As an atheist I am opposed to gay marriage
because there is no reason for it. The FACT is that gay marriage is NOT a right in the Constitution, unlike Civil Rights for Black Americans, which IS explicitly in the Constitution. Marriage is a legal
status granted by the state for its good and welfare. Just like subsidies that
are given to some companies for the public good, marriage is a contract granted
by the state for its interests and that of the couple. I can see NO benefit to
the state for granting gay marriages.
I hardly think that being against gay marriage
is an indication of bigotry or lack of progressive outlooks. I am opposed to
gay marriage, but I am not for criminalizing homosexual acts nor treating gays
differently in most things. Just because I don’t think that we get anything out
of gay marriage, hardly means I hate gays. That is like a child complaining
that if it doesn’t get what it wants, you hate the child. Grow up! I guess too
that we are hating Mormons and Muslims if we don’t let them have more than one
wife.
Marriage is forbidden to other classes of people not just gays as well. You may not marry your mother or father, brother or other close relatives, except for some states it would appear such as Kentucky. You may not have more than one partner in a marriage. Bigamy is still a crime and should remain so since it is a fraud in the use of marriage.
For all of human history, we have had an interest in raising
children and having them. All children are born out of a sexual union of a man
with a woman in some form. Most children are still reared in families and that
is the reason that the state benefits from heterosexual marriage. The function of
marriage also is to secure the legal lines of property settlement for the
children and establish the responsibility for who is to be the legal
parent of the child and who may make legal decisions for it before majority.
Nobody now debates the merits of a two, man/woman parent family. We tried the single mom method and most studies I have seen reports that show it is definitely not the optimum home for the child. That is not to say that all other family arrangements cannot be used successfully. The point is that the optimum is the two parent heterosexual family model, so the state has a definite interest in promoting such an arrangement. Other models while less good are better than some other alternatives.
It is better to have a gay couple raise a child, than to leave the
child in an institution. If there is an opportunity to have either a man/woman
couple adopt a child or a gay couple, there is no question that the
heterosexual will be the better choice. The gay marriage idea would put the gay
couple on the same level as the heterosexual one.
I can see no benefit to society for gay marriage. Those who are in favor of it
have the burden of proof to show that the state gains from it. If it were
possible for two men to have children, then I would think that indeed gay
marriage would be called for. So far I have not heard of such a thing.
The
other problem that we are running into with gay marriage is with lesbian
couples who have a biological child of one of the partners. In the case of
divorce, who gets custody? Are there visitation rights and child support
payments required? In short we get nothing but headaches and legal problems and
a requirement for more judges in family courts if gay marriages are allowed. I
don't think the cost justifies the lack of benefit. All the benefits I can see
flow only one way.
All heterosexual marriages have the potential to produce children
in most of the cases. THAT is why marriage is established for heterosexual
unions. When you show me that two men produce a child through their sexual
union with one another, then I will be in favor of gay marriage. Until such
time we get nothing for it.
Furthermore, marriage is not just a word, it is legal
contract granted by the state for its benefits and that of the couple. I agree
that consenting acts between adults should be their own business. They can live
together and play whatever games they wish in the privacy of their bedrooms, but that is not the question.
You have to prove the benefit to the state for granting this legal status, not that it has to be proven that harm would result. Also, you will have to grant the same status to Muslims who have a religious belief that all men have the right to more than one wife. Most Muslim countries allow for polygamy and they have survived for centuries with it. I know of no culture of a civilized society that has had legal gay marriage though for any period of time. There have been many cultures where homosexuality was almost the norm, but I am not aware of any that gave formal legal status to such liasons.
