Homosexual Marriage is an Insult to Homosexuals

Before I begin, I will lay out some parameters for my position. I will not be arguing against homosexuality. I will not be arguing in favor of heterosexual relationships. I will not be arguing using the Bible or talking about God’s love or God’s purpose. In short, I will not here be making a religious argument as so many think of religious arguments. I will argue from reason, pure and simple. However, as optimistic as I am that reason will convince the reasonable, I am also sure that it will harden the unreasonable. Not because they do not agree or can’t see the reason, but because they will think they are being discriminated against.

To the matter at hand:

It seems to me that the general and oft repeated argument in favor of gay marriage is for our society to recognize and treat homosexual couples as equal to heterosexual couples. The way to do this, as the argument goes, is to make the two different relationships the same in the eyes of the law. So the pro-homosexual marriage camp says that homosexual couples ought to be able, as their heterosexual counterparts are, to receive tax benefits and have children. To deny homosexual couples these two rights is, in the homosexual argument, treating them as unequal or even worse, as illegitimate.

But let’s look at what’s going on in this argument. It seems to me that the homosexual camp ought to repel the idea that being taxed the same and having children should legitimize their relationship. After all, especially to the latter point of having children, this is something only a man and woman can do. A homosexual couple will never have children because they are homosexual. Their relationship will never produce a child. Their relationship to others might. They might gain a child by surrogacy or adoption or other ways, but it will not ever, ever, ever be because they are in a committed, monogamous relationship with one another.

On this point alone – an argument from nature – we see that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal. Nature says they’re not equal. To try and force the law to see them as equal is to insult the very thing that makes them different. Why not make laws that says men have the right to be pregnant or women have the right to impregnate? It’s insulting to both man and womanhood. Such an argument for the right to have children is illegitimate and makes homosexual relationships  illegitimate. After all, a woman isn’t legitimately a woman because she can do what a man can do. She is legit because she’s a woman. Homosexual relationships are legitimately homosexual because they involve two of the same gender. The law can only operate within the parameters of nature. To try to do otherwise is simply idiotic.

So what about taxes? The tax code that affects married couples was set up to help them with children. It may have evolved from that, but that was and is still the basis. Children are the future of our (and any) society, so the government helps and protects both them and those who produce them. Since homosexual couples cannot – remember nature – produce children, why would they need the same tax codes as those who can produce children? Taxes were not set up to benefit married couples EXCEPT THAT they might have children. So those married couples who cannot have children are still taxed like married couples because the estate of marriage is what legitimately produces children. So singles and non-married couples are not equal in the eyes of the law to married couples. Equality is a red herring.

So what benefit is there for a homosexual couple to be declared as married? They can already legally enjoy a committed, monogamous relationship until death do them part. The law already protects their persons because they are persons. Under the law they are already protected from discrimination in terms of employment, public facilities, and so forth. And under the law, companies are within their rights to cater their services and goods to whomever they choose. So a lodge for married couples is withing their rights to not serve a couple that is not married – hetero or homosexual. To force the lodge to do otherwise is not making homosexuals equal, it is promoting them as superior to others.

When it comes down to it, it seems that the real reason homosexual marriage is being pushed is to legitimize their relationship. But this only makes it seem as if they don’t believe they’re legitimate to begin with. Why not then make laws benefiting and recognizing best friends or boy and girl friends? Why not make laws benefiting or recognizing school and work relationships? Is it the law that legitimizes these relationships? What’s the fundamental difference between this and homosexual marriage? There isn’t one. Besides which, the law already allows people to benefit from their non-married relationships. A person can have life insurance and leave to whomever he or she wishes. A person can open a trust fund for whomever he or she wishes. This has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a recognized estate because of the possibility (and hope for) children. Period.

In the end, any reasonable person will see that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are not the same. They are not equal. They do not deserve to be treated the same because they are not the same.

I want to conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I have not belittled homosexuality. I have not argued against homosexuality. I have not used the Bible. I have not argued from religion. I have simply argued based on what many see as the homosexual’s biggest ally: nature. After all, if they’re born that way, who’s to keep them from behaving that way? But their behavior, no matter how legit, cannot produce children of its own, and so will never be and cannot be equal to or the same as or even remotely related to heterosexual marriage. To argue otherwise is truly insult the homosexuals among us.


