The “marriage equality” movement is based on faulty logic and is not about creating “equal rights.” Leaders in the “marriage equality” movement either are not honest with their followers, or truly do not understand their own arguments. Whichever is the case, they need the concept of “marriage equality” to contain an element that is simultaneously false and unstated. Like I said, I have no idea if the leaders are willful on this point or not. I am nearly 100% sure the rank and file members of that side have not even begun to think about it like this.
Here is the part that is both false and unstated: it’s that heterosexual sex is identical to homosexual sex.
It’s about “marriage equality”, right? And sex is definitely part of marriage, right? .
So let’s break this down and I’ll explain in more detail. I am going continue to use the gays’ terminology, so here’s the next word: “breeders.”
You see, gays use the term “breeders” when they refer to heterosexual couples. It’s an interesting term, especially in light of the “marriage equality” debate. You see, by coining and using that term, they have acknowledged that sex between “breeders” is inherently different from their sex. And we all know how it’s different because….
It produces children.
This is precisely why heterosexual couples need marriage. As long as they have more responsibilities because of the nature of their sexual activities, they need the privileges and benefits of marriage. Marriage serves as a counterbalance to the increased responsibilities that they have. In fact, it would create an unequal situation to grant gays the same privileges and benefits, since their sexual activities to not create the same responsibilities.
“Marriage equality” cannot exist as long as “breeders” are the main group responsible for propagating our species.
“Marriage Equality” FAQ
“But what about heterosexual couples who can’t have kids?”
It would be far too intrusive for the state to test heterosexual couples to see if they can procreate.
“Divorce is so easy. Doesn’t divorce make marriage less meaningful?”
Yes, it 100% absolutely does. I cannot argue against that point. No fault divorce was one of the worst things that ever happened to marriage.
“What about gay couples who want to use artificial reproductive technology to have kids?”
One huge, and largely unaddressed, problem with artificial reproductive technology in general is the effect it has on the child. There is a whole new category of people, called “Donor conceived persons,” and these are people who were conceived artificially. They are often unhappy, very unhappy for large portions of their lives, that they can’t know their biological connections. There’s even a site dedicated to their stories, called AnonymousUs.org. I would strongly caution anybody who wants a child to consider, very carefully, these stories and the ramifications of this sort of technology on the child.
“Why do gays use the term ‘breeders’?”
I think it’s human nature to be condescending to people who are not like us. Gays themselves are often subjected to cruel and condescending treatment, so it seems natural that they’d coin a term like this. I don’t like it but I can’t say I blame them.
“Marriage has been evolving thoughout history. Isn’t ‘marriage equality’ just another step along the path?”
In one sense this is true, but in another sense it is not true. Regardless of the reasons for marriage throughout history, marriage has always involved people of the opposite sex. As far as I am aware, marriage has never existed as a union between people of the same sex.
“You’re a bigot because you don’t like gays.”
This is a red herring and an ad hominem. Even it it was true, it doesn’t take away from what I’ve said here. Tell me how the difference between the sex of heterosexuals and homosexuals can lead to “marriage equality”.
“Marriage is about LOVE! Certainly you can’t be against love!”
It’s true that marriage is often about love on the private level, between two people. But when we’re talking about making enormous public policy changes that involve millions of people (including children who have no voice) over generations of time, this requires us to think in a different way about it. If you’ve ever taken a sociology class you can understand what I mean. But if you haven’t, it’s kind of like the difference between standing next to somebody, and viewing a entire city from an airplane. The scales are different, and the forces affecting them are different, so we think about them differently.
On the one hand we often see pro “marriage equality” arguments that are centered around the smaller scale concepts like love. On the other hand, some social conservatives see the larger-scale issues and address marriage from that viewpoint.