My thoughts on gay marriage

This is a difficult topic for me as it is not one of my hot button issues.  However, I find it terribly ignorant and disingenuous for the pro-gay marriage people to assume that those against gay marriage are some sort of religous nuts or haters of homosexuals or some sort of homophobes.  That is stupid and an embarrasing way to conduct a debate.  Allow me to offer my thoughts on why I am against gay marriage:

In a libertarian view the domestic purposes of government are two fold: 1) Uphold and judge the execution of contracts, and 2) Protect the innocent/unknowing/unexpected members of a contract.  If this is the case, then Marriage is the ultimate example of this.  What other contract that people can enter into has the possible consequence of producing new people?  Marriage is for the purpose of providing a contractual protection to children —planned or unplanned.  The fact that society has lost sight of this is unfortunate.  But at the end of the day, there is NO chance that two gay men or women will accidentally get pregnant.  Therefore, there are no innocent members of a contract to protect.  In a gay relationship ALL provisions for the future can be agreed to by ALL parties involved in the contract—they are ALL adults.  There is no innocent member of the contract for a government to protect. 


One might counter that in this day and age where people have premarital sex like they go to fast food restaurants, that this thinking is outdated.  However, this is the reason that there are numerous incentives or government benefits to those who legally confirm the physical consummation that they have experienced.  In essence we want them to choose marriage even post facto because it accrues to the benefit of the innocent member of the contract.


If we redefine marriage what we are essentially saying is that this basis for marriage is irrelevant.  In essence we are defining marriage as simply a way to structure life long adult relationships—a way for any adult to declare another adult as having special legal status and rights relative to them self.  There is no benefit that accrues to society in this proposition so there should be no social benefit offered.


Marriage is not a right.  In its most basic secular form it is a three way contract between two consenting adults and the government.  The government offers consideration as a quid pro quo that the two adults will take care of any offspring that result and not create a social burden for society.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: