|
Edited on Wed Feb-18-04 01:00 PM by meatloaf
position on gay marriage and my reply to them is the first reply to this thread.
Why gay marriage is the wrong route.
I've already harpered on this once here in Crapshoot, but would like to harper on it again and invite people from the political forum-thread to read it to see what they think, but I cannot promise to reply because I don't want to really argue about it (besides, it's a given that homosexuals won't listen to these rational arguments no matter what so why bother?), but I would still like to voice my thoughts, all the same. I feel that my argument is a rational approach, one that the "commonwealth" may address contrary to the court of Massachusett's statement:
According to Xeno, the Massachuetts court said:
"The court concluded that it may not do so, determining that the Commonwealth had failed to articulate a rational basis for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. The court stated that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second- class citizens." Id. at 312."
I got four problems with the court's statement. The first is that this implies that anyone not married is a second class citizen. If person A is 'not married', then A is a 'second-class citizen'. Person A is single, hence 'not married', therefore, A is a second-class citizen (as is anyone 'not married', or single). In addition, the court "forbids the creation of second-class citizens". So, if a single person is a second-class citizen, then the court forbids that person being a second-class citizen based on his/her single status. Therefore, this invalidly implies that the court forbids anyone from being single because they are second-class citizens by definition, as that citizenship was based upon marriage according to Massachusetts!
Secondly, if you change the definition of marriage (i.e. no longer just between a man and a women), then you change the standard of marriage. This implies that marriage between a man and a women is immoral because it is wrong for marriage to only be between a man and a women. NOW, in order for marriage to be moral, it has to be between three entities (but all separate and monogamous partnerships, mind you), or that three entities have to exist to fulfill the requirement of moral standard: there has to exist simultaneous marriage between a man and a women, man and man, and women and women for the whole scope of the newly defined morality to be fulfilled (read it a few times if you don't understand and maybe you'll get it). This is, however, ass-backwards. Moreover, change the standard once, and it will be changed again to include anything from marriage with animals (as in certain Hindu rites) to polygamous marriage (implying anything from homosexual polygamy to homosexual polygamy plus marriage to animals). In addition, it would seem to be hypocritical to allow "gay marriage" and deny, say, polygamy. All a polygamist needs to do is claim that being denied that sort of marriage creates a second-class citizen, namely, the person denied into a polygamous relationship. Therefore, changing the standard of marriage will only create ethical problems (which goes back to suggestion of immorality).
Thirdly, the secondary purpose of marriage (albeit an unwritten one) is to establish a family, but the homosexual "families" are only capable of being surrogate. This is metaphorically equivalent to the third gender (I said "gender", not "sex") called 'berdach' in other cultures (e.g. of some Asian, South Pacific, and North American Indian societies). Let me give more background before furthering the thought. These are individuals that adopt the gender behavior of the opposite sex. Male berdaches would often pretend to menstruate by cutting their upper thighs. Additionally, they would simulate labor (i.e. giving birth) by drinking a severely constipating drug giving "birth" to a fictitious "stillborn child", and these "stillborns" are even given a burial. Of course these aren't strictly 'homosexual' since some are sexually oriented to the opposite sex, but that's not the point. Homosexuals aren't capable of having real (i.e. natural) families based on what is natural (sad to say). They have to have surrogacy. Is this reason enough to bar marriage from then? No, not exactly, but they cannot naturally fulfill the secondary requirement of marriage without surrogancy. Thus, it is rather like the pretending of the berdaches in the simulation of menstruation and labor (this pretending is echoed in the homosexual marriage pronouncement: "I now pronounce you spouses for life", in stead of, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"). We can extend the definition of marriage to include them, but we CANNOT extend the naturalism of marriage to them. They need the interface of surrogacy.
Fourthly (and I think the strongest point), and this is an excerpt from one of my previous posts, if gays think marriage makes them second class citizens then they should ratify the notion of "civil union", not marriage. It's like saying that women, because they have vaginas, are second class citizens to men. If a women thinks she is a second class citizen, is the answer for her to be found in getting a sex change so that she can have equal rights? Obviously not, and yet, homosexuals think in order for them to be equal, they have to give marriage a "sex change" instead of fighting for equal rights as women have done. They have the strange notion (which is, in fact, arguable irrational because it's not necessarily the best means choice for their end, not that I'm saying it is irrational though) that they cannot have equal rights unless they become as those that have equal rights (i.e. if it takes marriage to establish that second-class citizenship; thus it's like a women becoming a man or vice versa). If they want to change something, they need to work on civil unions, not marriage. Otherwise they sell themselves short. We don't have unisex bathrooms for a reason (e.g. potential harassments, etc.; but not that we should apply that reason to marriage). We have bathrooms for both sexes because women and men are different anatomically and psychologically. Similarly, heterosexual sex is different anatomically and psychologically than homosexual sex. For the same reason we should have two different institutions of marriage and "civil unions" because, let's face it, heterosexualism is quite different than homosexualism. To suggest it is the same in marriage is a major fallacy.
|