This is response to this article concerning the right to gay marriage: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/11/unvarnished-truth.html. I wrote too much to post as a comment on the originating blog.
################
Before I begin, let me say that even though I disagree with you, I enjoyed reading your article -- it was very well written. I hope I am not offensive in my reply.
There are several problems with your assumption that there must be a "rational basis for society to decide that only certain people may marry---not brothers with sisters, not children with adults, and not men with men or women with women". One is that you're considering it from a very subjective viewpoint -- that of Western Judeo-Christian society. We may now live in a society where the rules are as you state, but there are plenty of other places where the rules are different. Does that make our rules correct and the others wrong? It depends on who you talk to. Our society may state that marriage = man + woman, but elsewhere polygamy and polyandry are acceptable.
Point 15: it is "an historical fact that the institution we refer to as 'marriage' did evolve---in a society in which heterosexual relationships were the norm". The idea that heterosexual monogamy is the pinnacle of societal evolution is bogus. Who is the authority that determines when the idea of "marriage" is fully-matured and complete. Maybe "the institution we refer to as 'marriage'" is *continuing* to evolve, in our predominantly heterosexual society, into a more logical definition based on commitment.
I'd like to go back to point 14, the hypothetical society. You say that there is no possible way that two homosexual individuals would ever consider bonding themselves together. Why? This assumes that love doesn't exist in this homosexual society; love, which I would argue is the true foundation for marriage -- not gender. I'm sure that in your brutal and ruthless society it may very well have been eliminated, and so marriage may be an unknown concept there. I don't think that's because of homosexuality, but rather the harsh and sterile conditions. But in our society, which is defining what "marriage" is and will be (not was), love and all of the finer emotions do exist.
So let's take a look at a different hypothetical society. Men and women are allowed to mingle as they please, where their every need is taken care of. Sperm and egg are unobtrusively collected, and the resulting children are raised by robots in specially sheltered underground bunkers, where there are given a basic education before being released into the world. Where in this society would there be an incentive to form marital unions? Would men and women feel the urge to declare, "I feel you to be utterly compatible and I wish to be with you and only you for ever." I would answer, sure, they would have just as much reason to as man + man, woman + woman, or man + woman + dog.
Why? Because I believe you are missing the point of marriage. I think you're stuck on the biological aspect of marriage -- male + female = continuation of the species. But really, marriage arose because of the fact that children with parents who stay attached together tended to survive longer.
Now though, we really have no imperative to have more children. There are already too many of us as it is. You must also concede that man + woman does not necessarily result in the best parents. Two men or two women may raise a child just as well as a man and a woman, or a single dad, or a single grandmother raising the children of her son who died with his wife in a car accident. Isn't there even a saying "it takes a village to raise a child"?
None of this actually requires that any of the parties ever get married -- marriage is not a prerequisite for raising a child. It may help, sure, since two people have committed themselves to building a future together...
Wait, what did I just say? "Two people have committed themselves to building a future together". Here is the important idea behind marriage -- TWO PEOPLE have COMMITTED themselves to building a future TOGETHER.
You're definitely allowed to feel more comfortable believing that those two people may only share one chromosome -- you can exercise your right to free choice and choose not to marry your same gender. But I really can't understand why you won't allow that choice for others.
We can argue semantics all day about what is a right and what is a privilege. You're even probably right that marriage is a privilege. But I would think that our choice of who to marry, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, should be a protected right.
"Wait! Now you're talking about letting people marry their dogs!" Maybe I'm just baiting you at this point, but let's take this as another hypothetical situation. Who is being harmed by this union? If a man says he wants to marry his dog, and he is a just, law abiding citizen, who pays his taxes, builds homes for the poor on the weekend, always eats the correct portions of the food pyramid, and continues to do so after getting married -- then why should we stop him? I repeat -- who is harmed by this union?
Now let's consider the flipside -- who benefits from this union? Well, if there are tax benefits, and credit benefits, and discounts at amusement parks for being married, then we see there is a selfish benefit to being married. If the man and his dog truly love each other, and take care of each other, then everyone around them shares in their happiness. His parents know the joy of seeing their child live happily. Their friends enjoy spending time with them because of the happy smiles on their faces. But all of those are only incidental benefits, because they could be just as happy without marriage (more on this -- see endnote ++).
So how is this different than a man and a woman doing the same things? Because they could theoretically have offspring? Okay -- should we then deny marriage licenses to individuals unable to reproduce? Accident victims paralyzed below the waist? Unlucky people who are just barren or infertile?
While I do appreciate that you are entitled to your beliefs, I don't see in your article any real support for why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, asides from "because it's always been defined as heterosexual union in the past". We should only be moderately guided by what has gone on before, but we should not ignore what is going on around us. Without that, you have no evolution.
Perhaps I'm arguing a different point, since you focused on the issue of gay marriage as a privilege vs. a right, but I think I am addressing the underlying issue.
++ Endnote:
I read an article in French once about how it was a growing trend for couples to live together without the "bond" of marriage. When asked why, one couple said that with marriage, you are legally required to return every night to your bondmate. When not married, it shows that you are choosing to come home to that person. I thought that was a beautiful statement. Especially considering how common divorce has become.
