First off, it is troubling to me that right now, I feel very hesitant to post anything on facebook that could even be taken as obliquely pro-traditional marriage, or that questions in any way the merits of legalizing gay marriage. People should not feel ashamed to state their views, as long as they are respectful about it. While I understand that stating this will likely invite the response of "bigots should feel ashamed of their views, that's a good thing", my views have nothing to do with being against equal rights for gays. I am pro-family. Shouldn't I be allowed to state my views without fear of being "shouted at" on facebook?
What do I mean by "pro-family"? Here is what that means:
- Marriage has traditionally meant a man and a woman hitching up and having kids. There have been plenty of exceptions to this at many times and places throughout history (hey, polygamist mormons!), but this seems to be the 'standard model'. I would also add that marriage has, for the majority of it's history in Western civilization, been a very religious-oriented ceremony, with little to no involvement of the government.
- From point #1, the purpose of marriage is to create and healthily raise the next generation of humans. It also provides people with companionship. But the difference between any relationship and marriage is the commitment of matrimony--hence making for a more stable environment for children. Anyone who argues against kids having a stable environment to grow up in is stupid. Hence, marriage's primary reason for existence is to protect and foster kids. (Admittedly, there are a few groups, such as old people and infertile couples, for whom this logic does not work so well.)
- Gay people today want to have equal rights when it comes to marriage, hence all the equal signs on facebook, in all their many versions.
- The number of gay people who want to marry for the purpose of adult companionship is much larger than the number who wish to have kids. I take this data from the most recent Canadian census, which states: 'More opposite-sex couples had children at home than did same-sex couples, 47.2% and 9.4%, respectively.' Read more here. Granted, that's Canada, not the US, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the numbers would be much different in the US.
- Hence, gay marriage is, generally, about gays and lesbians wanting to have adult companionship, and furthermore, to enjoy the same government given rights that straight marries couples enjoy. There is also a smaller group of gay folks who want to raise kids as well. I fully support gay couples enjoying equal rights that straight couples enjoy.
- Worth stating: straight couples are doing a pretty poor job of being great representatives of the traditional values and purpose of marriage, i.e. raising healthy kids.
- So, traditional marriage: emphasis on stability and raising kids (kind of fading today, though, unfortunately). Gay marriage: emphasis on adult companionship, with a small subset also raising kids and I'm sure are doing a fine job (and five times as many lesbian couples as dudes, sorry Cameron and Mitchell!).
- Which brings me to my big question: what is so vehemently wrong about civil unions which give gays the exact same legal, government-given rights as straight couples currently enjoy? The purpose for the distinction being that marriage does in fact need some help and protection. Even though everyone makes fun of people who say that "families are threatened by gay marriage" (obviously, Cameron and Mitchell are not going to come over and poof, all your kids will become gay), I think there is some merit to the argument. If the emphasis of marriage on the creation and fostering of healthy children is replaced by adult companionship, then I do think that we are rolling a very hefty set of dice with a lot of kid's futures. Hence, if gays can be given their rights with civil unions, while marriage gets to keep the emphasis on kids, not companionship, why can't we all be friends?
- Point #8 brings up another good point, which is that if government was not as intimately tied in to marriage as it currently is, this would seemingly be a much smaller problem.
- I'll admit that the hole in this argument is that there are a lot of straight folks who get married and never have kids, either because they get divorced (not good), can't have them (sad), or decide not to (bummer). So, it's kind of giving a free pass to those folks, in that those who purposefully don't have kids are using marriage for companionship and not kids. Admittedly, it's an imperfect solution.
- So, friends, if you've read this far, tell me: am I way off? What's wrong with civil unions? Am I completely insensitive and off base? Or maybe 75% off base? Whatever I may be to you, don't metaphorically shout at me. And don't tell me that I "hate" (or "h8") anyone. I just want to have a conversation where everyone can be respectful of everybody else's point of view.






