Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Why Shouldn't Pro-Family Types Embrace Same Sex Marriage?

Today, the Indiana House is set to consider writing a ban on same sex marriage into the Indiana Constitution.

Some may question the conservative credentials of this pro-life, pro-family blogger, but I have a confession. I don't care if same sex couples get married. It does not threaten me in any way. I have played on the heterosexual team for nearly 50 years and I am confident seeing two guys get married won't cause me to want to switch teams.

If someone could show me that same sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage, I would support a ban. But I just don't see it. How does same sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage any more than heterosexuals who make a mockery of their marriage vows by committing serial adultery?

I'm also told marriage is supposed to be about procreation, and since homosexuals cannot procreate, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. But if marriage is just supposed to be about procreation, what about my mother who is enjoying a wonderful second marriage after my father passed away? That marriage, which took place in her 50s, certainly was not about procreation. Rather it was about the human need many of us have for companionship, another soul to count on as we walk through life.

Awhile back I wrote a column criticizing the showing of Sex in the City on Saturday afternoons when children are likely to be watching television. The show sends a terrible message to young teenage girls viewing the show, namely that it is perfectly okay for them to treat sex like it is some recreational sport devoid of human consequences.

Same sex marriage does the opposite of the promiscuity I decried on that program. It encourages monogamous behavior. It encourages lifelong commitments between human beings. Isn't that the sort of thing we pro-family types should advocate? Those of us who believe that the family is an essential building block of society should want to promote monogamous adult relationships culminating in marriage, even among of those in society who choose a same sex partner.

I don't get this whole same sex marriage ban nonsense.

7 comments:

Doug said...

These explanations are primarily pretexts. I think the real reason is that proponents have been taught gays are icky and gays have traditionally been second class citizens, and tradition must be preserved at all costs.

I thought I was homophobic until I met a few people who were gay. Then, for the life of me, I couldn't see what the big deal was. It's easy to hate an abstraction. It's tougher to hate Joe or Bill or Sue or whoever the individual(s) in your life may be.

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

It's because they are intolerant of people who are different, Paul.

DailyKenn.com said...

The issue at hand should not be marriage but should be the marriage LICENSE which should not be.

IndyCAD said...

Paul, I normally agree with you (don't intend to taint you by that acknowledgement), but on this issue your moral reasoning is flawed. Your approach is from the micro (adultery, personal marriage) vs. the macro (institutional). Adultery is far worse than same sex marriage at the micro level. But to alter the institute itself is similar to redefining government (republic becomes democracy . Marriage is a concept that is defined by its inherent elements; man and women. My five year old intuitively understand what adults refuse to. No logical person can logically conclude that a man with a man is reasonable.

Maple Syrup Maven said...

Marriage is a concept that is defined by its inherent elements; man and women.

Oh, really? How about woman and men.

Seriously: marriage has had many definitions over space and time, and the one proposed at the moment is just one of them.

In the US this century, marriage is primarily an economic legal definition, and there's no reason it can't be between two men, or two women, or one man and one woman.

IndyCAD said...

MSM, Marriage is a borrowed and bastardized religious concept. The concept, predating western civilization is unequivocally defined as a union between a man and [woman]. No one has EVER had to defend man-woman marriage and will NEVER have to justify it. It has NEVER been questioned or despised. The recognition of same-sex unions is only a concession, not a norm. History is on the right side of the issue.

As far as it being an economic legal definition, this is so only in application.

***Yes I am aware that my bracket [ ] use is modified since I corrected the spelling between.

Hoosiers for Indiana said...

Good Blog Paul!

Homosexuality hasn't affected my marriage (I've been married for over 30 years) and it hasn't affected most of the divorces in Indiana, that is, most marriages in Indiana don't break up because one partner leaves for another person of the same sex. After all, "trophy wives" are female.

Many "savage" cultures have accepted same sex "marriage", such as the Native American tribes of the west.

Ronald Rodgers