Mating and Marriage

There's a great article from The National Review called “The Case for Marriage.” Of course! Government has historically taken an interest in the institution of marriage because of children; it's about what to do with the children that regularly come from mating. Traditional marriage with its natural gender roles is never perfect (because human beings are never perfect) but it is in the best interests of children. Our government and legal system must continue to support marriage with its traditional definition—as importantly linked to procreation—
or we’ll find ourselves on the road to the government taking upon itself the role of parent, with dangerous and disastrous consequences.

As for so-called gay marriage, try as they might, men cannot mate with other men and women cannot mate with other women. So why should government take any interest in their relationship? Of itself it doesn’t produce anything. As for the argument that government should support adult emotional relationships, government has never gotten involved in people's emotional unions alone. Can you imagine the colossal intrusion and power that would lead to? Government could dictate what should happen in every human relationship imaginable! That’s why government should only have something to say about the one union that regularly creates children, that is, marriage as it has always been defined.

As for another argument about how many heterosexual couples do not procreate for various reasons (infertility, choice, age), the principle still stands. These couples still mate, that is, they do the very thing people do that makes babies. Gay couples do not mate, that is, they do not do the very thing that makes babies. In fact, it's impossible to get a baby from anything they do together. Whatever else people acting homosexually do, they can’t mate and never do. Therefore, they can never be married as the word marriage is defined. If we decide to call what they do marriage, we will have ruined the word as it has always stood with its foundational purpose and definition: marriage exists and is encouraged in the hope that every child may be born into the most stable environment possible, to the basic family unit consisting of a legally united and recognized opposite-sex couple, which is usually his own biological mother and father from whom much is expected by society for the sake of its own survival.

There's yet another newish argument that government, with its interest in children, should legitimize gay marriage because gay couples are now getting children through outside means such as adoption, sperm donation, or surrogacy. All we can say is, government shouldn't support such things because they are not in the best interests of children. It's incredible that people are bringing children into a home without both a mother and a father where the adults are modeling maladaptive and dangerous behavior on purpose. Gay couples who go to these lengths are acting in their own various interests, and not in the best interests of the children they contrive to adopt or create. For example, we've heard that gay men will each simultaneously donate their sperm to the surrogate mother so no one will know which man's child is the result. Besides these adults treating procreation like a game and human beings like entitlements, do they not wonder if the child will ever want to know which of these two men is really his biological father? People need to know these things for medical records at least.

Purposely destroying language, as in hijacking the word marriage, in order to further a self-serving agenda is a cowardly and tyrannical thing to do. Our government representatives and officials should see through it.

revised 10/12/10