Quote:
Originally Posted by Csihar
(Post 985187)
And why do people have a problem with gay marriage? I'm particularly interested in hearing from non-religious people.
|
As a preface, one can start with an acknowledgement that certain "victimless" activities (See: the consenting adults argument) are still regulated and controlled by our culture and system of laws. For example, incest is regulated by our society. The reason is that society recognizes a valid
public purpose in the regulation and promulgation of certain relational behaviors. IE: society is served by the preservation and promotion of cultural institutions that provide positive societal benefits.
The idea that homosexual attraction is natural or learned is mostly irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage, and it is often a distraction in the secular discussion of the issue.
Marriage exists as a societal institution to provide and promote the optimal environment for child-rearing. This is not to shout "
PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. It is simply an acknowledgement of the quality that makes marriage unique over other relationships in our society (professional, friendships, familial, etc.)
Ponder this: why is marriage regulated while friendships and non-marital sexual relationships are not? It is because there is a valid public purpose in the institution of marriage. Proponents of traditional marriage assert that children are best raised in a two parent heterosexual household. Yes, it is true that some same-sex parents may do a better job in some cases, but as a whole, traditional marriage advocates assert that in the aggregate traditional households are far more productive in creating well-adjusted adults that will contribute to society. Alternatively, many single parents do amazing jobs with their children. However, this is the exception that is permitted and not promoted. The valid public purpose (fostering the optimal child-rearing environment for society overall) is best served by preserving and promoting the traditional marriage.
Governments have three options when encountering societal issues. They may prohibit, permit, or promote a specific thing. Beneficial institutions are promoted (See above: traditional marriage's valid public purpose), relationships with no public purpose are permitted/left alone (See: friendships), and harmful relationships are prohibited as a net harm to society.
Traditional marriage advocacy cites that marriage carries numerous responsibilities and duties. Specifically, marriage is intended to foster and promote a stable family unit which serves as the foundation of our society. Gay marriage is often cited as a complete redefinition of marriage and that is what the battle is generally over. Marriage is not about "love." It's about creating the above foundation, and traditional marriage advocates cite that a traditional household is far better equipped, as a whole, to handle the rearing of children. Because marriage carries with it attendant rights, gay marriage, if allowed, then suddenly causes the promotion of an institution that does not serve the optimal public purpose. In short, children need both their mothers and their fathers. The role of each parent is unique, and it cannot be reduced to a series of "tasks" that can be completed in a rote manner. Children need their mom, and children need their dad. Any deviation is less than optimal from an overall viewpoint of society and such deviations (single moms, widow(er)s, etc.) are permitted but never promoted.
Marriage is rooted in the biological fact that men and women tend to produce babies, and when children are born they are innocent third parties. Marriage is intended to bind both parties together so that they may fulfill their responsibilities to this new third party. (Note that this is where one can begin a related discussion on the deleterious effects of no-fault divorce and the ramifications of a "convenience culture.)
In effect, the promotion of gay marriage has two primary effects. First, it promotes a child-rearing environment that is not optimal, thus it does not serve the "valid public purpose" of marriage. In effect, the government is recognizing that
as a matter of policy and law that there is no distinction in gender roles vis a vis child rearing. This is seen as egalitarianism taken to an untenable degree by traditional marriage advocates who instead celebrate gender differences as something to be embraced.
Additionally, because gay marriage does not serve the "public purpose" the recognition of it is quite literally a redefinition of the word, and such an act is seen as needless. For example, what would happen if all uncles were legally declared to also be fathers of their former nephews? This seems silly at first, but the title of "father" carries legal rights. All of a sudden you have people that are legally capable of making decisions for a child that they have no right to do so for. Then you have the issue of when multiple "fathers" conflict. While the example may seem silly, it's not really that extreme. It is a good example and what happens, from a legal perspective, when you redefine a certain set of rights and titles to have a more expansive definition, a lot of overlap is instantly created and it becomes a tangled web. A prime example of this is the recent California bill which allows more than two parents per a child (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1644613.html).
Finally, the redefinition of marriage is being sought by adults who seek to displace the original beneficiaries of the institution: children. Instead, these adults seek to bend the institution to their purposes usurping its original function. Traditional marriage is wounded by the legalization of gay marriage because it creates a situation where children are more frequently reared in a less than optimal environment.
Not every couple will have children, but every child has a mom and a dad.
