Homosexuality and marriage

It seems that a great brouhaha has arisen, with President Obama’s endorsement of marriage between homosexuals.

So what?

Ok, I understand that people who find themselves sexually attracted to members of their own gender want to be accepted as a person of value. As humans, they deserve that right. Granted, in almost every society on this planet and practically every religion of any size, homosexuality is viewed as, if not abhorrent or  taboo, at least not normal and to be discouraged, but that really is not the issue here.

Nope, not even close. The issue is money  and money from someone else. It is not a matter of whom you have pleasure with, so much as it is about what money or benefits you are deprived of if you violate what is, for the vast majority of the human species, considered socially acceptable behavior.

Look at any of the “demands” of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual advocates, and all their demands are centered around receiving the same financial benefits as married couples. That, really, is what it all about … that and social acceptance for behavior that is not considered socially acceptable.

Ok, I really don’t care what you and another person, or even several other persons, do to get your rocks off. As long as no one is being physically injured in the process, or in the rare cases where some form of injury might occur (depending on how you want to define injury), as long as the injured party consents with the understanding of the results prior to the event.

However, don’t ask me to “approve” of such behavior or give it my endorsement, because it probably ain’t gonna happen.

Why do we have “marriage”? Well, it isn’t to make sexual pleasures acceptable. Sorry, that one doesn’t fly with me. No, societies basically have created the institution of “marriage” for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to provide for the next generation by binding the male to the female that the male makes pregnant … and that basically is the answer in a nutshell.

At last count, at least according to my biology, humans are not asexual and two of one gender can in no way physically create offspring.  OK, I am discounting in vitro fertilization, but that is more like cloning than actually fertilization. So, the primary rationalization for marriage is not met: Two women, or two men, are not going to conceive a child. It just ain’t gonna happen.

Which leaves us with the question: Since, marriage also can mean two people in a loving and caring relationship (which never has been an absolute prerequisite for marriage), is that not a rationalization to allow homosexuals to marry? I guess that depends on how you define “marriage”.

It will be interesting to see what the US Democratic Party does, now that the state of North Carolina has amended its state constitution to include the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. That not only knocks out same-sex marriages (wanted by the GLBT community) but also kicks the pins out from under polygamy (found in some Islamic communities and other religions – including fundamentalist LDS, or Mormons). The problem is that the national convention for the party is to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina. Oh, horrors. How can we have the candidate for the party that believes in the rectitude of same-sex unions in a state that has just prohibited such unions?

Of course, we could solve part of the problem, by taking government out of the equation, and making all laws neutral as it comes to the status of marriage … sorry, no bennies or tax breaks if you are married … no penalties either. But that ain’t gonna happen either.

Still, as one wag pointed out, by defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals.  Homosexuals still have the right and privilege to marry any one of their choice, as long as they are the other sex. And since it takes one of each to fulfill the primary reason for marriage, outside all the tax and other financial benefits society has bestowed on married couples in order to encourage the propagation of the species, it would seem obvious that if you don’t meet the prerequisites, you can’t do it.

I think we probably need to come up with a new institution that allows people (of any sex) who want to proclaim their devotion to another person without having to drag sex into it.

But then, we would be basically saying that there is no good, nor evil, and that we should reward some behaviors over others. Not sure I want to go that far.