Dear Editor,
Ms. Kristine Dillon, I notice that you have kept your faith in
the nonsense that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue. I
would like to review a few of the basics as an aid to your
analysis. I know that you liberals are troubled by the logic thing
since you’re generally creatures of whim and impulse; you’re much
like children in that respect.
Dear Editor,
Ms. Kristine Dillon, I notice that you have kept your faith in the nonsense that homosexual marriage is an equal rights issue. I would like to review a few of the basics as an aid to your analysis. I know that you liberals are troubled by the logic thing since you’re generally creatures of whim and impulse; you’re much like children in that respect.
I will compare the application of the customs and laws of marriage to two examples. One a traditional nuclear family because that is what the institution was developed for. The other an average homosexual couple since it is prudent to construct policy for the majority case.
The family marries, fools around, and children arrive. Mom nurtures the children, Dad nurtures Mom, and the kids nurture trouble (they are much like liberals in that respect). Work is divided into stuff convenient with a baby on the hip and stuff that isn’t. To provide the best available environment for raising children, the family must endure for 20-25 years.
The couple hooks up, fools around, and nothing happens. No need to divide work, no need to maintain the relationship after passion fades, on average after 3-4 years.
Now marriage is a grant of privilege and obligation by the state. As y’all point out, Ms. Dillon, since not everyone is married the grant of special privilege must be in support of a compelling state interest. The production of children is such an interest since the state cannot exist without them. I assert that the gratification of individual passion is a matter of indifference to the state.
Regarding some of the customs and laws of marriage:
Prohibition of fornication: For the family, the prohibition makes sense. If children ensue out of wedlock, the quality of nurture is degraded since Mom, unsupported by Dad, must make her own living. For both Mom and Dad, multiple relationships dilute spousal loyalty and make it harder to maintain the relationship. For the homosexual couple, children will not ensue; each participant is free to make his own living, and dilution is no detriment.
Oath of lifetime commitment: At a minimum, family loyalty must extend through offspring minority. Mom has forborne economic advancement, especially if her training has focused on other’s needs; support is a fair return for a vital sacrifice. The gay couple has no children to support. Participants stand on their own economic feet. Lifetime commitment is not required.
Fidelity: In a family, fidelity prevents offspring unrelated to Dad and therefore undeserving of support. It also encourages spousal loyalty and facilitates relationship endurance. For the couple, no children are likely and relationship endurance is a matter of whim, not necessity.
Dependent benefits: In a family, Mom and the kids really are dependents. Benefits are graciously provided in recognition of their importance to society. In a homosexual relationship, there are no dependents and benefits are undeserved.
Divorce property division, alimony: Once again on the family side, a recognition of Mom’s economic sacrifice and the necessity of dependent support. On the homosexual side, a useless complication since participants are economically independent.
Stuart Allen, Gilroy