16 Responses

  1. A homosexual life-partner is not, under present law, defined as a “next of kin” in health situations. Meaning that often the person closest to the injured, sick, or dying is not making the life decisions about that person they need to, not to mention the pain of not being able to see the person closest to you during such a crisis. This is one of the MANY human rights issues not covered in your post.

    You fail to see infertility in females or males as a natural by-product, as well, meaning that Nature in and of itself does not define marriage by the ability to produce children. And your argument on tax codes fails to point out that a married couple without children STILL files and receives the married filing jointly tax. There are separate tax breaks for each child or dependent.

    Lastly, this same “logic” has been used for centuries for countless battles over basic human rights when a discriminatory group has power. It was always “better” for blacks to be “taken care of” by their slave masters (after all, they had inferior intelligence and everyone knew it). It was always “better” for the woman to leave the worlds’ dealings to the men and remain silent in the vote – I mean, surely she had enough on her plate what with tending the children and cooking all the food. It was “better” for the Native Americans to be rounded up and quarantined onto reservations. Do you see the pattern?

    You’re fooling yourself if you think that this battle is about a few tax codes and children. It’s not. It’s about the ability to be seen as a human: as someone that CAN marry, that CAN file joint taxes, that CAN do all the things a heterosexual couple can do.

    I fail to see if your argument is not based upon a religious belief why, then, you have such a problem with a group of people seeking these basic rights?

    And if, at heart I’m right, and your argument is rooted in religious belief even though you won’t admit to it and hide behind very faulty logic, then I would ask you to think for a moment: Whether God hates homosexuality is irrelevant in a society not founded on one religion. This is about treating people fairly and loving them, as God asks us to do here on Earth. If it is true that God hates homosexuality, then it really won’t matter whether a marriage was validated by the state or not – they won’t be married if God says they’re not. It’s simple: You either admit that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and has all-encompassing-judgment, or you do not. So which is it?

  2. How would you respond to the point that a heterosexual couple who adopts children would, in effect, get preferential treatment to a homosexual couple who adopts? In this scenario, “nature” didn’t intend for either couple to have children.

    • See my reply to the comment posted below.

      • I don’t feel that you’ve adequately addressed this objection. The capacity to reproduce is orthogonal to adequately raising and providing for a child, and it is not obvious that adoptive children of same-sex couples would fare significantly worse than those of opposite-sex couples.

  3. You don’t have to view them as equal in terms of “nature” because you are right by “nature” they are different. But you should give them equal rights as you would a straight couple that is unable to have children. Nature is against that couple too. So using your logic they too by “nature” are not equal to couples that can reproduce.

    • Not quite. Nature isn’t against the heterosexual couple having children because – unless you’re using a religious argument – nature isn’t a cognitive will. Heterosexual couples naturally have children, homosexual couples don’t. So, for example, it would be unnatural to put a prosthetic leg on a fish, but not unnatural to give one to a man born with only one leg. One is naturally unsuited while the other is naturally suited.
      Admittedly, this will open me up to ridicule because I use the word “suited” but if we check our emotions the word is well suited to the situation.

  4. The biggest issue is that marriage is not a religious institution. There is a difference between matrimony as a sacrament of the church and marriage, which although is recognized by the church in marriage ceremonies, is in the end, a legal document. True, for many, marriage is a very important element of the church, but it isn’t for everyone. I have friends who were married at the court house for example, some of them are even Christians and their marriage is just as valid in the eyes of the law as a marriage performed in a church.
    Now, my point here is that marriage within a church is one thing, but marriage in the yes of the law is different. A church has the right to say who it will and will not marry, but what justification does the government have in saying who can and cannot be married outside of a reference to the bible or other religious writing?

    In regards to it being an insult to homosexuals, that is somewhat of a stretch. Sure, we aren’t all equal in the way you’re specifying. What about a woman who was incapable of reproducing? Would that justify her not being able to marry a man she loves? What about someone who is paralyzed from the waist down? Also, take a look at how many truly committed and beautiful marriages never result in reproduction.

