Since Proposition 8 passed in California, once again marriage is to be defined there as between a man and a woman. This has lead to outrage to those that deem this unfair and discriminatory, and has caused more anger to boil.
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
Arguing From Creation
First and foremost, the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 2, God noticed that man was alone in the Garden. To remedy this situation God created a being out of Adam’s side—a woman, Eve. And Adam states in Genesis 2:24 that a man would leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and that two would become one.
From the very beginning, God stated that the pattern was one man and one woman—and this arrangement is duplicated throughout scripture (most notably in the giving of the Mosaic law in Exodus).
This exactly effects America because of the Declaration of Independence. When our country was founded and we left the British Empire we justified doing so because all men were given by God rights that were unalienable—that did not derive from government, but from God. The basis of American freedom rests in the idea that our rights to life, liberty and property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness) are not defined by a government, but defined by the Creator.
Therefore, by the very fact of that foundation, this line of argument is relevant to the discussion.
Arguing From History
Never, in the history of the world, has marriage been defined as anything but a union between a man and a woman. Now, it is true that marriage has been defined as a union between a man and multiple women (we see that all throughout history from the early records all the way to prior to the homosexual marriage debate), but never as a same sex couple.
Up until the latter half of the twentieth century, homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness. It was something for which a person was hospitalized. It was only relatively recently that homosexuality was seen to be something that we could consider natural and something that wasn’t to be treated. Indeed, there are still some that are treated today, and some that claim to come out of homosexuality.
This is not meant to be a judgment on homosexuality, per se, but instead an argument for heterosexual marriage. Indeed, there is more support historically for polygamous unions than there are for same-sex unions. However, it has been, and still is against the law to have multiple wives, but in multiple states in the nation same-sex marriage or civil unions are available, and polygamous unions are kept in secret, done only ceremoniously.
The historical argument also verifies the argument from Creation. Since the Founders would not allow Utah to become a state in the Union without outlawing polygamy, it stands to reason that they would also oppose same-sex marriage on the same grounds.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there is no historical grounds for same-sex marriage—only for monogamous heterosexual unions.
Argument from Nature
Some arguments that have been made along this line are unfruitful and miss the whole point of this argument. Let me dispatch them in a quick fashion.
Arguing over whether animals exhibit this behavior. Who cares? Most agree that animals do not possess the minds that men do. It’s easy to try to find a case that violates the premise in either case.
Arguing over whether there is a “gay gene.” If there isn’t so what? If there is, that still isn’t a problem for the argument.
The point of the argument from nature also doesn’t care whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, it’s just as strong either way. I look at this argument in two ways:
1. There is no natural benefit from the union of two same-sex couples toward the race. Population control isn’t a benefit to the race, since the race need population to survive—so throw that one out immediately. The natural benefit of a heterosexual union is the production and raising of offspring and the effect that the monogamous relationship has on those in it. While it may be possible for the effect to be achieved in another kind of relationship, same-sex relationships do not, naturally, produce children.
2. Inclinations and desires are not always right. From the day that a child is born, it seeks to exalt self. It cries when it doesn’t get its own way. It fights with its siblings. It wants all the attention. Through child training and instruction, parents combat these natural inclinations and train the child to do things that are right. So, stating that “I was born this way” is a foolish argument and against natural training. It would be the equivalent of an adult throwing a fit in a store demanding that they get something because they saw it first, and when told that they were wrong, saying that they shouldn’t have to give it back because they were born that way.
We’d laugh if a thief tried this argument, or a murderer, but when it comes to something that culture is trying to tell us is right, we attempt to justify it with this same lame argument.
There is no natural reason to favor same-sex marriage. There is no indication that it is a positive thing for the race as a whole, or the people in particular.
Argument from “The Majority”
So, say you disregard the previous arguments, and you skip right to the societal argument—the foolish notion that we live in a democracy and that the majority (or minority) on any opinion makes something right.
Some would suggest that the right way to get same-sex marriage into law is by using the courts. Some would suggest by influencing the electorate and waiting for the people to use democracy. In either case you’re putting something up to a vote that I don’t believe can be voted on—the morality of an issue. It’s just a matter of how big or small the sample is for the vote.
But suppose we put that aside for the moment and actually look at the societal argument. Majorities can be wrong. A majority of the Southern States before the Civil war believed that slavery was good. A majority of the U.S. government believed it to be right to invade Iraq. Majorities don’t always make the right decisions.
However, where does the argument from society cease?
I am left handed. The world is designed for the comfort and convenience of right handed people. Thus is has always been and thus it will always be. Perhaps the cruelest part of this fate is that were I to define myself as a member of an oppressed group, I would receive nothing but condescending smiles. The fact that left handed people at all ages of life die in larger number than right handed people is greeted with a bland shrug. I am pushing to get the Social Security entitlement age lowered for left handed people in sensitivity of our earlier deaths. This fair minded proposal has met with predictable ridicule from righty bigots and self loathing lefties. Our only hope is that a fair minded jurist takes up our cause. – William
The point is that there will always be people that feel that they have a right against the majority. Currently, the overwhelming majority of this country is heterosexual, and seeking out a heterosexual marriage. Since that is the reality, it does not seem logical to enact something that goes against the majority of the people, that would effect the majority of the people and set up problems with the majority’s rights.
Argument from Society
Lastly, the argument from society. One of the biggest complaints from those that seek legal same-sex marriage is that their union does not have the advantages of the heterosexual union. Missing from their argument is why they deserve such rights.
We’ve already listed multiple reasons why a society should seek to encourage heterosexual unions:
- The Creator endorsed and established such unions.
- Historically such unions have been standard issue.
- Naturally, such unions are required to naturally further the race.
- Heterosexual unions, and those that would enter into these unions, vastly outnumber those that would benefit from the creation of other unions.
And to that we can add studies regarding the raising of children in homes of same-sex parents vs. opposite-sex parents, etc.
Where’s the reasoning behind why the state should sanction other unions besides the belief that “we deserve it”? Arguing that “it’s not fair” is amusing. As I was reminded multiple times by my mom when I was younger, “Life is not fair.”
And if that’s the main logic, which seems to be in the foreground of all the litigation regarding the equal opportunity clauses in the U.S. and State Constitutions, then we have a logical dilemma. Once you agree to the validity of this argument, what is to stop others that have other types of unions from attempting to exercise this right.
Why wouldn’t the polygamist demand multiple marriages? Why not allow marriages to animals and plants? Why not allow marriages to dead beings, etc.? Why not allow marriages to self?
I’m not attempting to use the slippery slope argument in a moral sense, but in a practical sense. If the state has a vested interest in encouraging a union between heterosexual couples to promote the general welfare:
- Couples in a marriage live longer.
- They’re more stable.
- They produce children that build the country.
Then if that incentive is removed because either every union is rewarded—or no union is rewarded—how has that benefited society? In fact, it will have actually have harmed it by further removing the incentive to get married—something that it already started with rewarding cohabitating couple to get many of the marriage benefits and punishing one sex should a marriage end in disarray.
Heterosexual marriage in the United States has its problems, to be sure. There is much to be done to repair the broken system. However, there is no good argument for another system, and no good argument for why this country, or any state for that matter, should seek to accept any addition to traditional marriage.