|
I hate it when I write a big post and then something weird happens and it gets lost. That really pisses me off.
The ONLY argument for not allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state that rings true to me is that we-as a governmental society-create benefits for things which are socially desirable. Heterosexual marriage is desirable because it creates children and creates a stable family relationship to support the children, thus, we encourage people to become married. Homosexual marriage cannot do that, and, thus, from a purely rational perspective, we shouldn't give people an incentive to do it. It's not a perfect argument, but it's the only one that isn't based on religion or morality, which is why it's the only one that makes any sense to me.
That being said, if this is true, then all marriages in which either or both members are infertile either by choice or by natural causes, all marriages which are childless by choice and all marriages which require medical assistance in order to create a viable pregnancy should also not receive the benefits of civil marriage, since none of them are able to fulfill that institutional purpose of creating and nurturing children. If you (anti-gay marriage people) are ok with depriving all of those people access to civil marriage, then I can't criticize you and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's very likely that you would be ok with it, however, so maybe you need to think about your reasoning some more.
|