I’m less bothered by Portman’s switch and his reasons for making it, than I am by his implication that love can exist without truth, and that those who oppose gay marriage believe in truth without love.
No matter where you stand on the issue (religion, atheism, etc.), it is inherently impossible for homosexuality to be “equal” to heterosexuality: heterosexuality is responsible for the existence of literally everything that is human, including homosexuals. The two can be no more equal than a leaf can be equal to the tree from which it hangs. Equating gay marriage with hetero marriage is a deliberate contradiction of what is universally known, in the hopes that that falsehood will not cost anyone anything. That’s the truth of the matter.
But it will cost, and that’s where the question of love comes in. Whether heteros have children or not, we all know where children come from. More importantly, children know where children come from. They grow up into adults who know where children come from. It is an intimate part of every human being’s identity (including orphans). Or, at least, it was. With abortion, we’ve already begun teaching those who survive into humanity that their survival was due SOLELY to the election of another; that their lives were optional. “From a mom and a dad? Why, no, I came solely from my mother’s free will, like Minerva splitting Zeus’s skull. I am little more than someone else’s idea of their own freedom.” But that’s abortion. With gay marriage, by implication we are teaching children (and they will learn it to their bones) that even their birth is negligible: it is connected to humanity by a relationship that is no more essential to humanity than homosexuality. Relationships in which fertility never comes into play are equal to those in which it does come into play. Consequently, fertility and infertility are the same thing as a-fertility. Life is the same as not-life. This is isn’t alarmism. These are the absolutely necessary and logical lessons we are teaching children, even at the same time that we say we “love” them.
So what is the cost, when we have taught this generation and those who come after that one may “safely” ignore the obvious connections between obviously connected things? Conception from birth, birth from live, conception from mom and dad, and therefore the child from mom and dad, and therefore ourselves from humanity? These connections are all there for a reason, whether you see that as religious or humanist. But we don’t want those connections anymore. Because some are orphaned, all are to be orphaned. Because some cannot beget children, all are to relinquish their children, to treat them as accidents. We are opting to take something of themselves from literally everyone, in order that a few might not be insecure. And how is that loving or compassionate–to anybody, including the homosexuals? We are busy taking away from folks the ability to make obvious connections between things that are obviously connected. Good lord. How can this not cost us? And how did reducing heterosexuality and childhood and birth and life, to things that they are not, grant anybody equality of any sort?
Bottom line: Portman and Cheney and their kind are wrong. Love and truth go hand in hand every single time. When you kill one, you necessarily kill the other. But, by all means, let’s all be “nice” about this and let people have what they want. What could possibly go wrong? We’ve got our hearts in the right place.
(Some folks will inevitably ask, “What about infertile couples?” Here’s the problem with comparing homosexuals to infertile heteros. The marriage contract is not a contract on goods to be delivered, but an agreement on what should be done if those goods (children) are delivered. The marriage contract does not say that heteros have to have children. It DOES say that in order for children to be born, they need to have heterosexual parents, one damn way or another, and that parents need to recognize the child’s dependency on them. For all the equation of infertile heterosexuals with homosexuals, in defense of gay marriage, the two are not the same. The POSSIBILITY of children is an absolutely essential and necessary and empirically verifiable part of marriage as it now exists, whether or not each couple produces children. That possibility does not exist for homosexuals. Even for those heterosexual couples who know they are infertile before getting married: 1) too many “infertile” couples have “miraculously” had children, and 2) even if they don’t have children, they still represent the relationship that produces children. Homosexual couples do not represent that relationship, even those that adopt. The reason they don’t represent it is because of something they themselves regularly insist on: that our lives cannot be divorced from our inherent biology. They say that they didn’t have a choice as to what they were born as. Very well. Then it also stands to reason that none of us has a choice as to how we came into the world. Why gay-marriage proponents can’t grant biological necessity (and all that that means) to all children, rather than just homosexuals, is beyond me. As is obvious for those of us who can still connect obviously connected things, it can’t really have anything to do with “equality”: it is mind-bogglingly elitist and undemocratic.)
I have been involved in many conversations over at Hot Air on the subjects of free choice, such as allowing same sex partners the ceromony and the respectability that comes with the term marriage as well as the freedom to consume drugs legally. We are a nation of laws and we are supposed to be a nation of freedom and liberty. So, why would I have problems with these things? Well, one reason is the lack of personal responsibility and individual self discipline and the resultant assault on the freedoms of the virtuous.
