I've just come across a very interesting article that joins the dots between same-sex "marriage" and a corresponding increase of the power of the state manifesting in an increased interference in people's lives. This happens because same-sex marriage is artificial and non-sustaining, therefore requires state interference to bring the bulk of the population around.
Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.The interference from the state comes in when people resist participating in the same-sex marriage experiment.
Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex "marriage" is completely a creation of the state.
Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.
The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and MoralsNo wonder the left has a rainbow faction., Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex "marriage" in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent.
Public schools in California are soon going to be required to be "gay friendly." A doctor has been sued because she didn't want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple. A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing. All in the name of supporting the rights of same-sex couples to "equality" with straight couples.
The fact that opposite- and same-sex couples are different in significant ways means that there will always be scope for the state to expand its reach into more and more private areas of more and more people's lives.
Related Link: Same-sex "marriage" and the persecution of civil society ~ National Catholic Register
Photo from : Homosexual Intolerance of the Vatican during the Rome Sin Pride Parade
Lucyna, excellent article and most uncommon common sense. But farbeit for the courtiers to comment that the emperor has no clothes. After all, they all profit handsomely from big government.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of rubbish. Marriage is not and never has been an organic part of society. The meaning of marriage in society has been consistently evolving and changing throughout human history and has different meanings in different cultural contexts. Given the divorce rate is around 50% currently it's hard to see how it is robust to sustain itself - and in any case it only exists because government provides a marriage register. Marriage has always been institutional either provided by government or by religious organisations who took on central governing roles in society.
ReplyDelete"Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple"
Rubbish - In any case many heterosexual couples can't have children either due to age or to infertility. Artificial reproductive technology is available to Heterosexual couples as well and it involves in many cases the same process. Many heterosexual couples who can't conceive will use donate sperm or eggs in order to conceive a child in the exact same way as is done by same sex couples. There is no evidence in any study that demonstrates children conceived by IVF are at a disadvantage compared with those who are not.
"A private school is in trouble for disciplining two female students for kissing"
So your conservative and you don't wan government interference in your lives yet you want to allow private schools to interfere in the free choice of it's students. What you saying is the elected government can't interfere but an unaccountable unelected body can exercise any power it wants over students who have not consented to be governed for doing something that doesn't affect or impact anyone else. Kissing doesn't hurt anyone else so why should an unelected unaccountable body be able to coerce people not to. If anything allowing this is an exercise of big government taking away the liberty of the students who were kissing.
All in all the basis of this argument is straight relationships are better than gay one - It's just PC for conservatives.
In any case acceptance of LGBT people has come about due to largely grassroots cultural changes not due to state action. Polling suggest the majority of people are accepting of LGBT people and support equal marriage rights so to say it needs the government to bring it about is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteHi Tristian. Interesting that you've commented on a 7 year old post. I recommend reading this article for understanding what marriage is :
ReplyDeleteMarriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It
Just so you know, I'm not as worried about same-sex marriage as I was seven years ago. This is because I believe that it doesn't have much of a purpose for two people who can't conceive naturally (and I don't include infertile or old couples because they could conceive naturally if reproductive systems worked properly). Marriage really is about providing a structure for children and fundamentally, most people understand that. So, once the fad is over, same-sex marriage will decline and then disappear.
Marriage and it's function in society has not been consistent over the continuity of human history to say that it's main purpose is to provide a structure for children is probably not entirely correct. The article you've posted is interesting but does contain certain flaws.
ReplyDeleteYes it is true that marriage does promote stability and provides a good environment for children - but this is not an argument against gay marriage as there is no evidence it would cease to provide this benefit should the right to marry be extended to same sex couples. Many LGBT couples are raising children currently and those children would benefit from their parents being able to have their relationships recognised to the same extent as heterosexual couples.
Similarly the argument about couples having sexual complementarity simply because they are heterosexual lacks credibility. It's a fairly cheap way of suggesting straight couples are better than gay ones and ignores the fact that relationships require much more than partners simply being the opposite sex.
Arguing that "religious freedom" is under threat is a very poor argument. The rights of believers to attends worship services, pray, and preach as they see fit is not under threat. What they don't have is a right to discriminate against others in business, employment, housing, education, ect or a right to deny others basic rights simply because a small element of their religion disagrees.
Even if the comments about the cost of marriage breakdown are correct, and I think they are, the article does not explain why same sex couples being able to access the institution would have any affect on this. Marriage breakdown due to issues in the family; lack of commitment, unfaithfulness, poor communication ect, not because of what other couples are doing. Gay couples getting married does not erode marriage.
Similarly attacking no-fault divorce is relatively stupid. No-fault divorce policies were introduced because prior to it couples were faking adultery to get out of marriage. It was making lawyers and judges complicit in perjury. It was also trapping domestic violence and abuse victims in bad marriage and exposing children to high levels of conflict in failed marriages.
I should also note the article is from a right wing lobby group with links the US Republican party. It was written to push an agenda and is therefore not necessarily logical or objective.