of the next generation. Natural marriage, therefore, is healthy for all members of society. Whether you are gay or straight, it is in the individual’s best interests (and their social duty as members of society) not to define marriage to be anything other than the life-long, sexually-exclusive union of one man and one woman.
So after all this, I fail to see where your arguments can stand. I urge you to reply to my questions and comments and tell me where my line of reasoning is faulty, or reconsider your position. I have the sneaking suspicion, perhaps, that you will just ignore all that was said and regurgitate your arguments sometime in the near future when you read an article that doesn't fall in line with your doctrine.