While it is possible to have free choice with out personal responsiblity the resultant society must be tyrannical in nature. It forces others to pay for the consequences of your personal choices.
The chain of responsibility follows Self, Immediate Family, Extended Family, Friends and Associations, Community and charity, Local Government, State Government, Federal Government, All of Humanity.
You must care for yourself if you are to be able to care for your immediate family. You and your immediate family must be functioning to be able to assist any extended family members. The extended family has to be functioning in order to be there for their friends and associations. The Family, Friends and associations have to function in order to support the community and fund and run the charities. That is the end of voluntary associations and thus begins the coercive nature of government. In order for the government to exist it must be funded and staffed by the people of the community it is empowered to serve. So Local governments functioning is a requirement to serving the state government which must be working to serve the Federal Government and our federal government must be functioning in order to work within the planet and all of humanity on it. This chain goes in reverse. All of Humanity has a responsibility to respect our Federal Government, else we will have war. The federal government has to ensure it is treating each of the state governments fairly. The state governments need to keep their house in order to allow the local government to function properly. Lastly the local governments need to function properly to allow all the associations, charities, communities, families and individuals to get along well enough to thrive.
What does this have to do with my intransigent nature to same sex partner marriages and legalized drugs? We do not live in a properly functioning society where the chain of responsibility is functioning to allow society to thrive. Thus adding additional burdens to a degenerating society is going to add burdens the society cannot handle at this time.
Today, and for the last 75 years, we have lived in a short circuited responsibility of ever increasing magnitude. 75 years ago it was social security and unemployment insurance. Instead of being responsible for insuring against old age infirmity and loss of a job, the government chose to force everyone else to insure it for you and themselves of course. This led to some obvious, at least to me today, consequences. The first was that the value of a child was reduced, as people would no longer have to look to their own children in their old age in order to be secure. It also raised the cost of a child, because the money you paid towards old people already in the system was no longer in your pocket to pay for the needs of children. With the value of children reduced while the price increased, it led to people demanding to be free from the child rearing family unit of marriage. Thus was easy divorce created. All these divorced women led to the creation of the welfare state to make up for the dead beat dads who refused to support the ungodly act of being divorced. This led to people not wanting to bear the cost of an unplanned child and the pressure for on demand abortion. Which led to even easier divorce and the complete severing in the minds of the people of the purpose of marriage all together.
Marriage is about creating a nurturing environment of stability to allow children to grow up and become contributors to the whole of society. This turning away from our responsibilities to our children did not end in the family, but metastasized into the whole society, schools becoming indoctrination centers rather than places of learning, marriage becoming a racket to get half of a man’s wealth and decades of alimony.
The welfare state once created expanded and is continuing to expand daily. All those divorced women with children began taking some of the stigma away from unwed mothers, and the welfare state took away the personal responsibility aspect of providing for said out of wedlock children and in fact gave the woman a source of her living standard. Each small item led to something more and something even more. Marriage has been so deteriorated as an institution that today people argue that there is no reason not to allow same sex marriages which have an absolute 0 probability in creating children which will need to be raised in a stable environment. Allowing same sex marriage moves us further away from the ideal two biological parent family and more towards marriage is all about the two consenting adults, who, since they are consenting adults, do not need a marriage certificate to make their relationship work. A more deteriorated marriage institution will only end with more people on welfare, and that does not include the increased numbers of people who will experiment with same gender sex and end up with aids on medicare and social security disability siphoning off the wealth created by the virtuous amongst us.
The welfare state once created expanded and is continuing to expand daily. Well over 8 million disabled Americans in our ultra safe society. I see the people this covers coming out of their cars at the local stores. Perfectly fine walking people on average, well to do by the consideration of the value of their cars. Many are likely drug users of the past or current ones, being addicted is a disability you know… So is being fat!
So, while I personally could care less what you put in your body, I do care about whether or not I am forced to subsidize it by insuring your lifestyle with my labor. I am already paying out of my labor about 25% of my wealth creation between all the taxes I pay just to subsidize and many times completely cover the lifestyle of other people who are outside of my chain of responsibility. This money is taken by force and handed out without any accompanying moral judgement on the recipient. Thus, my ability to use my labor to affect positive change in my community through judicial use of charity is destroyed. We have become a land where the tyrants are the degenerates and the slaves are the virtuous, and because of the subsidizing of degenerate behaviors, we cause more people to engage in such behaviors and punish the virtuous for their failures.