WHY “GAY UNIONS” ARE NOT “GAY MARRIAGES”
My position on gays is: (1) they are entitled to the protection of our laws but (2) they are not entitled to change the definition of our institutions to suit their own needs. Since “marriage” is the contentious issue of the day, I begin with the question:
Q. What is the definition of marriage?
My answer is:
A. Marriage is a social union between a man and a woman that has as a common by-product, the propagation of the species. Put another way, marriages can and do produce the children that are necessary for the continuation of our society and indeed, our species.
Q. And why are gay unions not ‘marriages’?
A. Because gay unions are anti-social.
Q, And why are gay unions anti-social?
A. Because they have no such output and no such purpose. If we were all to invest in such unions, our society and our species would both terminate; hence, gay unions are anti-social.
This is the rule that applies: the judgement of a behavior is what would be the result of that behavior if it were adopted by all. If the result of such behavior is to be desired, the behavior is socially acceptable; if the result of that behavior is not to be desired, the behavior is socially unacceptable. Since the failure to produce children can never be an acceptable goal of society, any union that prohibits the desired goal is anti-social.
Note: The term “anti-social” as used herein is not used or intended to be used in a pejorative way but rather as a statement of the reality, to wit: what societal behavior benefits a society is social and what societal behavior harms or potentially harms a society is anti-social.
Gays engage in an “abnormal” practice. By that I mean a practice that is out of the norm, out of the ordinary, not in step with most of their contemporaries. Statistics show that 8% of us are gay while 92% of us are not. Hence, like it or not, a gay lifestyle is not the norm and is therefore very properly described as “abnormal”. (If gays object to the word “abnormal”, I will gladly substitute the word different. That works as well. a gay lifestyle is “different”.)
Just as English is spoken by most Americans and Christianity is the religion of choice for most Americans and July 4th and December 25th are holidays for most Americans - “marriage” for most Americans and to most Americans is the definition of the union between a male and a female which is the basis for family.
In America, minorities have their rights. But in America, majorities do too. I have begun to think that some of our citizens and some of our activist judges – in their zeal to protect minority rights – have forgotten that the majority also has its rights.
Now certainly I can understand the desire on the part of gay Americans to want to be seen as just another group of choice, in no way or manner different from any other but that is simply not the case. The fact is that gays are different. They practice an unusual lifestyle and they really can’t expect everyone else to close his eyes to the truth just so they can rationalize their own behavior. (If rationalization weren’t the case, they wouldn’t care what anyone else calls their unions since the legal rights of partners in gay unions are not in question here.)
Notwithstanding all this, “we” the majority, have rights too, among which is the right to determine the parameters and limits of our society. These majority rights can be seen on display regularly in Washington, DC. in the Congress of the United States. Every time a bill comes to the floor it is decided upon by vote and the majority vote normally wins. If your side gets the most votes, you win, if not you lose but in the end, whether you win or lose doesn’t matter because you still have to obey the new law which has come into effect by the vote of the majority.
That’s the way this nation – and all nations - function. It is the only way a nation can function. Most of the people have most of the say.
In the final analysis, what most of the people want is what most of the people get. So while the majority does not dictate, it generally does persevere.
When the vote was taken to declare America’s independence from England, you must know that not every individual state voted in favor – but the majority did and so the United States of America was born by a majority vote. Were the minority allowed to interfere with the will of the majority as is done so often today? No they were not. Had that been allowed there would be no United States of America.
It would be well for our judiciary to remember that and this: governments derive their power from the will of the governed. That would be the will of the majority of the governed not the minority.
Too often in America today, we see the tail being allowed to wag the dog and in the end that misfortune will destroy us. After all, it is majority rather than minority acquiescence that makes law and order possible. Without it, we would have anarchy.
The guiding axiom must be: while minorities have rights, majorities have greater rights. It is the only way a democracy can survive.
Joey
