Friday, April 15, 2005

"Gay marriage" can never be marriage

The debate over "gay marriage" continues. It's mostly being debated by our friends in Canada, but it still continues here in the U.S. of A.
There should be no debate. Gays can never marry.
Of course, I base this upon a definition of marriage that has been in place since shortly after men and women began to create new life upon this hungry planet. It is not a "religious" definition -- even atheist nations hold to it. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Those who advocate "gay marriage" have a distorted view of what marriage really is. They view it as a psychological-sexual union and an economic partnership. They are missing the third dimension... the dimension of the procreative nature of the male-female bonding and the accompanying responsibility of rearing those offspring that come from such a bonding. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read Sex for Dummies. I'm sure it's out there; there are guides for dummies for just about everything else.)
Technology can do wondrous things, but this is a case where technology cannot trump biology. The elements aren't there for two men to create new life, nor are they there for two women in sexual congress.
Those who argue for "gay marriage" say that they are discriminated against because they are not allowed to marry. I would submit that they can never take on the full nature of marriage. Even though they may have, at earlier points in their lives, fathered/given birth to children, and even though they may be quite competent and dedicated as parents, their same-sex union cannot bring new life into the equation without outside help. That is a special burden that has been placed upon the male-female marriage by the forces of biology. No declaration can change that.
Should there be some way for truly committed same-sex couples to achieve recognition of their commitment to each other? Probably. I'm just not sure how to do it without further undermining marriage as we have known it.
Marriage provides a structure for the larger society, so the larger society can function better.
Aaahhhh... there's the rub. Structure.
The radical left among us have this thing about structure. They hate it. They'll do anything to destroy it. Any imperfection, no matter how arcane, is cause for dismissal.
Is marriage perfect? No. Are the people in it perfect? No. (As far as I know, there was only one perfect person ever to exist on this planet, and He was killed for it.) But is there a better way to provide structure for a society? Would you trust a government to do it? Hardly.
Just because marriage is now limited to male-female partnerships doesn't mean discrimination against male-male and female-female partnerships because of the special burden the male-female partnership assumes.
Just because that doesn't please certain far-far-far-far-leftists among us, they would prefer to render marriage unrecognizable -- and therefore, no longer definable by past standards.
That would, to me, be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Oh, you say we do that now? It's called abortion?
Never mind.