Views from the Abyss #1: Same Sex Marriage

So same sex marriage is actually a thing. Not having lived in the Western world for nearly two decades, this is somewhat baffling, and not just to me, but to most of the people around me too. What is yet more baffling is that not only do the advocates seem unable to articulate why they believe same sex marriage should be legitimized beyond some extensively vague notion of "rights" and "equality", it's also apparently beyond them that there could be any legitimate opposition to it other than sheer bigotry. So how on earth has any country actually gone through with this, in the absence of any kind of serious public debate? 

What seems to me to have happened is that you have a minority of yay sayers on the one side shouting at the Westboro Baptist Church on the other. Meanwhile, a silent majority sits in the middle confused, afraid to even start a discussion lest they be branded homophobic bigots with no more right to walk god's fair earth than Satan himself, just for daring to question what should apparently be self-evident. Ultimately they sided with the yay sayers because they just can't think of a good reason not to allow SSMthey know they're not homophobes, and they want everyone to have nice things and be happy, but they're also not allowed to ask questions so it's mostly taken on faith that this would be the obvious result. Besides, the yay sayers are a much scarier bunch to piss off than the "god hates fags" placarders, because seriously who even listens to those guys, but that's just my experience. And that's why there is now a thing called same sex marriage.

I too had initially been part of that silent majority, completely on the fence about the whole issue (after all, what business is it of mine how other people conduct their own private affairs?). But I've also never been one to bandwagon. So in the absense of any coherent arguments being brought forth, I decided to conduct my own research into the actual pros, cons and other implications and considerations, and that's why I now find myself in the opposition camp.

Q. What?! You're against same sex marriage jabber prattle?!

A. Were I any of the things mentioned in that long list of expletive riddled accusations that were probably just reeled off, it would be irrelevant to the facts as I understand them.

In pragmatic terms, marriage is different from all other kinds of companionate relationships in one specific and consistent non-arbitrary way: it centres around partners uniting for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. This understanding is in no way controversial or new. 

Additionally, the State has an obligation towards the welfare of the next generation of citizens. Fully aware that all research confirms what was already inherently understoodthat children in low-conflict households raised by both natural parents on average do better in every area of life than with any other kind of family arrangementit makes sense for the State to specifically endorse marriage as a framework to encourage such healthy family environments. Healthy family environments produce healthy future civil minded law abiding tax paying voters!

Extending the definition of marriage to include unions that by design cannot produce offspring under any circumstance would first of all offer no tangible benefit to the State over the existing definition. More importantly though, it would render moot the crucial non-arbitrary distinction that sets marriage apart: it could no longer be about the production and raising of children. 

And without this crucial non-arbitrary distinction, there is no reason for the State to endorse or sanction it in any way.

So to put it in easily Tweatable terms so as to more efficiently tarnish my reputation on the internet, an argument for same sex marriage is an argument for the abandonment of marriage as a state sanctioned union. That leaves you 31 characters to fling poo with. Off you go. Ill wait!

Q. But what about blah blah blah?

A. Absolutely. No system is perfect, and marriage is no exception. Some marriages fail, and they are seen as failures, especially towards any children involved. Some couples turn out to be infertile, and this is generally viewed as a loss for their marriage. Some get married without any intention of having children, which really raises the question of why theyd want to sacrifice their freedoms like thatkind of akin to paying to go to the cinema so they can watch the trailer for the next Harry Potter film, and then leaving before the main feature, or taking driving lessons and sitting the test so you can use the driving licence as a photo ID. None of these change the intent of the institution, or its crucial non-arbitrary distinction, and theyre certainly not an argument for expanding the range of its arguable shortcomings.

Q. But its not fair because yada yada!

A. Thats very true. Depending on where you live, married couples get certain benefits such as being able to file income taxes together (mind the married tax penalty there!), or preferential visitation rights if one's partner is hospitalized, etc. Obviously these make sense in the context of maintaining a stable low-conflict household, but if anybody wanted to put forward some arguments for extending some of these rights to other forms of companionate relationships, I think advocacy of such a thing would make far more sense than abolishing the State sanction of marriage altogether.

Q. But something about equality dribble yarn

A. You cannot have marriage equality because a heterosexual union and a homosexual union are not inherently equal. In fact one of those specifically unequal things is the precise reason marriage is exclusively intended for heterosexual unions. 

Q. But what about the right to trumpet dribble so on and so forth?

A. Ah yes, adoption. First off, marriage does not give one a right to adopt, and anybody that sincerely thinks it does should be disqualified as a candidate on that basis. The rights of innocent children are important, your personal sense of entitlement is not. Secondly, in most jurisdictions, marriage is not even a requirement for candidacy anyway, so any talk of adoption is essentially a red herring.

If you want more information as to why many believe that marriage eligibility criteria should not be extended to same sex unions, so as to better engage in an intellectual discussion on either side, I recommend http://discussingmarriage.org/ The site is open about its bias, but does its best to represent both sides fairly and with intellectual honesty. "The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage" is a particularly good starting point for understanding why disagreement even exists on a topic where both sides think they're so obviously right.

So to finish with some questions: 

Q1. Why would gays and lesbians in a kind of companionate relationship that under no circumstances could ever produce offspring, wish to legitimise that union via willing participation in a specific State sanctioned institute that is structured entirely around producing offspring? 

Q2. What possible benefit would there be to the State to sanction and regulate such unions?

Q3. If an alternative arrangement was available which offered essentially the same benefits, only better suited to a non-reproductive union, would this not be preferable?

The abyss is my oasis of sanity in a world that's completely lost its collective mind.