For the Sake of Science

Awhile back there were a couple of editorials in the local paper about same-sex marriage in Maine. I have taken to ripping apart the one that is against liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness and civil rights and all things good.

Research and statistics repeatedly show the best environment for stable families and children is one with an opposite-sex union of a father and mother.

This is a lie. No research has been done which compares mother/father relationships to father/father or mother/mother relationships in terms of child rearing. This is just another abuse of science by the right.

Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.

Societies have also regulated voting. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a civil right. And that a man cannot marry his daughter goes to other reasoning than that marriage is between one man and one woman. It must. Obviously a man marrying his daughter is one man and one woman, so if we disagree that it should happen, then we must be using some other reasoning beside the one man/one woman mantra.

Marriage being a tool to ensure generational stability is a non-sequitur and bad writing.

The social institution of marriage is centered on children. Allowing same-sex couples to marry radically alters the social institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage is centered on adults and what is best for the adult rather than children. The two definitions of marriage cannot co-exist.

This is an argument against infertility, the right to choose to not have children, and marriage beyond the age of child-bearing years, too. Does the right really want to go into those grounds?

If marriage becomes an adult-centered institution, the social expectation of raising children in a home where the biological parents are married will continue to erode and fewer heterosexual couples will marry.

This is purely speculative and has no data to back it up. It is also easily countered with more speculation because one can simply say that homosexuals getting married will have no effect on a heterosexual’s decision to marry. It’s sort of like how blacks getting married didn’t cause white marriage rates to decline.

Keeping marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is not about discrimination, intolerance or denying civil rights, it is about ensuring our society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman.

Lies. This is about Bible-based hatred of homosexual activity (and often homosexuals, despite lying denials). And if this is about ensuring society continues to reap the benefits of marriage between one man and one woman, then there should be a push to legally compel people to marry. After all, that wouldn’t be about denying the civil rights of individuals to choose to not get married, it would be about ensuring societal benefits, no?

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: Beetle Blogger, Kennebec Journal, Liars, Roger Crouse, Same-sex marriage | Leave a comment »