Gay Marriage: Creating “Equal” Rights out of Thin Air?

One of the most mindlessly used terms these days is “equality.”

Every word has a range of meaning, but we never hear this term defined.  It’s usually thrown around as a way to shut up opposition.  “There should be equality, so X should be supported.”  “Those who don’t agree with X are perpetuating inequality.”

Mostly we hear this in the same-sex marriage debate and, more recently, in regards to the economy.

I was watching a debate between Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton when Prager said that men and women were equal but not the same.  Hilton reacted as if Prager had uttered nonsense which tells me that “sameness” and “equality” are synonyms in Hiton’s mind.  But the question is sameness in what regard?  Equal in what? 

There may be equality among individuals, but that does not mean that all relationships between those individuals are equal.  And the marriage debate is about relationships, not primarily individuals, even though individuals are involved.

So when a man and a woman are in a lifelong committed relationship, they are not in an identical relationship as two men or two women in a same-sex committed relationship.  How do I know?  I know because:

  • 1)The natural outcomes are not the same* (heterosexual relationships naturally produce the next generation of society, as a rule)
  • 2) There are innate differences between men and women. 

Though many would contest #2, the fact is a man can never truly know what it’s like to be a woman and vice versa.  That innate distance creates a dynamic between heterosexual couples that does not exist between same sex couples.

Individuals may be equal in terms of basic human rights, but that does not mean individuals have a right to everything.  I do not have the right to engage in certain things just because others do.  And incidentally, every American citizen currently has the same rights.  Everyone (straight and gay) can engage in, through marriage,  the type of relationship that results in the next generation of society and is with someone of  the opposite sex.  No one (straight nor gay) can engage, through marriage, the type of relationship through marriage that does not result in that end, and is with someone of the identical sex.

Everyone currently has the same rights. No one has ever been able to legally engage in the relationship they are trying to legitimize through legislation. Those who champion gay marriage as a right that has been denied are simply wrong.

 

 

*Obviously not all heterosexual relationships are able to result in children.  But those are exceptions.  I am talking here about categories as a whole.  Childless heterosexual couples are still not the same as same-sex couples because #2 still holds.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About Keith

Christian, Conservative, Husband, Father, Writer.

4 responses to “Gay Marriage: Creating “Equal” Rights out of Thin Air?”

  1. NotAScientist says :

    “Those who champion gay marriage as a right that has been denied are simply wrong.”

    No, we’re correct. And I can describe how.

    We are denying gay couples the same rights enjoyed by sterile straight couples.

    By allowing one to marry and the other not to, we are being unfair and treating one as better than the other. And since there is no significant difference between those two couples, there is no reason to allow one marriage and ban it from the other.

    • Keith says :

      Sterile straights may legally marry someone of the opposite sex. A sterile straight may not legally enter into a marriage relationship with one of the same sex. The right is still the same for all. The sterile straight does not currently have the right to marry the same sex.

      The reason the government offers special status to the heterosexual union is because it produces the next generation of society. Other relationships do not, and therefore do not get this special protection or provision. The fact that there are exceptions is irrelevant. The law is based on biological order and how society naturally arranges itself.

      To seek to legalize a same sex union is to attempt to define marriage entirely differently. The problem is marriage was never “defined” into existence by the law…the law is a reflection of what already existed beforehand.

  2. Albert says :

    Unfortunately Canada has redefine marriage into what they call “Equality Marriage”. This allows homosexuals to be married and it’s supported by the government. But this has caused a slippery slope. There are not polygamists in court fighting for the right to extend the “Equality Marriage” definition to include them.
    I’m sure if they win this battle there will be others fighting for the same “right” to redefine marriage to what they want it to be.

    So, in Canada, homosexuals have gained a special foot hold based on their sexual orientation.
    Polygamists are currently on their heels to get their special granting based on the sexual orientation of their choice.

    And some people call me absurd when I mention that next will be the pedophiles but sad to say, Canada’s parliament is looking into suggesting that pedophilia is it’s own orientation. (http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=7027)

    So when we talk about a slippery slope we can see where it can lead. And even homosexual supporters wanting marriage redefined for them could be blown aback with the idea that pedophilia could be just down the road.

    At some point marriage will be redefined just like superheros in The Incredibles:

    “Oh, I’m real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I’ll give them heroics. I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone’s super…
    [chuckles evilly] no one will be.” – Syndrome:

    Once everyone can define marriage as they see fit, marriage will no longer be.

    • Keith says :

      I think you’re right in that this particular issue is one of the clearest examples of a true logical slippery slope. It’s demonstrable. Canada seems to be headed down that hill just a little in front of the US…but not by a whole lot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: