A Fuzzy Thread

[cobra de capell]

Gay bashing? No one is gay bashing here.

The unual suspects have chimed in on the ‘pro-‘ side, but they have not provided positive proof of why society needs to officially recognize same-sex relationships, since human civilization has arguably gotten along well enough without it for thousands of years.

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can’t. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn’t make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other. One can still argue that marijuana should be legal, of course (or tobacco shouldn’t be), but not on an ‘equal rights’ basis, without demonstrating how the law actually treats people with different smoking preferences differently.

Traditionally, families consisted of a husband who worked outside the home and a wife who stayed home to raise children. As more and more financial benefits became tied to employment—and thus primarily to the husband, the concern became how to protect the wife and children, who inherently had no direct access to them. The majority of secular marriage benefits created by the state were for this purpose—protection for the non-working members of the family who had some financial recourse if, say, the husband died (or left) taking the family income and benefits with him.

In the 21st century, the ‘traditional’ definition of family doesn’t apply nearly as much as it used to. The pro-gay-marriage side, in fact, regularly points out this general trend, as a reason why society should be accepting of ‘non-traditional’ same-sex marriages.

But, why should society be compelled to make sure ‘non-traditional’ couples received the same protections…if they’re 'non-traditional', and the original reasons for providing those protections in the first place no longer apply.

Once again, gays can’t have it both ways: they can’t say the traditional family pattern doesn’t apply anymore, therefore same-sex couples should be accepted…but then say society has an obligation to provide those benefits to them which were entirely dependent on that traditional definition of family to begin with. If gay families are far less likely to meet the ‘traditional’ definition of family than even the modern 21st century yuppie couple—one parent working, and one parent being the ‘housewife’ with the kids—what’s society’s motivation for extending unneeded benefits to even more families nation-wide?

Legalized gay marriage (if it happens on a large scale) will not be the end of the world. Nevertheless, there are very simple reasons why both society and any given individual does not need to accept it, without feeling guilty. Not supporting legalized gay marriage is a legitimate social position to take, without automatically labeling one as a 'bigot'. But in my mind, the case that gay marriage is necessary for a successful and just society, rather than a 'nicety for a small demographic'' has not been made...