PJ Media

Praetorian — I disagree with the reasons you suggest for people opposing same sex marriage. I think the primary consideration is that by accepting “gay marriage” society is severing the connection between marriage (the new kind) and its traditional function as a central building block for building families. With the introduction of gay marriage, marriage is essentially about “couples”. (The ultimate victory of Hollywood over religion!) Why does society even care about couples (gay or otherwise)? Society does however have an interest in stable family units where children are involved.

Now I know that there are many childless couples, but it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate them. I also know that many gay couples adopt (or use artificial insemination to have kids). But these situations are exceptional to our historical understanding of marriage and its integral relationship to procreation. In other words, if you change the definition of something to accommodate all sorts of aberrations, then ultimately you change the essence of the thing. By accepting gay marriage, marriage becomes something profoundly different from what it was. I think that one social ramification of this is that a bit down the line people will cease to even bother getting married. What’s the point if it no longer carries value as a long-standing tradition. And – sorry – but a heterosexual “unit” still is a prerequisite of procreation. Two lesbians may raise children together, but they do not “procreate.”

On the “rights” side of things, it is the case that gays have not as individuals been discriminated against to the extent that they are as free as anyone to marry someone of the opposite sex. The issue of same sex marriage introduces the question of whether or not “relationships” have rights. And while you are busy challenging others about their bigotry, you might think about what your own remark about Bristol Palin says about your own tolerance for unwed mothers.