To listen to the advocates of same-sex marriages, you would believe
that homosexuals are being denied their civil rights because they cannot
marry one another.
The fact that such a notion is even being entertained in the media
and in public policy debates today illustrates just how demented our
culture has become.
Can you imagine having this debate 10 or 20 years ago? Of course not.
The idea of men marrying men and women marrying women would, just a
short time ago, have been dismissed as quickly as the idea of men
marrying sheep.
In fact, that’s not a bad analogy with which to begin dissecting this
issue.
For a moment, let’s wave a magic wand and pretend we can actually
grant the same-sex marriage advocates their wish. Bippity-bobboty-boo.
Poof! Same-sex marriages are now legal. Marriage is no longer an
institution between one man and one woman. Now women can marry women and
men can marry men.
Why stop there?
After all, the same-sex marriage advocates tell us the only reason
marriage remains an institution for heterosexual couples is because of
archaic religious ideas. If those ideas — the very foundation of
western civilization — are going out the window, then on to the next
taboo.
What about marriage between brothers and sisters? Fathers and
daughters? Mothers and sons? Brothers and brothers? Any problems yet?
The standard reply you get when you pose this challenge to the
same-sex marriage advocates is that you are being absurd — there’s just
no demand out there for such unions. To which I say: So what? There was
no demand for same-sex marriages just a few years ago. Surely there are
people in the world who wish very sincerely to follow their hearts and
form marital unions such as those described above. You can probably see
them on daytime television right now.
Furthermore, is it simply market demand that makes such unions right?
When enough people no longer feel squeamish about incest, will it be
time to break down those barriers?
Let’s go a step further. Since marriage is no longer an institution
exclusively joining one woman with one man, isn’t it time to reconsider
polygamy? Hello?
How can we, in good conscience, tell a man who sincerely wants five
wives he can’t have them. It’s part of his makeup. It’s who he is. He
was born that way with a predilection against monogamy. Can you stifle
his rights and those of his consenting would-be adult wives?
But, then again, why limit these unions to adults? Isn’t that just
part of that old archaic religious notion that only adults should
experience the pleasures of marriage? Why shouldn’t children be allowed
to marry? Isn’t that age discrimination?
Which brings us back to where we started. The only taboo left at that
point will be marriages outside the species. How can we deny a man or
woman the right to form a domestic partnership with a domestic animal?
It’s just not right. It’s unconstitutional.
You see, we’re losing common sense when we sanction homosexual
marriages. To do so is to redefine marriage. If homosexuals want to get
together and create a new institution that celebrates their love and
commitment to one another, they are free to do that. Let’s just not call
it marriage, because that changes the definition of a word and a sacred
6,000-year-old institution. Let’s call it poofery or buggery or whatever
you choose, but not marriage.
Likewise, it’s important to remember that homosexuals are defined as
such because of their behavior, their sexual activity and proclivities.
No other group of people in our society is awarded special recognition
and protection because of their behavior or inclinations.
If we continue down this road, then we’ll have to be sure not to
discriminate against adulterers, drunks, smokers — eventually even
pedophiles. Once you start moving that line, you can’t stop.
And let’s remember the principal reason for the institution of
marriage. It’s the union of two people that forms the basis of another
important institution — the family. What kind of families will we
create with these bold new unions proposed by the same-sex marriage
advocates? Do you think the kids adopted into such families will really
get the benefits motherhood and fatherhood offer?
The fact that there is even serious discussion about this idea among
people not currently under psychiatric care is scary — downright scary.