Same Sex Marriage II

So, the Canadian Parliament has decided that same sex marriage is not up for debate. Here is a very good reason that the privelege of marriage should not be extended to same sex couples.

Our government generally does not regulate, through licencing or other laws, human relationships. In fact, we are guaranteed by our Charter that we have freedom of association. The government has no interest in regulating who we establish relationships with; except in certain cases.

One of those exceptions is business relationships. The government sets out guidelines and rules with how we ought to treat each other in commercial situations. This makes sense because there is tremendous opportunity for abuse.

Another exception is marriages. Why do they choose to regulate marriage? Is it because they are concerned with who has sex with whom? Is it because they want to promote loving relationships? Is it because marriage is an ancient institution? The answer to all these questions is obviously 'no'.

The government regulates marriages because the government recognizes that marriages are the foundation of a stable society and that they create and nurture the next generation of our society. (Notice the government 'recognizes' marriage, it does not 'define' it.) It is in the best interest of our society as a whole that marriages are stable and that they be given certain priveleges related to taxation.

Please notice that the government regulations apply to married people as a group, because the vast majority of marriages involve children. This does not mean that childless couples are excluded from marriage. They do not, however, qualify for a Child Tax Benefit.

So why is the government so very interested in extending the privelege of marriage to same sex couples? I don't know. There is no rational reason to do so. Same sex relationships cannot play a role in creating the next generation of our society, so why should they receive benefits that are designed for those who do?

Same sex marriage is not about equal rights for same sex couples. It is about special priveleges for a tiny minority of our society.


sans auto said...

I agree with you completely, if a marriage is the joining of two things that are different, doesn't that make SAME-sex marriage sort of an oxymoron?

Why is it such a hot topic? I'd venture to say purely political (which is a change from the altruistic approach of most politicians?) The idea appeals to a large portion of society, not because they want to participate, but because they are relativists that can't intrude on another's rights, no matter how immoral they may be.

paul said...

Vertigo said, "Same sex relationships cannot play a role in creating the next generation of our society, so why should they receive benefits that are designed for those who do?"

perhaps this statement needs to be more specific, for does it not stand that each one of us, regardless of our sexual conduct or relationships, will be in some way "creating the next generation of our society"?

Vertigo said...

Sans, it is only the conservatives who are not allowed to 'impose' their morality on others. The liberals feel free to do so simply by saying that we can't...

To follow that logic to its conclusion, no entity, government or person can say that any other entity, government or person ought to act in any particular way.

"reductio ad absurdum" if you reduce an argument to its absurd conclusion, you show the argument to be absurd.

Relativism commits suicide at the slightest provocation.

Paul, I meant 'creating' in the biological sense.

Each one of us does have a role in 'nurturing', 'training' and 'empowering' the next generation.

sans auto said...


paul said...

umm yeah, biological creating...i get it. of course. i'm an idiot...i'll be quiet now.