Q. Your very first 'View from the Abyss' was on the topic of same sex marriage, but it was very long winded and, frankly, convoluted by self-doubt. It certainly lacked the more decisive and hateful tone of your recent entries. As I'm sure your position has solidified over the past 18 months, could you reduce it down to something explainable in 60 seconds?
A. It rather depends on how fast you speak, but here goes...
1. There is no legitimate case to be made for expanding the definition of legal marriage to include same sex couples. There is however a strong legitimate case to be made against it.
2. Marriage as a legal institution is not a right—it's an imposition. As a rule, the State has no legitimate business regulating private personal relationships. What you get up to in private, and who you get up to it with, is nobody's business but your own.
3a. ALL children individually are the product of one man and one woman (an opposite sex coupling), even if technology does allow that they don't necessarily have to have met.
3b. As such, an exception to the rule is made for voluntary marriage of opposite sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition is offset by the net social benefit derived from providing a framework of environmental stability to the next generation of citizens during their most vulnerable years and beyond.
4a. NO children have been or will ever be the legitimate natural product of two people of the same sex.
4b. As such, no exception to the rule should be made for voluntary marriage of same sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition would be neither balanced nor offset by any social benefit.
4b. As such, no exception to the rule should be made for voluntary marriage of same sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition would be neither balanced nor offset by any social benefit.
4c. Anybody in a same sex relationship that doesn't like this should remember that the State has no legitimate business regulating the personal feelings of adults either.
I hope that helps.
Update: While I can neither confirm nor deny that he personally reads these bulletins, President Trump evidently agrees that the state should not be imposing itself into adult relationships, and the LGBTP community are up in arms over it. Creating a national database of sexual orientation is exactly the sort of thing that could be abused by a future government, and is one of many reasons that limiting the state's power is the order of the day.
Update: While I can neither confirm nor deny that he personally reads these bulletins, President Trump evidently agrees that the state should not be imposing itself into adult relationships, and the LGBTP community are up in arms over it. Creating a national database of sexual orientation is exactly the sort of thing that could be abused by a future government, and is one of many reasons that limiting the state's power is the order of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment