Thursday, June 23, 2005

Understanding the Logic of Same-sex Advocates

Have you ever debated the issue of same-sex marriage with someone who is in favor of same-sex marriage? If you have, you have no doubt been frustrated by the lack sense that comes from these people. On most issues people have at least one positive and sensible thing to say that makes you wonder if maybe you are wrong. On the issue of same-sex marriage, nothing the left says holds any water.

For those of us that oppose redefining marriage there are a multitude of solid reasons why we believe changing the definition of marriage is wrong. Dr. Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition gives us 31 Reasons to Vote "No" to Changing the Definition of Marriage. For another seven, you can visit Enshrine Marriage Canada.

On the issue of why heterosexual couples deserve marriage benefits, Conservatives point out the obvious. Heterosexual couples create and raise children. In fact, the same scientists that say there is a gay gene are unanimous in pointing out that in spite of this, the opposite sex mother/father/child relationship is still the best environment for children. They all agree that this is the ideal scenario in which to raise the next generation. As a result, governments have every right to create laws and give beneficial treatment to people in order to promote this ideal.

The same-sex marriage advocates argue that not every opposite sex couple has children. While it is true that not every opposite sex couple has children, virtually all do. In contrast, not one single same-sex couple is capable of having children of their own. And while it is possible for same-sex couples to raise children not their own into happy vibrant members of society, every child still has the right to claim the love of both their biological mother and father. Again, this is the ideal which governments have every right to promote while discouraging alternative relationships.

What same-sex marriage advocates always overlook is that marriage is not about equality. Civil marriage is not about equality. All government policies are preferential on purpose. If you want welfare, veteran’s benefits, child support or marriage benefits, then you have to qualify for them. In all cases government, for its own good, discriminates in favor of some people, and some relationships, and not others.

The absence of equality is not really a good argument against these kinds of policies. Same-sex partnerships already receive the same benefits as married couples, but something else is at issue for same-sex marriage advocates. They want to persuade the public that such partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But the only way they can do this is by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-uniting, child centered institution.

When women gained equal rights in Canada, they were not renamed men and there is no reason why homosexuals need to use the term marriage.


At 10:27 p.m., Blogger Canadi-anna said...

When I think it, I think it as clearly as you've said it, but it never comes out, but that I have to explain what I meant.
You've put it all so simply.
Thanks for a great post.

At 11:36 p.m., Blogger Ken Breadner said...

My rebuttal to this can be found at
Suffice it to say that I have yet to hear anything even remotely resembling logic being used by advocates against equal marriage...

At 4:01 p.m., Blogger Dodos said...

Well said Ken.

At 3:22 p.m., Blogger Merovingienne said...

Censorship cannot stop the truth.

At 3:29 p.m., Blogger Michael said...

But it does a good job of eliminating foul language.

At 10:31 p.m., Blogger Linda said...

'Equality' can only be argued if you agree, a priori that marriage is nothing but a state-sanctioned sexually intimate relationship. Is that all marriage is? Don't recall Canadians being consulted on such a radical re-definition as that. The SS"M" crowd has pulled a classic 'bait & switch' on Canadians -- that this is disingenuous is to be extremely polite.

At 1:00 a.m., Blogger Dodos said...

Why is that the only thing I can argue? I would argue that marriage is much more than a "state sanctioned sexually intimate relationship." I would argue that it is an institution that two people enter into in order to signify the importance of their relationship and their desire to spend their lives together. I would argue that not allowing same sex couples to enter into that institution makes their relationships less than those of heterosexual couples, therefore, in the eyes of society unequal.

And honestly, I don't even know what the bait and switch is. Can somebody please explain it to me?

At 10:51 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best argument you folks in the white-wing have come up with is; "it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".

At 11:34 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

"white wing"........???

Do I detect a racist? Or might it be a bigot, instead?

And what's the 'loonie' argument?

It's hereditary?....

So, where's the queer gene?

You folks have proved nothing.

While we have biological reproduction on our side.

bummer, huh?


Post a Comment

<< Home