Posted on 02/01/2005 9:06:16 PM PST by UnbornChild
Hello
This impromptu op-ed/blog entry is something I wrote regarding the proposed same-sex marriage legislation in Canada (I'm Canadian). I put forward some fairly socially conservative ideas, and before I bring it to a less conservative audience, I thought I'd post it here where you're all so very conservative, and see what kind of reaction I get. This way I can anticipate the response.
Same-Sex Marriage
I get the impression that the government's attempt to reassure the religious community about its religious freedom is really just a sideshow from the real debate about same-sex marriage.
I get the impression that the government thinks that if it reassures the churches about their religious freedoms, then they will stop their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Although many people are afraid of what will happen to religious freedom if the ssm legislation is passed, that should not be the focus of the debate. The reason why social conservative individuals are opposed to same-sex marriage is that it is essentially tax-funded, institutionalized sodomy.
Even the name "same-sex" marriage is somewhat benign. It's homosexual marriage. That's the essence of the opposition.
The reason why marriage is funded in the first place is that it's an institution for the propagation of children. Romance and affection is not a reason to give tax credits or allow for succession or adoption. Marriage must serve a purpose to the state, otherwise, there's no point in supporting it.
The trend towards opening up the definition of marriage started by allowing common-law couples the right to claim the same benefits as married couples. They did not make the commitment to the state that married couples did, and but they claimed the benefits. They wanted the rights without the responsibilities. If common law relationships are just as valuable as marriages, then common law couples should be prepared to undertake the same responsibilites and bear the same consequences for the partnerships (and their breakups). Otherwise, the relationship is not as the same nature as marriage.
Common law partnerships opened up the Pandora's Box that permitted same-sex marriage. If two people of the opposite sex loving each other is enough to claim benefits, then, by extension, two people of the same-sex who love each other should be able to get the same benefits, too. If romance and appreciation is sufficient in one kind of relationship, it should be sufficient in the other.
Common law partnerships should have never been acknowledged as equal to marriage in terms of benefits, either legally or socially. Marriage is a lifelong commitment to stay together with the prospect of children.
But then the objection goes "what about the children of common law relationships? Should they suffer because of their parents' decisions" It's all fine and well to want to support them, but their parents have not pledged to the state the lifelong commitment that is necessary to their upbringing. So how can the state be certain the couple is sincere in their intention in remaining together for life? Or that they will act in the best interests of the children? It is the adults who get married, and if *they* care about their children, they will take the necessary steps to provide for them.
And then of course, people wonder allowed "what about straight couples who don't have kids?" The general truth is that most married people have kids. Exceptions do not change the general rule. Students who never use their university degree still get their education subsidized; Welfare cheats don't stop us from providing for the destitute; there's no reason not to subsidized marriage on the basis of procreation, even if some don't procreate. Most heterosexual couples can change their mind, and they often do.
Marriage has many aspects, but as far as the State and the taxpayer is concerned, its merits cannot lie in it being a contract to cherish another person. It should serve the state. How do gay partnerships serve the state? They don't. The State has no interest in providing for two people of the same sex who have affection for one another. They don't produce children and they can't on their; they don't contribute to the fabric of society, because if they do have children, it's through some deviant kind of procreation: gay adoptions subsists on either the procreation of heterosexuals who were too irresponsible and had children outside of wedlock, or through artificial semination, which creates the instability of having a third parent involved (as if the child would *never* be affected by that); or through divorce of a previous opposite-sex spouse. The family structures of gay couples cannot be organic. It is the product of some dysfunction. Adoption solves the problem of gay couples being childless, but it does not solve the child's problem of lacking a parent of at least one sex. That lack of model of one sex can only be detrimental to a child's psycho-social development. Since gay families cannot be organic, and are by design the product of dysfunction, the state does not have an interest in promoting them.
This is essentially what the same-sex marriage debate is about. It's not about a word. It's not about religious freedom. It's about the propagation and fabric of society.
OK -- based on your post, there does appear to still be a handfull of Canadians verging on sanity. I hope you get the attention of some of the others.
Thank you. Condemning Common Law Partnerships (aside from sodomy) is not a popular thing to do.
For the purposes of persuasion, I find your choice of words in some cases to be unnecessarily blunt. The word sodomy is a gigantic distraction, and you don't need it. I think the word dysfunction could be avoided.
Boy oh boy do I EVER have a lot of trouble with this mindset!
Common-law marriage has been a part of our culture for centuries. Homosexual "marriage" is a travesty.
I'll be back (the dogs need a walk). We'll see if the stealth late-night posting remains under the radar.
Why should civil unions be funded, and not marriage?
If marriage is what the state really wants to promote, then it should call it marriage, and not promote a watered-down version with fewer responsibilities (and all the benefits) call civil unions.
I *am* arguing that the state has an interest in promoting families, promoting *functional* and *organic* families that arise from heterosexual unions, not the ones that arise from some dysfunction and that help populate homosexual-led families.
Oh okay, ignore my last comment. *blush*.
I know -- my fault. And Free Republic's for not letting me edit my broken post.
Thank you for that off-topic and troll-like post. It gave my article a little bump. And now, in order to heighten its visibility, I am replying to your post.
Because the post was troll-like according to the common understanding of the word. Not very createive, but then not all communication is meant to be creative-- it's sometimes just meant to be direct. A short inflammatory post that invites invective will be considered troll-like.
Again, thank you for responding and allowing me to bump up my article.
"What is inflammatory about reminding conservatives, to boycott a country which has been unfair to them.
Are not trolls small hung over mythological creatures? Don't get it."
A few tips on internet posting. A troll is a poster who intends to make trouble through inflammatory posts. One-sentence, inflammatory messages will make you appear to be a troll, especially when it has little relevance to the topic at hand. While I'm Canadian, and my post is about Canada's ssm issue, the topic is really about the origins of same-sex marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.