Marriage is a social contract between two people of opposite genders who promise to procreate and raise the resultant children to the benefit of our future civilization. This contract is consequently rewarded by our society with certain social and financial benefits (including an ephemeral caste elevation). Now same-sex partners seek (and, in some states, have already received) these same benefits. May I suggest that same sex marriage brings with it the following problems:
- Male-male marriages cannot, by definition, procreate. Yes, they can raise adopted children but do not seem to be overly enthusiastic to do so. And those that do suffer the problem of imprinting a stigma on children of either sex that females are somehow flawed.
- Female-female marriages can, due to modern science, procreate. And they can also adopt children (those who make it past Planned Parenthood’s vacuum cleaner). However, I think that their issue (or adoptees) also suffer from the potential of making any male rug-crunchers feel that they are substandard and not deserving of intimacy.
- There is a bookshelf full of laws that have been written using the base-line assumption of male-female marriage. Changing this definition will throw many of these laws into a cocked hat ... which should take a generation to unwind. This will guarantee full-employment for lawyers for ages. (One reason why we might think about excluding lawyers from our governing bodies.)
"Ephemeral caste elevation?" What the heck is that?
ReplyDeleteYour old school definitions are quaint but non-functional these days. You suggest that gay men might "imprint a stigma" on adopted children that females are flawed.
This is as silly as me conjecturing about the effects of a blustering heterosexual man who refers to aggresive women as "cunts."
Marriage was an institution to convey propery more than your romantic ideal of a union whose purpose was to make babies. Most of us married for the sex, not for the babies.
"Ephemeral caste elevation?" suggests the type of social uplift that Donald Trump gets when he bankrupts another one of his companies. He is into his creditors so deeply that they all compete holding his head above water with the vague hope that they won't be the next to get chopped.
ReplyDelete