Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I want nothing in this world more than to be a father. Yet I can’t bring myself to celebrate same-sex marriage.

 

Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.

As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

Marriage Is More than a Contract

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies

People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.

Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

A Good Dad Puts Kids First

Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.

Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

 

I’m Gay, And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

 

 

Don't let gay activists fool you.  There are indeed plenty of homosexuals out there who are not in lock-step with them and who actually have an inkling, if not a deep understanding, of true principles regarding the family and marriage. Consider also the intolerant activist backlash against Bruce Jenner....

Link to comment

Don't let gay activists fool you.  There are indeed plenty of homosexuals out there who are not in lock-step with them and who actually have an inkling,  if not a deep understanding, of true principles regarding the family and marriage.

An interesting essay, but one so filled with misconceptions that one has to wonder whether it is authentic.  For example, the author seems oblivious to the biggest reasons for the strong push to make same sex marriage legal:  the legal rights that go along with it -- right to inherit, see your spouse in the hospital, right to file married taxes, etc.  Since much of that can be covered under civil partnership legislation, it may be wise to separate that from religious marriages.  Whatever the case, the Supreme Court is likely to decide that a much broader class of people will now be allowed get married under the Equal Protection of the Laws.  That decision will likely come down in June.

 

Also the author's claim that marriage is primarily a sexual reproductive matter (which is a Roman Cathoiic claim), and that same sex marrieds will be (in effect) stealing children from heterosexual couples is nonsense.  As though artificial insemination does not exist, or that there are no surrogate mothers, or that people don't marry for love and companionship, etc.  We must learn not to fob off our religious conceptions on others under color of law.  We were victims of that high-handed action in the 19th century.  We need to set a good example of what marriage and family should be without trying to force others to comply (Satan's way).

 

Consider also the intolerant activist backlash against Bruce Jenner....

Hadn't heard about that.  What are they saying against Jenner's transgender efforts?

Link to comment
hat same sex marrieds will be (in effect) stealing children from heterosexual couples is nonsense.

 

I got the impression the argument was more that they were 'stealing' one or more parent from a child, not that they were stealing children from heterosexual couples....if so, surrogacy and artifical insemination would mean that the child didn't not have one of its biological parents in the home.

Link to comment

I got the impression the argument was more that they were 'stealing' one or more parent from a child, not that they were stealing children from heterosexual couples....if so, surrogacy and artifical insemination would mean that the child didn't not have one of its biological parents in the home.

Exactly. I have no objection to gay couples adopting children that already exist. But deliberately depriving a child from the beginning of either a father or a mother is selfish and sexist IMHO. And yes, I have the same objection to "single parents by choice."

Moreover, marriage forms a new, complete unit of society. Same-sex relationships can't do that.

Link to comment

Exactly. I have no objection to gay couples adopting children that already exist. But deliberately depriving a child from the beginning of either a father or a mother is selfish and sexist IMHO. And yes, I have the same objection to "single parents by choice."

Moreover, marriage forms a new, complete unit of society. Same-sex relationships can't do that.

This assumes too much. You disrespect single parents so viciously. A friend was married to his wife in the Mesa temple and hard a beautiful daughter with his wife. Seven weeks after the baby was born, my friend's wife decided she didn't want to be a wife or mother and walked out and hasn't had contact since. That was 6 years ago. My friend has unselfishly chosen to remain single so as to focus on working and providing for his daughter and provide a stable home with lots of family support. Had he chosen to be selfish, he would have gotten back on the dating scene to replace his wife with someone different just so there was a female figure.

Thankfully, he has more sense than to engage a path so damaging. Both father and daughter are not merely living but thriving in a peaceful and loving home.

In the case of surrogacy, no child is being ripped from a parent. That is silly. The assertion that only heterosexual couples deserve or are capable of raising children is rather asinine, narcissistic unChristian.

Link to comment
For example, the author seems oblivious to the biggest reasons for the strong push to make same sex marriage legal:  the legal rights that go along with it -- right to inherit, see your spouse in the hospital, right to file married taxes, etc.  Since much of that can be covered under civil partnership legislation, it may be wise to separate that from religious marriages.

 

That's why it's a welfare issue and not a rights issue.  Welfare is targeted and not given to anyone, hence non recognition by the state of SSM is perfectly legal and constitutional; that and the fact that homosexuality does not rise to the level of suspect classification.  It becomes a moral issue in part because courts upholding state recognition of SSM are not following the law.

 

But more to the point of the article, some complain that it's anonymous, but recent history has absolutely demonstrated that anonymous has plenty of reason to fear retribution be it at the workplace, or publication of personal information as an implied threat, or on the college campus, dark sarcasm in the classroom, etc. 

