In a previous blogpost I asked, Is there a sexual basis for SSM?
The answer is, No.
But marriage is a public sexual relationship -- in our customs, traditions, and laws.
In a previous blogpost I asked, Is there a sexual basis for SSM?
The answer is, No.
But marriage is a public sexual relationship -- in our customs, traditions, and laws.
Gays keep screaming "equality, equality" because it sounds so damn good and noble and…… right, but from an objective and rational perspective the equality that is truly at issue is that between same-sex relationships that have sexual or romantic components and same-sex relationships that do not.
ReplyDeleteSo how does the love and committment of couples in any way constitute a compelling state interest. I mean, it's nice, but does society risk unraveling if the government did not support the sentimental relationships of all its citizens? Is the government now obliged to play matchmaker and nanny?
Gays are able to pursue committed relationships if this is what makes them happy without any governmental hinderance. They are simply not entitled to public, governmental support because there is no compelling governmental interest in same-sex relationships. These have only a neutral effect on society.
If the state sees no compelling reason to support same-sex relationships that lack a romantic component, why should it support same-sex relationships that contain that component, as each of these is equal to the other in terms of the effects on society that would constitute the state's interest?
I'd really, really like someone to try and answer that one.
No one has ever been able to come up with one good reason for why the public should support the relationships between people of the same sex. I would like to see just one good reason for same-sex marriage as a publicly supported social institution that has a real public interest to society and not merely a private interest to the particular couples seeking state support for their relationships.
Same-sex romantic relationships are equal to same-sex non-romantic relationships, and there is no state interest in giving public support to any same-sex relationship, because all same-sex relationships lack any compelling interest for the state.
If anyone disagrees, explain why same-sex relationship that are romantic are special, and why same-sex relationship that are NOT romantic are not special. What? Because of the romance? The sex?
The fact is that same-sex romantic relationships are really just friendships. The correct question, then, is what purpose does the government have to grant same-sex friends all the benefits and rights of marriage.
Answer: NONE!
Add to the mix the nonsexual types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements that include both sexes. The nonmarital category is far larger and diverse than what SSM argumentation pretends, with its hyped emphasis on gayness.
ReplyDeleteI think the merits of protections for vulnerable families outside of marriage are worthy -- regardless of sexual orientation or identity politics of those who are in need of such protections.
But marriage is a preferential status, not merely a protective status, and not merely a tolerative status.
The SSM argumentation that gets pushed to the top of the heap disparages the core meaning of marriage as hateful or bigoted, but on what possible basis, really? It is an attempt to inverse the preferential status of marriage -- based on its core meaning -- and make it into a barey tolerated core meaning based on the identity politic of the gay variety.
The lack of a sexual aspect does not mean that there is no gay aspect. It just happens to be identity politics, not justice, not fairness, not love, not romance.
I agree with you, Lee. Gay union -- or call it whatever the advocates will -- needs to stand on its own two feet instead of being hoisted up on the back of marriage. Instead of denouncing marriage, the advocates should be precisely stating the purpose of gay union and its great public significance.
Chairm, does your reply to Lee suggest that you would not object to civil unions, were they to be recognized through legislative or voter referendum?
ReplyDeleteLee, consider the case of a serial philanderer such as Newt Gingrich. Do you think that there is a compelling government interest in his relationship to his latest affair partner? Are affairs only deserving of special rights and recognition if they lead to the dissolution of any earlier marriages?
To borrow from you, the correct question, then, is what purpose does the government have to grant affair partners all the benefits and rights of marriage.
You see, I am of the mind that once the culture started to accept the idea that one partner in a marriage could petition the government to dissolve the marriage, marriage was fundamentally redefined. As it is currently defined, I see no reason to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, Peter, no matter the potential merit in a "civil union compromise", that is no longer a plausible opition given the way that SSMers have used civil union to force full-on local mergers with marriage in California and Vermont and so forth. SSMers have taken this option off the table -- no amount of negotiating will put it back on, clearly.
ReplyDeleteI do favor protections for nonmarital families -- especially those with children and clear dependenacies. But that does not require a new relationship status in the law, call it what you will.
Provisions for designated beneficiaries has long-existed without conflict with marital status. These are not dependant upon a sexual aspect. Protections might be made more affordable or accessible, if indeed there are problems in that regard, but this should not be setup as on par with preferential status of marriage. Society ought to encourage the aspirational and the practical advantages of the marriage idea -- its core meaning. But I don't think we ought to encourage more unwed childbearing and more divorce and on and on. Protections based on vulnerabilities, yes. And that does not mean carving out a special status based on gayness or whateverness.