WARNING...to some people, the following is considered hate speech....If one can be against same-sex marriage and not be homophobic, then this is not hate speech...but otherwise it is. If you feel that being against same-sex marriage is homophobia, please stop reading this article now.
You have been warned.
I read the headline of an article today, which said, "It is Time for Mormons to Accept Gay Marriage." And it hit me, I understand now how everyone is wrong about Marriage.
There have been times in History when societies have been very permissive about sexuality. And there have even been societies in ancient Rome and Greece where homosexuality was encouraged. But never did any of these societies insist on giving the right to marry to same-gender couples. Does anyone wonder why that is?
In a society there are rights, privileges and duties. In the United States there are rights to life, liberty, etc. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We also have privileges. A driver's license is a privilege that comes with an agreement to operate a vehicle in a safe manner and according to established laws. If you do not obey those laws, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be taken away. And there are also duties. The duty to care for others. If we neglect the duty to care, it is called negligence and the court can force one to execute a penalty.
In winning the fight over same-sex marriage, gay activist state that marriage is a right. But I ask, it is really? Did the ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews treat marriage as a right? If they did, would they have held men who did not marry and have children in lower esteem? The evidence is that marriage is not a right, but a duty.
Now, one does not need marriage to produce off-spring. The real duty that we have to society is to produce offspring, to have children. It appears that we can and have, throughout history, produced children outside of matrimony. Why do we even need to get married in the first place?
There are many theories in many societies about how and why marriage began. From a male perspective, there are two benefits to marriage. First, assurance of the paternity of his children. Second, exclusive sexual access to his wife. A woman has little to gain in this relationship, except for the intimate emotion bond that is a natural result of consortium. However, in most societies, the husband become the primary breadwinner for his wife.
How have we drifted from this basic understanding in our society? First, we gained the ability to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual activity...at least 99.9% of the time. Second, we have the ability to, like no other time in history, to separate genetic parenthood from legal parenthood.
We have perfected methods of artificial insemination to help infertile couples have children of their own. Today, we do not need both sexes in a marriage relationship to rear children. However, we still need both sexes to produce a child.
If two men marry, they can have a child. They can use donated ova and engage the services of a surrogate mother, and legally both men are the parents of that child. But when it comes to actual paternity, the child may still only be the genetic child of one of those men.
If two women marry, they can have a child. They only need the services of a sperm bank. That child may be the legal child of both members of the relationship. But genetically, it is only the child of one of those women.
So same-sex marriage does not resolve all of their problems. It does not completely solve the problems of paternity nor maternity. We may therefore find that same sex divorce is far more sticky than people make it out to be.
Same-sex marriage can not resolve, completely, the paternity issue. It can resolve the exclusivity issue. But does one really need marriage to state that two people will be legally sexually exclusive to one another? Probably not. This is not a reason for same-sex marriage at all. There must be other reasons as well and there are.
In our society, we reward men who enter into a marriage contract. We make it easier for marriage men to get insurance for their children. We give them tax breaks. It becomes easier for a married man to get credit. There are all sorts of perks in our society to marriage. You can argue that all married couples have a right to these perks. But I argue that marriage is not a right.
As humans, we have a duty to produce offspring. If we do not have children, the human species will become extinct. It sounds like hate speech, but it is really a cruel fact of science.
We also have a duty, because were are intelligent beings, to teach our offspring proper law and order. If we do not do this, our society will turn to chaos and may eventually become extinct. I say this because we have weapons that are capable of destroying our planet.
Marriage is a tool, as it helps guarantee paternity, to assist men and women in these duties. It provides order in the reproduction of the species. It provides a small group where this care and nurture can take place.
Therefore, my argument is that same-sex marriage is not needed. Because marriage is really about children, we can provide the perks that are given to any married couple to any parent, regardless of their marital status. And one does not need a legal document to be sexually exclusive. That is a promise that any two people can make with each other. If we have this attitude in society, religious zealots, such as myself, can continue in our happy marriages. And therefore, there will not be a need for Mormons, or Catholics, or Muslims to accept same-sex marriage.
Posts
