Views from the Abyss #1: Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriage may now be part of the western landscape, but in some parts of the world it is still seen as a curious and somewhat baffling concept, and not without good reason. Why is this even a thing? Advocates seem unable to articulate a valid reason beyond some extensively vague notion of "rights" and "equality", and it's also apparently beyond them that there could be any legitimate opposition to it other than sheer bigotry. So how can it be that any country has actually gone through with this, in the absence of any kind of serious public debate? 

What seems to me to have happened is that you have a minority of yay sayers on the one side shouting at a minority of (potentially bigoted) nay sayers on the other. Meanwhile, a silent majority sits in the middle confused, afraid to even start a discussion lest they be branded homophobic bigots with no more right to walk god's fair earth than Satan himself, just for daring to question what should apparently be self-evident. Ultimately they side with the yay sayers because they just can't think of a good reason not to allow it—they know they're not homophobes, and they want everyone to have nice things and be happy, but they're also not allowed to ask questions so it's taken on faith that this would be the obvious result. 

Besides which, the yay sayers are a much scarier bunch to piss off than the "god hates fags" placarders, because who even listens to those guys anyway. But that's just anecdotal. 

But that's why so many countries now have same sex marriage. Because the burden of proof was suspiciously absent.

While I too had initially been part of that silent majority, completely on the fence about the whole issue (after all, what business is it of mine how other people conduct their own private affairs?), I've also never been one to bandwagon. So in the absense of any coherent arguments being brought forth, it was necessary for me to conduct my own research into the actual pros, cons, and other implications and considerations, in order to construct my own arguments, both for and against, to see which wins out.

Surprisingly, I was unable to find a single valid "why", and some very valid "why nots".

Q. What?! So, you're against same sex marriage?! I never had you pegged as a homophobe!

A. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Jumping straight for the ad hominem shit wall. Without going on the defensive though, even if I were a homophobic bigot, it would be irrelevant to the facts as I understand them.

In pragmatic terms, marriage differs from all other kinds of companionate relationships in one specific and consistent non-arbitrary way: it centres around providing a suitable framework for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. This understanding is in no way controversial or new. 

Context: The State has an obligation towards the welfare of the next generation of citizens. Given that research overwhelmingly confirms what was already inherently understood—that children in low-conflict households raised by both natural parents, on average, do better in every area of life than with any other kind of family arrangement—it makes sense for the State to specifically endorse marriage to encourage such healthy family environments. 

Why? Because it provides tangible value to the State. Healthy family environments produce healthy future civil minded law abiding tax paying voters!

Extending the definition of marriage to include unions that by design cannot produce offspring under any circumstance would offer no tangible benefit to the State over the existing definition. 

More importantly though, it would render moot the crucial non-arbitrary distinction that sets marriage apart: it could no longer be centred around providing a suitable framework for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. 

And without this crucial non-arbitrary distinction, there is no reason for the State to endorse or sanction it in any way, and every reason to stay out of people's private affairs.

So to put it in easily Tweatable terms, so as to more efficiently spread 'homophobic hate' on the internet, "Advocacy of same sex marriage is advocacy for the abandonment of marriage as a state sanctioned union." That leaves 38 characters for hashtags and poo flinging. Off you go. I’ll wait!

Q. The high divorce and infidelity rates show that marriage is hardly sanctimonious. And what about spouses that can't have kids or choose not to have them?

A. What about it and them? No system is perfect, and marriage is no exception. 

Things go wrong, and some marriages fail. They are seen as failures, especially towards any children involved. 

Some couples are infertile. This is considered a loss for their marriage.

Some get married without any intention of having children, but later change their minds.

And some don't. The real question here, is again "why?" Why would they want to socially and legally incapacitate themselves like that—it's like... paying to go to the cinema so that they can watch the trailer for the next Harry Potter film, and then leaving before the main feature; or taking driving lessons and sitting the test with no intention of ever driving, in order to use the driving licence as a photo ID; or applying for a credit card so you can use it to open motel doors; or buying a tilt-shift lens to make vast landscapes look tiny.

These matter not one iota, because they do not change the core intent of the institution, or its crucial non-arbitrary distinction. They're certainly not an argument for expanding the range of its arguable shortcomings. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

Q. But it isn't fair because married people get all these special benefits

A. That’s very true. Depending on where you live, married couples have certain advantages, such as being able to file income taxes together (mind the married tax penalty there!), or preferential visitation rights if one or the other is hospitalized, etc. 

Obviously these make sense in the context of maintaining a stable low-conflict household, but if anybody wanted to put forward some arguments for extending some of these rights to other forms of companionate relationships, I think advocacy of such a thing would make far more sense than that of abolishing the State sanction of marriage altogether.

Q. What about society's fundamental obligation to strive towards equality

A. You cannot have marriage equality, because a heterosexual union and a homosexual union are not inherently equal at a biological level. 

In fact, the one specifically unequal detail is the precise reason marriage is exclusively intended for heterosexual unions.

You can't win a circular argument.

Q. But shouldn't people in same sex relationships have a right to adopt children?

A. Firstly, being married does not give one a right to adopt, nor should it, because anybody showing that level of self-entitlement is not putting the best interests of the children first, and should be disqualified as a candidate on that basis alone. 

The rights of innocent children are important. Your personal sense of entitlement is not. 

Secondly, in most jurisdictions, marriage is not even a requirement for candidacy in the first place. 

This whole line of reasoning as an argument for same sex marriage is a red herring.

If you want more information as to why many stand firm in their knowledge that marriage eligibility criteria should not be extended to same sex unions, so as to better engage in an intellectual discussion on either side, I recommend http://discussingmarriage.org/ The site is open about its bias, but does its best to represent both sides fairly, and employ intellectual honesty in its approaches. "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage" is a particularly good starting point for understanding why disagreement even exists on a topic where both sides think they're so obviously right.


So to finish with some questions: 

Q1a. Why would gays and lesbians in a kind of companionate relationship that under no circumstances could ever produce offspring, wish to legitimise that union via willing participation in a specific State sanctioned institute that is structured entirely around producing offspring? 

Q1b. After homosexuals spent centuries trying to get the State out of their bedrooms, why are they so eager to invite them straight back in again? (Basically the same question, but more clickbaity).

Q2. What possible benefit would there be to the State to sanction and regulate such unions?

Q3. If an alternative arrangement was available which offered essentially the same benefits, only better suited to a non-reproductive union, would this not be preferable?