    In terms of taxes, the tax benefits are hardly just to benefit children. Take shared insurance for example. The way things are, if the partner in a homosexual relationship needs medical care, they are not covered under their partners plan simply because they are homosexual. There are many cases of homosexuals dying of illnesses which could have been treated if they could have been covered under their partners insurance. This is a right that is given 6 months after marriage to heterosexual couples, but even if the homosexual couple has been in a committed union for 10 or more years, they are still not capable of these rights. There are a number of other examples as well such as visitation rights and will’s.

    Also, if response to homosexuals being treated equally under the law, that is absolutely not the case either. Take a look at how many states where it is still perfectly legal to fire someone based simply upon the fact that they are homosexual.

    I’m not arguing in favor of homosexuality being right or wrong, I’m simply bringing the point up that it is not intrinsically linked to the church. In addition to this, there are a host of other ethical issues in relation to not allowing homosexual marriage to be legal. Whether or not one believes gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God should not alter their position on this.

    • Thanks for the response.
      You have some points that I’d like to address and flesh out, but I think a blog post on its own would be better than a quick comment here. Once I get it up (hopefully in a few hours), I’ll put a reply with the link here so you know when it’s posted.

      However, I would respond here to one of your points, simply for clarification. Holy matrimony is a marriage blessed by God’s word and prayer. It is not different than marriage. And the church (other than the Roman Church, which is wrong on this) does not see marriage (or holy matrimony) as belonging to the church. She confesses and knows that it is a matter of the state. It wasn’t until the 4th century that the bishops began to bless marriages, and some hundred years later when they began to perform them.
      As a pastor, I marry people with the state’s permission. Without it, I can’t marry anyone. I, for one, would like to see pastors stop marrying people. If someone wants God’s blessing on their marriage, then they can visit their pastor. But marriage is a matter of the state, not the church.

      • Well said. I could not agree more. Any thoughts on involving communion in the Churches blessing rite?

  5. I thought marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden as the last part of creation. Would that not make it a part of the church?

    • God did institute marriage in the Garden of Eve, giving Eve to Adam and blessing them with His word. But this makes marriage a part of the created order or fundamental to humankind. For a thing to belong to the church – to the saints of God – it must be given only to the church and be of the gospel. So, for example, the Sacraments belong only to the church as do the rites and rituals surrounding them.
      The church recognizes marriage as a blessing from God, just like child bearing and beauty in creation (not on the same level as marriage and children, obviously), but doesn’t lay claim to them since in Adam they were given to all people.
      What the church can do is bless marriages with the word of God and prayer, which is a wonderful way to teach what marriage really is and how to live according to its blessings and promises. Obviously, then, the church would not bless nor even recognize those marriages that are not instituted by God, such as homosexual marriages.
      It is somewhat like government. The church recognizes that governments are established by God, but also knows that the government does not belong to the church. It does have a responsibility to uphold the laws, protect citizens, and so forth, but then so do all people, not just Christians.
      The church is the congregation of saints believing that the Son of Mary is the Son of God, come to destroy the works of the devil and bring life and immortality to light, forgiving our sins and giving us His eternal kingdom to the glory of God the Father. It is not, and should never be, a political estate.

  6. For those who might be interested, I posted a followup to this addressing some of the comments made here.

  7. […] The following was originally posted at Pr. Lovett’s blog. […]

  8. A comment to the first poster, who said that non family cannot participate in medical decisions. They can. The method is called a “Medical Power of Attorney”. A friend, who is not related by blood or marriage holds one for me. He could makes decisions, if I were not competent, and meanwhile no one has ever challenged his being with me in hospital.

    • Nice thought, but Healthcare Proxies and MPA are not always recognized by homophobic healthcare staff. Ask gay couples who have had an experience in the hospital. I promise you’ll hear horror stories. Illegal as hell, but that’s the truth of the matter.

  9. […] Kurt: I felt like this was also fairly cogent. Homosexual Marriage is an Insult to Homosexuals  […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: