I direly feel I must preface this with the fact that I love Connor as a friend. In some ways, he reminds me of Vikki in how close I've quickly gotten with him. I think he's incredibly intelligent and means best all the time. There's much I admire and respect about him. And, admittedly, I should have brought this up during the original conversation but I've always properly assessed things after the fact, plus to bring it up now would seem attacking and out of left field after the conversation. That said, this has been infuriating me for the longest time.
There's a conservative position that differs with the libertarian argument that we should remove marriage from the legal system, revert everyone to civil unions, and have the individual people apply whatever religious (or non-religious) significance to the event that they wish.
The position says, simply, that there is a stake that the government has in preserving heterosexual marriage. I wouldn't know the actual statistics but the argument simply goes that the nuclear unit is the most stable unit that continues stability and that stability permeates through the rest of society, holding a society together.
Now, my argument has always been one that the government should not concern itself with morality. It should be concerned with establishing a system that ensures that every individual can live their life without (generally physical) restriction or harm from any other individual. What Truth and morality is should be yours to determine on your own and to your own suiting - and this is most kept possible when others cannot restrict you (and vice versa, of course). Hence, you can believe in the tenets of the KKK as much as you want so long as that does not restrict me. For a less sensationalist example, you can believe whatever you want about street racing so long as you do not engage in it (because of the possibility to harm me with death or other near-fatal injuries). This could equally be applied to medical issues - you cannot reject medical treatment if that means you could become a health hazard for others you may come in contact with, no matter what you think of medicine. And so on.
Of course, this could get more complicated. After all, doesn't stability mean less restriction from others in the long run? While true, I'm sure we could argue we'd have more stability if we just all got along and agreed but I doubt anyone would be in support of repealing our First Amendment freedoms anytime soon.
I would actually go as far as to say that you would have more stability by following my rule. But that's neither here nor there and would take more attention that I really have the span for right now.
The point of this exhibition is that Connor would say that the government is not codifying morality by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. He would say simply that that is the most stable form of relationship and it encourages procreation (which is further stabilizing in our world of overpopulation) and, thus, should be what we define marriage as. If others want to get something similar, they can get a civil union.
And, you know, I'll skip the ways that words change (including exactly what a marriage would have been seen as during the very start of our young nation, which was further verified by the Dred Scott case).
Instead, I want to focus on something he particularly pointed out in defending why people verified as impotent or not even wanting to have kids should be allowed to have marriage while homosexuals should not. His basic argument was that they still have more likelihood. His parents were said they would be unlikely to have kids and yet he was born.
So, somehow, the scarce chance of being able to procreate despite being to all known sources impotent trumps the assuredness of being able to adopt despite the inability to naturally procreate.
Now, now, understand - I am not being mocking (even though, even to me, that sentence appears as such; but I assure you I am not). Now, my argument as to why we don't need to revert to a libertarian model is that marriage actually should be suited to account for children. It shouldn't be a requirement, mind you, but marriage as it stands is a legal document that allows for benefits (and things such as the separation of property in death, etc.) that include the possibility of children that need to be accounted for that a civil union between my brother and I simply would not need to. It's a highly specialized legal agreement but a suitable one.
In short, I agree with Connor that marriage - as it is used socially and legally now - likely would account for children (though I would remark that it does not expect them).
So, basically, the argument that Connor (and others) put forth is that the remote possibility of higher likelihood for natural procreation trumps the millions of those out there who would happily take children to raise for a family even though they cannot naturally procreate. Furthermore, even if a couple are both paralyzed from the waist down and incapable of having children, they still should have the right to marry because they are a man and woman and, somehow, this is benefitial for further raising of our young in this world without a remote biblical argument.
Here is where I get emotional.
FUCKING BULLSHIT.
This is no argument to create stability but simply a means to dictate your own morality behind pseudo rationality.
Why?
Well, it so beautifully makes itself apparent in that impotence argument. While that impotent couple has a higher chance of having children - even if by a fraction - than a homosexual couple, that fraction shouldn't make a difference. Do you honestly think that two couples - one impotent and one gay - are going to be stopped from getting children (whether by adoption or otherwise) if they want it? You really are concerned with the nuclear family? Then you would allow the creation of millions of nuclear families that blatantly want to be given that they're fighting for the damn right to be married right now. Seeing as all studies point to no difference between children raised by gay couples versus those raised by heterosexual couples, it makes no sense to restrict the creation of so so many new nuclear families.
But, hypocrisy aside, want to know the simplest reason as to why this decision reeks of personal projection?
Because it doesn't affect him.
He's not the one who gets to be disallowed marriage. Going back to my original argument that the government should only be concerned with the non-restriction of its citizens, do we all remember why Brown v. Board of Education resulted in the case that it did? It was because, when given the choice between black and white dolls, all little girls given the choice for the court (white and black) chose white. Why? They were conditioned and taught that white was better. If you want to do that for your private school, fine - but not public institutions and certainly not government backed ones.
So, yes, it's quite easy to sit on back and say that - begging your pardon and, honestly, nothing against you - it just makes more sense for marriage to only be for heterosexuals.
Because, quite pleasantly, he doesn't have to deal with the rejection and frustration from those closest to him. He doesn't have to deal with the permeating feeling of being marked as "less than" that plenty of queer youth deal with daily.
And, while maybe the biggest concern for your gay friends is the lack of a dating culture at Williams, that's not what the case is for mine so please don't assume that's the extent of our misfortunes.
And, for the record, faggot still refers to gays and is still understood by nearly all (including those using is pejoratively) to mean such. I have far too many memories I'd like to forget associated with that word, thank you very much.
Recent Comments