Does Homosexual Marriage Truly Exist?
Is government discriminating against homosexual couples when it denies them marriage, just as it discriminated against African Americans with segregation? The arguments assume that government creates and defines marriage. That assumption is reinforced with every public referendum, legislative act or court order concerning it, but for thousands of years, no one defined marriage, yet everyone knew what it was. Did society define marriage, perhaps based on the writings of bigoted men, to erroneously excluded homosexual couples? Does marriage exist absent society, with the concept of homosexual marriage being a collective delusion? Who or what defines marriage, and does that definition include homosexual couples? To answer this assertion, we must inspect the natural state, absent society, religion and government.
To survive as an individual, one must have sustenance and shelter. The survival of a species requires reproduction. The activities of gathering food, building and maintaining shelters and reproducing the species all consume energy. Particularly for humans, the task of reproduction is energetically intensive. For the last few months of pregnancy, a woman's productivity is significantly impaired, and this impairment continues for many years after birth, due to the demands of raising the child. Reproduction impairs productivity and increases consumption. It is safe to say that in the wild, a human woman living alone would be unable to bear or raise a child. The species known as "human" would not exist.
The struggles of life can be eased through the division of labor. The woman, with her reduced mobility, can perform the tasks of maintaining the shelter, reproducing the species and perhaps farming some food. The man, freed to venture longer distances, can find greater qualities or quantities of food and other resources. The division of labor may be so effective that a man could partner with a harem; however, too many women in the same home would result in duplication of effort, which is energetically disadvantageous. The upper limit to the number of women in a harem would be determined by their detailed surroundings, but including competition for resources, that number is likely close to one. Nature found a simple solution to the impossibility of reproducing the human species alone: heterosexual couples bound in a long-term partnership, also known as marriage.
Communities also benefit from division of labor and specialization, but there is always one paramount rule: all pull their own weight. If a member of a community becomes a burden to the community, then the community acts to remedy the problem. A woman who becomes pregnant by a philanderer becomes a burden. The community members, already investing their energies into their community and families, must now divert some of their efforts toward her. The philanderer also incurs their ire, as he might not have the resources for the women and children. A successful marriage can join families or communities, and prolong both. A failed marriage can burden a community with a single woman and her children. The licensing of marriages and the opportunity to raise objections serves to verify that family and community believe a marriage will be successful. Likewise, the complexity of divorce serves to provide family and community the opportunity to pressure a couple to remain together. Nature encourages heterosexual couples, and the community adds an exclamation point.
Are there other ways to go about it? Sure, except none are as efficient as heterosexual couples. In our modern world, with its plentiful energy and a gargantuan government that invisibly redistributes that bounty, those alternatives appear feasible and tolerable, perhaps even desirable. Take away that plenty or exhaust other peoples' money, and nature will expose just how infeasible those alternatives are.
Marriage is created and defined by the immutable laws of nature, and the longevity of the community is best served by heterosexual couples. Any action of government or religion is the recognition of the importance of marriage to the community, rather than some ad hoc policy based on bigotry. The cohabitation of homosexuals is reproductively disadvantageous, but it has no other negative. Beyond people sharing a home, it has no positives. To society, whether they love or hate each other, engage in sexual activity or heated arguments, two or more non-reproducing persons living together is just a bachelor pad.
Homosexual marriage is thus an episode of societal delusion, but then why is it so popular?
Many people were led to believe that government creates marriage, and is interfering with love. Does gay marriage truly exist? As the pun implies, what do love and harmony have to do with marriage? Love is fleeting. Marriage is first and foremost about procreation, followed by political alliances. The arranged marriage is far from unknown, and many readers have probably conspired with their friends against their own children, if only briefly. If we follow the Christian faith, to love one another, then would we not all be married to everyone? The only thing marriage requires is trust. As long as you can trust a person to look out for your interests, you can live with them forever.
Homosexual marriage does no harm, right? If there were no benefits provided to married couples, then the only thing harmed is society's mental health (e.g. calling a couple of bachelors "married"). Alas, our convoluted society provides special benefits to married couples. Even though the cost may be imperceptible, society pays, but receives no benefit from homosexual couples in return.
Taking the above into consideration, strangest of all, the greatest reason for the popularity of homosexual marriage might be its most touted positive: spousal benefits. The United States has developed its own special flavor of tyrannical cameralism. Its rules, regulations and taxes would be widely felt as burdensome and undue, if not for a cacophony of loopholes and exemptions. In short, homosexual marriage would be a way for the underdog to stick it to Uncle Sam, and Americans love an underdog and currently loathe Uncle Sam. Rather than support homosexual marriage, maybe we should shred those burdensome and undue rules, regulations and taxes; especially considering that the political party most associated with homosexual marriage is also the party most associated with the tyrannical cameralism. One way, homosexuals alone benefit, the other, everyone benefits.
Marriage is the prolonged union between a man and a woman, as dictated by the immutable laws of nature. Even should a panel of judges decide differently, it is nothing more than a temporary delusion; one that will most certainly be corrected by another panel of judges, other political institution or even an act of nature. This is perhaps the best evidence that homosexual marriage never really existed. For homosexuals, the desire to be deemed "normal" may have been the impetus to press homosexual marriage for so long and hard, but it is a war that could never be won; the opponent is the universe itself. The fight for "normalcy" may have been too blinding, as the forest has been missed because of the trees. The homosexual variety may be few, but it is far from rare. Homosexuality is incorporated into every culture, to the extent that its absence would be abnormal.