An Argument For Heterosexual Marriage
The homosexual marriage issue continues to grow. I may as well throw in my binoculars-of-logic view without invoking a religious argument (even though I have a viewpoint that is faith-based).
First things first I need to lay some historical groundwork:
What is necessary for a nation to be "successful" or prosperous?
History has shown that humans tend to equate things with prosperity. Yes there have been a few exceptions but by and large, regardless of the type government, success is measured in things – royal store rooms filled with gold or wheat, monumental buildings, infrastructure, or personal wealth. And what is necessary for a nation to have things? Resources, people, and the ability to protect them. Resources include things of value – that might be raw materials (animal, vegetable, or mineral), special skills, or a key geographic location.
Assuming a nation has resources, it then needs a growing population to exploit the resources. As a nation grew in wealth (wealth being whatever they valued) they became a target of envious neighbors. Armies were needed to protect the wealth and resources of the nation. And what is the core of any army? People. So again a growing population is required for a nation to be successful, and a growing population requires a union between a male and female.
I certainly hope everyone is in agreement with me to this point in the exercise. If you don’t agree in general that a growing population is necessary then you should probably stop reading now.
Having established that offspring are needed for the growth of a nation we now need to decide how to raise these children to be of value to the nation. Many forms of family have been tried throughout history. Natural selection has favored the permanent one husband-one wife family. Other forms of family (permanent one husband-multiple wives, communal shared partners, non-permanent partners) have failed to be as effective from a good-of-the-state point of view. In order to maximize the benefits to the nation, the so-called traditional marriage, one male-one female in a lifelong union, should be officially encouraged by the government. Therefore it is not in the best interest of a nation to encourage homosexual unions (or children out of wedlock).
Now from a pragmatic stand point I don’t see the need for a State sanctioned homosexual marriage. (by State I mean government in general). What does the State gain by such unions? Nothing.
Individuals argue that a homosexual marriage is needed to resolve child custody issues and property ownership. But both of these items can immediately be resolved via legal means (contracts and last will and testament). The only argument I have heard that I am not sure if it can be resolved by a simple legal document is medical privacy. Regardless of sexual orientation I think a person should be allowed to specify who has explicit access to medical information.
So why do homosexual couples want to "be married"? Probably the same reason heterosexual couples have public weddings – to acknowledge their commitment to each other. Heterosexual couples could just as well fill out legal forms with a lawyer and file them with the State in private. Remember the State promotes heterosexual marriage because it benefits the State (ain't no free lunch).
HOLD IT shouts the person in the front row:
"what about the perks afforded married couples, things like insurance, tax breaks, child adoption?"
These perks are incentives and bonuses for heterosexual couples to marry because heterosexual marriage adds value to the State. Does that mean homosexual couples, a single person (no partner), or communes cannot raise a healthy (physically / emotionally / spiritually) child? Of course not, it means that the State has recognized, in business terms, a "best practice" for families and actively promotes the "best practice".
But what about heterosexual couples that marry with no intention of having children? Aren’t they getting the perks of being married without contributing to the State? Yes they are, but how does the State know ahead of time what will happen? It is only logical to assume any given heterosexual couple has the potential to increase the population. So they are given the marriage perks.
There you have it, an argument against homosexual marriage without invoking religious scripture.
WHAT ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS?!?!?!
See this post: Homosexual Marriage and Civil Rights
First things first I need to lay some historical groundwork:
What is necessary for a nation to be "successful" or prosperous?
History has shown that humans tend to equate things with prosperity. Yes there have been a few exceptions but by and large, regardless of the type government, success is measured in things – royal store rooms filled with gold or wheat, monumental buildings, infrastructure, or personal wealth. And what is necessary for a nation to have things? Resources, people, and the ability to protect them. Resources include things of value – that might be raw materials (animal, vegetable, or mineral), special skills, or a key geographic location.
Assuming a nation has resources, it then needs a growing population to exploit the resources. As a nation grew in wealth (wealth being whatever they valued) they became a target of envious neighbors. Armies were needed to protect the wealth and resources of the nation. And what is the core of any army? People. So again a growing population is required for a nation to be successful, and a growing population requires a union between a male and female.
I certainly hope everyone is in agreement with me to this point in the exercise. If you don’t agree in general that a growing population is necessary then you should probably stop reading now.
Having established that offspring are needed for the growth of a nation we now need to decide how to raise these children to be of value to the nation. Many forms of family have been tried throughout history. Natural selection has favored the permanent one husband-one wife family. Other forms of family (permanent one husband-multiple wives, communal shared partners, non-permanent partners) have failed to be as effective from a good-of-the-state point of view. In order to maximize the benefits to the nation, the so-called traditional marriage, one male-one female in a lifelong union, should be officially encouraged by the government. Therefore it is not in the best interest of a nation to encourage homosexual unions (or children out of wedlock).
Now from a pragmatic stand point I don’t see the need for a State sanctioned homosexual marriage. (by State I mean government in general). What does the State gain by such unions? Nothing.
Individuals argue that a homosexual marriage is needed to resolve child custody issues and property ownership. But both of these items can immediately be resolved via legal means (contracts and last will and testament). The only argument I have heard that I am not sure if it can be resolved by a simple legal document is medical privacy. Regardless of sexual orientation I think a person should be allowed to specify who has explicit access to medical information.
So why do homosexual couples want to "be married"? Probably the same reason heterosexual couples have public weddings – to acknowledge their commitment to each other. Heterosexual couples could just as well fill out legal forms with a lawyer and file them with the State in private. Remember the State promotes heterosexual marriage because it benefits the State (ain't no free lunch).
HOLD IT shouts the person in the front row:
"what about the perks afforded married couples, things like insurance, tax breaks, child adoption?"
These perks are incentives and bonuses for heterosexual couples to marry because heterosexual marriage adds value to the State. Does that mean homosexual couples, a single person (no partner), or communes cannot raise a healthy (physically / emotionally / spiritually) child? Of course not, it means that the State has recognized, in business terms, a "best practice" for families and actively promotes the "best practice".
But what about heterosexual couples that marry with no intention of having children? Aren’t they getting the perks of being married without contributing to the State? Yes they are, but how does the State know ahead of time what will happen? It is only logical to assume any given heterosexual couple has the potential to increase the population. So they are given the marriage perks.
There you have it, an argument against homosexual marriage without invoking religious scripture.
WHAT ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS?!?!?!
See this post: Homosexual Marriage and Civil Rights
posted by Quinqube at 12:23
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home