Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?

[QuestingHound08]

I would oppose it because I like language to mean something--calling homosexual relationships "marriage" doesn't make them the same as heterosexual relationships--they remain radically different. Homosexual relationships do not of themselves result in an organic union disposed toward the procreation of life, and speaking a natural language of exclusivity and permanence. Those elements can be added on extrinsically by the intention of the partners, but only from outside. The act itself is not fundamentally oriented toward a permanent, natural, life-giving relationship, bespeaking permanence. That is a real distinction, and a real difference between the intrinsic nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I'm not saying that homosexual people can't stay together, or build stable homes. I am not saying they shouldn't be free to pursue their real happiness however they best can--what I'm saying is--don't pretend that that search justifies hijacking language to make it mean whatever sounds nicest. Homosexual relations are not heterosexual relations, by any stretch of the imagination--and nobody should be forced to say they are equivalent.

Where does that leave me? If it does become common practice to call it 'marriage' then we have solved the hurtful divide between committed homosexual couples and committed heterosexual couples being distinguished from each other in the fundamental nature of their relationship. But we overcome that only by ignoring, by covering our eyes to, the real difference between them. Either that, or we have to recognize it in a way that was never necessary before. It was never necessary before because those relationships were not put in the same category. If it is really thought necessary for people's feelings to make a simple verbal recognition that they are both 'marriage', then we are watering down the original definition of marriage to be more general and less specific...meaning we would need newer, more specific terms to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. Because the differences are valuable to recognize not only for the individuals involved, but also for the state--the only reason the state recognizes marriage as a legal relationship is because of its role of forming new citizens (young children). The fact that one of these romantic committed relationships is organically and naturally disposed towards the conceiving and rearing of children, and the other at best has only the potential to add a similar dimension to their relationship through adoption or surrogate motherhood, indicates to me that we would still be facing a situation of logical discrimination. The state need not indiscriminately endorse every relationship that makes us feel good--but they should endorse the ones fundamental to the build-up of society. Only traditional heterosexual marriage (I'm talking in its natural observance, not its abuse) naturally does this. In relation to the state, homosexual marriage it seems to me would be no more intrinsically useful than two bachelor brothers who decide to share living expenses.

What it forces us to do is to make up a new word for that difference. I say the exclusive and permanent heterosexual relationships have been called marriage for time out of mind here--everyone knows what it means both connotatively, and denotatively until the last few decades called into question. If people want to recognize and explain homosexual relationships as legitimate--to argue and point out the intrinsic beneficial effects (if there are some I haven't heard, beyond "making people feel nice and fair") for individuals and society at large--and to allocate state benefits accordingly, I have no objection--I only want the reasoning to be there. But why hijack a word that has always indicated another type of relationship? What is being made war on there is not bigotry, but the meaningfulness of language and the freedom to make real distinctions.

Finally: I think that people will probably be thinking about heterosexual infertile couples--kudos to them--and that is an anomaly of a general rule. The general rule is, that when heterosexual partners are healthy, fertility happens. When homosexual couples are healthy and all is proceeding according to the natural norm--new life isn't. So for the government--unless you want to take it on a case-by-case basis for heterosexual couples, it makes much more sense to endorse the whole of the heterosexual couples as marriages.