Marriage and financial incentive about children

For years, the gay marriage debate has seemed to me one-sided, with advocates presenting… For years, the gay marriage debate has seemed to me one-sided, with advocates presenting their case — homosexuals deserve equal rights — and opponents presenting a vague but determined rebuttal — crossed arms, zipped lips, and a resolute shake of the head. Now, as select states and cities have begun marrying gay couples, it seems appropriate for the opposition to start making some sense. In the interest of a more rounded discussion, I’ve decided to carry that banner at about half-mast.

While researchers and editorials have tossed around the idea of a “gay gene” in recent years, and many would love to say they’ve found it, no such gene has been pinpointed. Still, I find it very hard to believe that homosexuality is a choice, any more than heterosexuality has been a choice for me. On the whole, I’d say that if you’re gay, you’re gay, and you might end up wanting to marry someone at some point. So, assuming a man and man or a woman and a woman can love each other just as sincerely as a combination of the two, why not recognize it in a legal sense?

Gay couples are fighting for marriage, as opposed to civil union, for two key reasons — equal recognition and financial incentive. Civil unions are seen as second rate in that they aren’t marriage, and they don’t come with the same economic benefits. But now, before asking why the government refuses to grant these privileges to gay couples, we should first ask why it does grant them to straight couples. We all know the government is a big, cold, heartless machine that is driven by profit and greased with the blood of the masses, so why should Uncle Sam care one way or the other if two people have fallen in love?

Marriage laws and the incentives they carry are intended to support the family. By reinforcing the most basic societal group, the government can pull for greater stability now and a new generation of Americans in the future. If the process continues, we have a functional, self-replicating system. Homosexual marriages are not included in this motivation, because, while procreation is the norm among heterosexual marriages, homosexuals are by definition not procreative. They can adopt or go the artificial insemination route, and in that regard, you might think of them as being similar to sterile straight couples, but the laws are written for tendencies. Straight couples tend to have children, gay couples do not, and the government tends to help those who help the common goal.

When we talk about legalizing gay marriage and awarding the benefits that come with it, we deny the very basic reasoning behind marriage benefits in the first place. All of the sudden, the government is asked to recognize and reward love instead of its more pragmatic concerns of reproduction. In an ideal world, maybe the government would reward honesty, integrity and faithfulness, but in our world, the leadership is much less romantic, and probably should be.

The government rewards procreation within a stable environment with well-rounded influence from a father and mother. This is a symbiotic relationship between family and society. But, if we abandon this formula and start recognizing and rewarding relationships between homosexuals, who don’t fit the mold but love each other nonetheless, there could be major consequences. If a man and a man are rewarded for love, why can’t a man and two women be rewarded? Or three women? Or a brother and sister? What about group marriage? If there is no such thing as perversity between consenting adults, and if the definition of marriage is subject to revision, what would stop it from spiraling out of control?

This topic is almost always presented as a civil rights issue, implying that marriage laws are endorsed by bigots who are too stuck in their views to acknowledge that homosexuals are humans with emotions and rights. But this is not the case. A government endorsement of homosexual marriage would sever the ideological connection between marriage and procreation, and it would be a harsh blow to a family structure that is already hurting in America.

E-mail Eric Miller at save101@hotmail.com.