 

And even more to the point of the article, he makes the unassailable point about children missing something being raised in a situation that is inherently without father or mother.

 

To cover all bases, to give government sanction to a much less than ideal lifestyle choice hurts us all because it paves the way for people (such as our children and spouses) to choose a less than ideal path in the face of temptation and weakness.

Link to comment

A religious argument in favor of heterosexual marriage as the basis of a family as the ONLY and BEST option is unrealistic, unreasonable, irrational and irresponsible.

 

IMNSHO it is the best.  If the best is not available then other options must be considered.

Link to comment

That's why it's a welfare issue and not a rights issue.  Welfare is targeted and not given to anyone, hence non recognition by the state of SSM is perfectly legal and constitutional; that and the fact that homosexuality does not rise to the level of suspect classification.  It becomes a moral issue in part because courts upholding state recognition of SSM are not following the law.

 

But more to the point of the article, some complain that it's anonymous, but recent history has absolutely demonstrated that anonymous has plenty of reason to fear retribution be it at the workplace, or publication of personal information as an implied threat, or on the college campus, dark sarcasm in the classroom, etc. 

 

And even more to the point of the article, he makes the unassailable point about children missing something being raised in a situation that is inherently without father or mother.

 

To cover all bases, to give government sanction to a much less than ideal lifestyle choice hurts us all because it paves the way for people (such as our children and spouses) to choose a less than ideal path in the face of temptation and weakness.

 

Welfare isn't about marriage. It is about dependent children. The children are the innocents. Why do you want to punish the innocent through governmental actions?

Link to comment

As an opinion that's fine but it is not a validly asserted fact.

Good to chat with you again, ERay. Much love.

 

Good to chat with you too.  Hope all is going well?

 

 

The conclusions depend on which study one uses.  The results are deeply influenced by who commissioned and paid for it.

Link to comment

Good to chat with you too.  Hope all is going well?

 

 

The conclusions depend on which study one uses.  The results are deeply influenced by who commissioned and paid for it.

It's my last semester of my bachelors degree. So I'm batty.

I completely agree with what you said about conclusions. The best way to observe is on a case by case basis.

Link to comment

It's my last semester of my bachelors degree. So I'm batty.

I completely agree with what you said about conclusions. The best way to observe is on a case by case basis.

 

I am always in favor of married, stable heterosexual couples as the norm for parenting.  When that is not possible then single parent or ss couples who can show the stability needed.  Kids need all the help they can get. 

Link to comment

I found myself greatly agreeing with the writer of the piece, especially since I've said similar things myself.

 

That being said, I do believe that the Supremes are going to rule with SSM.  I will be surprised if it goes otherwise.

 

And I'm of the position which ERayR laid out, and which Valentinius complimented.

 

Valentinius, just to comment on your friend who chose to stay away from the dating scene after his wife self-destructed and ran away from her responsibilities, I will not claim as a matter of fact that he was running away from his own responsibilities by choosing single parenthood, but I do believe in my humble opinion that he should have chosen otherwise.  My father remarried after my mother passed away when I was 7, and my new stepmother was one of the most important people on earth to me as I grew up.  She treated me as her own, and I loved her as my mother. 

 

And then there's the other side of it, that he could have blessed the life of a young woman who needed children to love and care for, and who needed a husband's love as well.  But I have not walked in his moccasins, so I shall not judge him.

Link to comment

This assumes too much. You disrespect single parents so viciously. A friend was married to his wife in the Mesa temple and hard a beautiful daughter with his wife. Seven weeks after the baby was born, my friend's wife decided she didn't want to be a wife or mother and walked out and hasn't had contact since. That was 6 years ago. My friend has unselfishly chosen to remain single so as to focus on working and providing for his daughter and provide a stable home with lots of family support. Had he chosen to be selfish, he would have gotten back on the dating scene to replace his wife with someone different just so there was a female figure.

Thankfully, he has more sense than to engage a path so damaging. Both father and daughter are not merely living but thriving in a peaceful and loving home.

In the case of surrogacy, no child is being ripped from a parent. That is silly. The assertion that only heterosexual couples deserve or are capable of raising children is rather asinine, narcissistic unChristian.

By "single parents by choice" I mean those individuals who are not married or in a permanent relationship and have no intention of either at the time, but decide they want a baby so create one by artificial insemination or surrogacy, not the situation you describe. It is an individual deciding from the get-go that the child they plan to create has no need of the opposite-sex parent. That is selfish and sexist, completely different from a parent who finds themselves single because of bad circumstances but now is doing the best they can.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...