The arguments in favor of same-sex civil marriage are well known. Thrown into the ring are the buzzwords of “equality” and “discrimination”. So the typical argument goes: Discrimination is bad, and equality is good, so our government should give homosexual couples the recognition and subsidies reserved for heterosexual couples.
But there are problems with those. For one thing, discrimination and prejudice are innate to our psyche. If I have a soccer ball, for example, I will only intend to use it for soccer, because that is its purpose. Since I refuse to use it for basketball, does that mean I hate the latter sport? No, but I discriminate between the two. Moreover, whether they recognize this or not, people of all political persuasions have their own interests in preventing the catastrophe that is same-sex marriage.
Conservatives need to stand up. Christianity has always opposed it. The Jews rejected it, too. Even the Greek thinkers despised it! What could be more conservative than protecting something so sacred to the Abrahamic religions and Western philosophy in general? This is not only a moral concern, though, but a major political one, too: members of broken and “non-traditional” families are more likely to vote Democratic. And another thing: Conservatives are not “hateful” for wanting to preserve an effective, proven institution. The sorry truth, in fact, is that most conservatives are no longer conservative enough. We must never forget that same-sex civil marriage is similar to abortion, in that enabling it makes it more likely to occur. Could our nation bear it on its conscience?
Libertarians should be outraged over this, also. Do libertarians really want humanity to return to the days of de facto sex-slavery, like that of pagan Rome, in which the only classifications that matter are “penetrator” and “penetrated”? Nothing could dehumanize or undermine liberty more! Do they really believe, like Barack Obama believes, that the Constitution contains “a rejection of absolute truth” (The Audacity of Hope)? Or, do they instead share the mind of John Adams, who said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Civil marriage may seem, even in the very first place, to be an encroachment on liberty, but traditionally, it has facilitated social health and promised fairer child custody decisions. The point is that, once we change our essential institutions – and civil marriage has been with humanity for many centuries – we become a substantially different society, one of which the Founding Fathers could have never dreamed, opening the door for any number of unsettling developments.
And, liberals, you’re not off the hook, either. If equality is your desire, you must then demand these benefits for not just homosexual couples, but for polygamous couples, child couples, and single people, as well. On the first, it is true that polygamy causes social incohesion and much detriment [1, 2]. But so does homosexuality [1, 2]. On child couples, there is an argument to be made from contract law and ages of consent. But, historically, they and their parents have been capable of handling these types of decisions. And if singles were to be approved, too, then no one would be exempt! Hooray for “equality”! But then, no one would have a benefit, because the term demands exclusivity, and that would undermine the modern liberal’s favorite thing: the coercive power of government, which rests on its ability to discriminate. Simply put, if liberals are to support homosexual couples in this endeavor, they need to find a unique incentive from homosexuals that justifies the continued exclusion of others. The problem for them, of course, is that there is not even one.
So, everyone should oppose same-sex marriage.