Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong, Part 1

Those who promote same sex marriage ask the question - "What's wrong with gay marriage?" Then, since they only want to hear one answer, they attack anyone who'll take up the issue and dare to contradict them. Over the years, I've spent a lot of time supporting the fight to save marriage against the concept of same sex marriage. Recently, one of my readers pointed out that I've never really written a more comprehensive article about why same sex marriage is wrong. Here's a first draft.

This list compiles years of experience to present a basic list of the problems with the concept and application of same sex marriage. I do not have the time, nor the space to explain every point in detail, relying on a few examples to make the point. I have written about these ideas separately, and will point you to earlier essays if you want to see more of my views. Someday, I may write a book....

Semantic
Gay activists attempt to redefine the word "marriage" to include same sex couples. In order to do this, they deny any original meaning of the word, instead selecting only a very broad definition in order to force the inclusion of homosexuals. As an example, gay activists deny any relationship of the term "marriage" with the reproduction and care of offspring. In turn, gay activists also have to spend considerable energy convincing the rest of the world of a new definition of the term "family" - in fact denying any blood or even legal relationship as a condition of family - in order to include a dizzying array of relationships. (Again, they always take the broadest meaning.)

Gay activists change the meaning of the term "marriage" to include same sex couples, denying the purpose of the state interest in licensing marriages - to protect the contract of marriage, and to protect the children's claim on the parents. Broadening the definition, gay activists can claim such meaningless definitions, such as: "Marriage is a union of love." "Marriage is an agreement between two consenting adults." "Marriage is a contract of ownership."

Modern liberalism loves to redefine terms to suit its political ends, contorting such terms as "rights" and "fairness" to mean anything they want. Changing the meaning of terms to suit ideological ends limits freedom, instead of expanding it. Gay activists use semantic manipulation in order to expand their ideology, doing so at the expense of the rights of others.

Semantic manipulation is a favorite political tool, especially among modern liberals. Semantic contortions can be used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with their political view. (Flinging epithets of "racism" or "bigotry" is a common weapon of the left.) The problem with changing definitions to fit ideals creates a nightmare within application of law. For example, given the concept of a "hate crime," the law now has to decide if murder is worse because a hate crime was committed. This is a nonsense question, as murder should be treated the same under the law.

Redefining marriage will have major repercussion within the legal system, which will, in turn, weaken the system. Instead of maintaining the concept of the rule of law, the system will promote the rule of the "wise" and "compassionate," applying the law unequally in order to maintain an ideological position.

Social
There is no doubt that same sex marriage will have a social impact. (It already has.) The question is whether or not same sex marriage will harm society as a whole. This, of course, is difficult to argue and to predict since harm may not show up socially for several generations. Yet, we have more than 50 years of liberal social engineering from which to draw a few conclusions.

First of all, the engineered system is failing. Social institutions are falling apart. The education system fails to produce educated children, despite all of the money and regulations. The government is coming apart at the seems. The institution of marriage is all but destroyed.

Gay activists dislike the comparison of same sex marriage with the general breakdown of the institution of marriage and the breakdown of the family. Yet, the concept of same sex marriage is related to the general modern disregard for the institution as a whole. It is a byproduct of the destruction of marriage over the past 50 years.

The concept of same sex marriage rests on the same ideology that has promoted an anti-marriage meme - institutionalizing marriages based, not on trust, fidelity, and life-long relationships, but on selfishness, desire, and convenience. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule within any community. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.) Promoting anti-marriage has become the favorite pastime of the media and the entertainment industries. Such promotion destroys the foundations of the institution of marriage. With the fall of marriage, families fall, and society falls.

Another social harm stems from the gender confusion that gay activists and feminists both have promoted. We are beginning to see the problems associated with gender confusion - problems over the use of men's and women's restrooms, the hypersexualization of children, legal battles over private clubs and entities, the promotion of gender neutral ideals at the earliest levels of school, and the continued destruction of marriages and families.

However, perhaps the most damaging social harm that same sex marriage presents is the institutionalizing of gay ideology. By creating a protected class of citizens, gay activists promote acceptance through threats, propaganda, youth indoctrination, intimidation, discrimination, and downright lies. Since a large segment of the population will not accept gay ideology, this promotion tears at the fabric of society by creating a false "us versus them" dichotomy. There is no room in a democratic republic to force public acceptance. Only by destroying the foundations on which such a society rests can gays accomplish their goals.

Cultural
By promoting same sex marriage, gay activists pose a whole plethora of cultural problems, guaranteeing further splits within society and law. Two examples will suffice:

If same sex marriage becomes law and established norm, what happens to the concept of Mother's Day? The holiday becomes absurd, since marriage (and by extension family) will have no relation to mothers. Will Mother's Day be replaced by Generic Caretaker Day?

Of course the problem isn't one of what's to become of a national holiday. The problem is the redirection of culture to accommodate an ideology based on same sex attraction. Are we really going to change cultural standards merely to "be sensitive" to the needs of gay activists? This is not likely, and will present a further destructive divide within the country, forced by activists intent on pushing private concerns into the public arena.

School curriculum has already become a tool of modern liberals to indoctrinate children into their ideology. It promotes all of the liberal social issues without any of the rigor. It tells students what to think, instead of teaching them how to think. Gay ideology is and will continue to be force fed to children in the hopes of achieving a generation of believers. We will have created a culture based on the dogmas of liberalism, rather than on the principles of freedom and education.

***

This essay is already too long. I'll continue the list in my next post.