I did hope that I've made my objections to "gay marriage" sufficiently clear, but it appears not.
Do read these last two comments first: by PD: http://bit.ly/NpJmCI and by Matt: http://bit.ly/M7S8pc.
The case against me is this:
a) There are marriages where children do not eventuate, so marriages are not just for children.
b) It is better for orphans to be adopted by gay parents than looked after in government orphanages.
c) If sterile parents can get access to IVF, why not gay "parents"?
d) Even an incestuous marriage should be allowed (PD).
The first argument looks at the world from the perspective of the "outcomes" of a marriage. I don't. The second argument looks at the issue from the purpose of charity (i.e. gay parents are at least better than government orphanages). I don't. Both these arguments are incorrect. And so are the remaining two (among many others, being thrown at me).
Marriage is a RELATIONSHIP that is already "taken"
The first argument assumes that marriage is a relationship whose sole purpose is to produce children. That's clearly incorrect. It is a relationship first, and the children come next. To the extent there is ONLY a relationship, there is no difference between a "gay marriage" and a normal marriage.
I have NO OBJECTION to gay relationship that has all the standard "fittings" of a marriage contract. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a gayrriage. Call it anything else. Just don't confound the English language (and other languages) by mixing up two different kinds of relationships.
A relationship between two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen is traditionally called water. The relationship between two molecules of oxygen or two molecules of hydrogen, separately, is NOT called water.
The properties of different relationships are DIFFERENT.
The relationship {male ~ female} where ~ depicts a closed, exclusive relationship between what are traditionally known as husband and wife, is called marriage. All these three terms are "taken" (marriage, husband, wife). It is like trying to take over the very meaning of a word, or a domain name that has already been taken.
There is no scope to encroach on these terms.
The relationships {male ~ male} or {female ~ female} or {transgender~male} or {transgender~female} are DIFFERENT by their very nature. This is a self-evident truth.
Therefore the idea that marriage could be "standardised" to include ALL KINDS of relationships is untenable. That's all I'm saying. I'm NOT denying "gays" the privilege of inventing new terms for their relationships. I've said clearly that I'm happy to attend such events. I'm NOT anti-gay. I'm pro humans and pro-liberty.
There is NO LOSS OF LIBERTY in my way of looking at this issue.
Children are not play things, toys, or pets like dogs and cats
The second argument against me is more powerful. It can persuade those who don't think more diligently.
But I'd like to invite your attention to my basic claim: that nature NEVER intended a child to be born of a gay relationship (unlike in the case of sterile marriages, where sterility is a rarity). This claim is total, comprehensive, and unassailable. It is true beyond the slightest iota of doubt.
But now note this*corollary) VERY CAREFULLY!!
Note that nature not merely "designed" the production of children through the union of a male and female, BUT designed children to naturally want/ benefit from a mother and father.
In nature everything works in cohesion and harmony. Everything "fits" and works smoothly.
The human child is born with a half-developed brain which takes at least two years to develop to a somewhat complete "level". The actual development continues till around 25 years of age. No one knows all details of what the child needs during this period, but we can deduce from the way nature produces the "unfinished" child, that children are NATURALLY DESIGNED to be nurtured by a mother and father.
This is the natural law. It is not something man should seek to casually upturn. A human brain is a marvel of nature, the development and workings of which should NOT be distorted by man.
We should not allow experimentation in this regard, either – of children being given to gay "parents" and then "measuring" what happens to these children. Such experimentation would be deeply unethical. Somewhat close to eugenics in the disruption of nature that is intended. A form of Darwinism that Darwin would have seriously balked at!
True, it is physically possible to treat a child like a plaything, a pet dog or cat – a "creature" which can presumably be reared by ANYONE. But that's a dangerous assertion. Children ARE not like any other animal. Even the adopted child should still be given access to a mother and father.
The society must NOT treat a human child like a dog that can be brought up by just anyone.
Even orphanages are FAR BETTER in this regard than gay "parents". The child grows up in an orphanage knowing that he HAD a mother and father who either died or abandoned him. He is damaged, but nothing compared to the the harm caused by the absurd situation of having only two "moms" or two "dads". The orphan can form natural relationships with his peers/ guardians, and with uncles/aunts. That's healthy. That's normal. That's the way nature intended it to be.
Admittedly, economic provision for an orphan might not be as good in an orphanage as economic provision through adoption in a wealthy gay couple's home, but such provision is not guaranteed (there can be desperately poor gay couples), nor is it crucial. Economic provision is NOT the only driver of a child's well-being.
If gay people are REALLY interested in the well-being of children, they should contribute to such orphanages both monetarily and physically (by providing their services to the orphanage). That way children will get BOTH males and females who care for them. That will be an acceptable way for gay couples to interact with children without upturning the laws of nature.
Note that IVF for a married couple is totally different to IVF for a gay couple. IVF for a married couple is desirable, for it is entirely consistent with nature.
The child born through IVF to a married couple (often with borrowed egg/sperm) will have a NORMAL upbringing (with mother/father). Modern laws are (rightly) being modified to inform the child of the name and other details of the true egg/sperm donor, so that the child can better appreciate his or her identity. Such upbringing within a family unit (mother/father) is therefore consistent with nature, even though the child is harmed to an extent (by not having access to its natural mother/father). Such family upbringing, with one parent having contributed DNA to the child, is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to a similar "gay" couple upbringing.
Remember, there is NO LIBERTY TO HARM. Distorting natural processes of upbringing may be acceptable for dogs and cats. It is not acceptable for human beings. Let's not destroy the very foundation of humanity.
Are you "gay" and want to play with children? In that case why not become a school teacher, or go to your relatives who have children, or volunteer in the local orphanage? Gays must always remain accountable to the laws of nature.
Slippery slope: Supporters of "gay marriage" may even support "incestuous marriage"
I was not quite sure to what extent van Gend's claim about the slippery slope held water. But PD's comment ("I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter into incestuous relationships (though they should be given extensive genetic counseling)") makes clear that there is indeed a VERY SLIPPERY slope.
I should perhaps not generalise from PD's case, but many of the arguments used to promote "gay marriage" are pretty much consistent with support for "incestuous marriage". Depending on the argument used, one perhaps can't support one without supporting the other.
Note that children born of incestuous "marriages" may well have a mother and father, but they don't get two different sets of grandparents. That signals a distortion of nature (apart from the argument that the children will be susceptible to more diseases). There is a rhythm, a system of nature that has evolved over THREE BILLION YEARS, the violation of which our minds naturally oppose. For good reason. Being in "love" is not reason to upturn the laws of nature.
On the other hand, do please note that I'm not relating gay relationships directly with incestuous relationships (which are much worse). I'm comfortable with contractual gay relationships that do not try to have, or bring up a child.
I hope that this blog post will now finally close the debate.