Wednesday, April 7, 2004

Much faulty logic in gay marriage debate

Mr. Martin Burkel asserts that since gay couples are already living together and “conceiving” children as if married, then we ought to recognize gay marriage. Similar attempts at logic are used to condone condom distribution in schools (since teens are already having sex, we might as well make it safe) and legalize drugs such as marijuana and heroin.

Let’s see what happens when we apply this logic to other societal phenomena.

We know large numbers of children are being sexually molested by adults, so why don’t we just get rid of laws against pedophilia? We know men rape women, so how about legalizing that as well? Oh, and don’t forget the wide variety of perverts and sociopaths who engage in all kinds of deeply disturbing behavior: Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, too.

There are all sorts of things that go on which we would of course never legalize. The existence of a behavior simply is not an argument for its acceptance or legalization.

Rather, we must gauge whether or not that behavior is moral on both societal and individual levels. We do not have any evidence to suggest gay marriage, much less the homosexual lifestyle in general, is beneficial to individuals or society. (In fact, most serious studies affirm the opposite in terms of homosexuality’s harmful effects on the physical and psychological well-being of a person.)

The entire argument is based on the notion that consenting adults should be allowed to have sex any way they want. As a society, we basically affirm that “right,” though we still have limitations (for now, at least) against incest and polygamy.

But the problem with gay marriage is that it is not just dealing with two consenting adults. Children are inevitably a part of the picture in marriage, and they are certainly NOT in a position to consent to the moral goodness or badness of homosexuality.

In effect, they are being forced to accept that lifestyle as a legitimate good at a time when there are no data to support that assertion and when we have thousands of years of the traditional family structure to argue firmly against it.

I know I sound to many like a broken record and like I have some beef with homosexuals. But we are dealing with an attempt by a vocal minority to change forever and fundamentally the most basic and important unit of civilization: The family.

I am all for individuals having the right to choose their sexual partners and to be protected from political and economic discrimination as a result of that choice. But demanding the right to marry reaches too far.

It is unfair on some level, I admit, but the sanctity of marriage must be protected and honored if we as a society hope to do right by our children and our children’s children.

I didn’t want this fight, but I will not lie down while a vocal minority tries to destroy not only just another pillar of tradition, but the most fundamental one at that.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.