A Simple Perspective on Same Sex Marriage

I have noticed that much of the discussion of the marriage issue, viz. proposition 8, et.al- is centered on the legal and civil rights discourse and legal framework surrounding marriage.

I want to offer a simple perspective on the subject.

If gays get married, there will be more families out there to adopt children. Same sex unions are sterile. They are composed of people who are not actually marrying primarily to acquire the questionable legal benefits of such a union or asking for some sort of new tax status. They are stable, usually slightly better than average income demographic type unions that will offer wonderful homes for children who would have none - with two people who likely love each other and are certainly willing to make a commitment to each other to stand the test of time. Gays get married because they love each other, and because they want to start families.

I will grant you that in an atmosphere of intolerance, gays have a tendency to describe their nuclear family in a manner that mirrors the conflict of their endogenesis. Its popular in such an atmosphere that prospective same-sexers vociferously spout metrosexualized descriptions of what they plan to do with their wedding certificates on the wall. Here's a little secret. Women love babies. And speaking as a man. We don't like to talk about this too much but... we ... men just lurve them widdle babiez tooz. Specially does wittle piddy feets. I'm gonna get a dose of TOESIES!! .. wait. uh. where was I...

Right. Simple things. Ok. So its pretty clear, strong adoptions have a strongly positive effect on society. Family is base unit of political structure. Easy call. And it could very well be a woman making a decision about whether or not to bring her child to term - may simply by knowing that their children will be raised in a caring environment - be swayed to decide to carry the life inside to the light.

Again, keeping things to first principles. There is no likely biological predetermination for sexual preference (unlike sex itself) - certain factors in estrogen and testosterone production can play a role in establishing certain physical aspects. For example, my slob-like spare tire midsection has been recently found to increase my estrogen production. Boo. But it doesn't make me more disposed to be gay. Heteroflexible, maybe. But definitely not gay.

Still. At this level of encoding, we start establishing our sexual identities. Same sex unions , just like traditional marriages are by vast majority - started by people who are not expressing a shallow legal preference when they marry - they are expressing a fundamental social and spiritual need. Why is it thats all people talk about ? Who really cares what legal benefits exist from marriage. The beds too big without you.

People aren't going into same sex marriages because legal framework exists to let you pay more on a joint filed 1040 tax return. They're getting married because they want to start a family - perhaps, at first blush - a family of two people. But like the priest said - the purpose of marriage is to start a family. And once same sexers get started, start them they will.

So it seems to me the simple perspective would be that the more loving, caring unions out there that can support the upbringing of children - the higher the adoption rate.

And thats a noise cancelling microphone to the loud, ineffectual efforts of the radical minority and their their effort to ramrod legislation that outlaws a public health procedure. This sort of social stabilization has occurred before. The biggest drop in abortion rate, in the past 30 years, was under the Clinton administration when he reworked welfare and provided unwed mothers with a safety net. I would also point out that the economy boomed. It did so because the legislation provided an atmosphere in which women felt safe to have their children - and yes, it wasn't because of social handouts (the welfare reforms actually required people to get to work) but rather the acceptance of people as they are and a clear message that society was willing to help them in a moment of weakness.*

The net effect is clear. Just as it did before, the Abortion rate would drop. Given that the LGBT makes up about 6% of society, possibly 12% if things get a little more out of the closet - we could see another drop (certainly not as huge as 30%) on the order of 5%. That is an offset against a population increase also - we are dealing with more people to be sure but the magic of same sex marriage is that it doesn't automatically increase when she forgets to take her birth control pills. *

Perhaps its a matter of priorities. The top priority of same sex couples to be really not so much the legal benefit, or, using politics to try to change the status quo. Its more clinking silverware at the breakfast table than actual conversation. The right to have marital squabbles. Marriage isn't all that bad. Really. Shoot me now. Please. Thank you.

When we talk about same sex marriage we're talking about the creation of new family structures to support - new types of families. Cloning is just around the corner. It will be here faster than you can say "Hello Dolly". The fact that same sex marriages can't have children of their own just doesn't strike me as something out there that could possibly have any other effect than to lower the abortion rate, up the adoption rate, and generally have a positive effect on society.

Suppose the unwanted kids out there are taken into loving homes? The SAT scores go up. Crime goes down. Now add clones to the equation. We have to act to stop Snoop Dogg from making "When Clones Go Wild" . Now.

Most of the people opposed to same sex marriage, are out there opposing it on moral grounds. They commonly argue that contracts can exist to provide all the legal benefits of marriage to partners of a civil union. Most people for same sex marriage would love to equate the issue to civil liberties.

In a complex way, they're both right. But in a simple way they're both wrong. Because marriage is a social institution - and the laws of our country have become more complex about it. In colonial America, a priest would marry two people on the street if they wished. They'd go to the local courthouse and fill out a single form and it would be completely finished.

The priest would say, "John, do you persist in having this woman, to be around thee? To have and to hold." and John would say "Aye". Then he would ask Katherine. "And Katherine, do you take this man John, as he is, for all time?" and she would nod her head. And the priest would say, "Then I pronounce the both of thee married" and they would laugh and. Be married. Forever. If you don't believe it go to Williamsburg . Dude. .. Way.

Its not about legal frameworks. Its about family. It should be no surprise that any form of legal compromise offered by their opposition has been roundly rejected by the LGBT. When you marry someone they become part of your family. Like your sister and your brother and your father and your mother.

No hillbilly jokes. Alabama jokes, are fine. But no hillbilly jokes. Like for example. What does a hillbilly say on her wedding night. "Daddy. Can you stop smokin' that cigarette? The ashes are fallin on my skin and burnin' me"

Did you know that Bing Crosby and Bob Hope were married in a same sex marriage ceremony - in a major Feature film in the early 50's - and not only that, they were filmed in bed afterward with shots of volcanos erupting in the background? While the two men touched each other in bed, afterward. If you're nice to me I'll tell you the name of the film.

Ok, so I'm just throwing this out there. Same sex = a new form of stable union = good for kids and other living things. What say you?

* some have said that marriage itself is a moment of weakness.. please refer to pastor sam kennison for additional reading


Thinker Me said…
Aye -> I'm a fast learner.