I want nothing in this world more than to be a father. Yet I
can’t bring myself to celebrate same-sex marriage.
By Paul Rosnick
APRIL 28, 2015
Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of
an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that
support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On
Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many
court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent
the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage
won.
As a
30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that
age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in
this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem
to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I
know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of
this.
I’m not
alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are
a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an
even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay
rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously
stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to
publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from
Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target
of the Gaystapo.
Marriage Is More than
a Contract
The
wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the
argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced
lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual
relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the
union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the
union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth
and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.
Why was government
invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like
friendships?
This
inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because
they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as
though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two
people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign
on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex
couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two
men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a
woman.
But this
vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage
is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved?
Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal
relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a
sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love
contract.
Government Is Involved
in Marriage Because It Creates Babies
People
have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes
marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved.
Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious
tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science.
When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that
results in a new human life.
Government
got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a
responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage
special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to
create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up
with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates
this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This
harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a
meaningless anachronism.
A Good Dad Puts Kids
First
Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create
children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising
children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come
to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for
the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad
will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a
dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his
mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.
Same-sex
relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of
their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly
seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults
over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the
old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance
to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned
with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children.
Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For
once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first.
Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We
owe them that.
At its
core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining
families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds
have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we
assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships
will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with
that.
Paul Rosnick is a pseudonym.
Comments
Post a Comment