I've written before about my opposition to gay marriage. At the time, I hadn't thought about the issue in detail, but I knew I couldn't support it.
Dick and Frank have added their voices to Jon's as favoring gay marriage. Dick says marriage "was a religious function". However, it is about more than a "church's blessing to a couple, enabling them to go forth and multiply".
Marriage is the union of man and woman from which children may issue. This is the very essence of marriage. That society has allowed marriage to go to hell in a handbasket over the past few decades does not mean that we conservatives should just throw in the towel. It is more than a petty gripe to acknowledge that marriage has been undermined over a long period to a stage where it is considered an "option" for those who want to have families or those who already are married and have families.
Unmarried cohabitation, divorce, "sexual self-fulfilment", etc. have all served to weaken marriage. Any move to allow for gay marriage will complete the destruction of the purpose of marriage. It will no longer be about bearing and raising children as well as a loving relationship.
My opposition to allowing gay marriage does not mean I want to see gay couples excluded from some of the legal and other benefits of marriage, many of which probably have little to do with marriage. Dick's example of hospital visitations is one. Any patient should be allowed to nominate any other person as his/her prime visitor. There are other examples like this.
But, if marriage is simply a contract between those who want to live & love together, I'm not sure how polygamous and incestuous relationships can be excluded. Why should a man not be allowed to marry more than one woman (or vice versa)? Why should a brother not marry his sister (or brother, for that matter)?
Society needs to do all it can to support marriage and stop undermining it. Dick says, "You can't simultaneously argue that being gay is just fine, but marriage is out of the question". But, if I believe that the possibility of children is an essential part of marriage, then it is possible to argue just that.
We in the west have a huge population problem looming and to deny that the undermining of marriage is not at the root of this problem is to live in cloud cuckoo land. We need to encourage marriage and children and this may mean that other "lifestyle" choices will not - should not - receive the same support from society. Gay couples in the year 2040 will want to have their pensions funded and their societies defended by young people committed to our society. Strong support for marriage is the best way to guarantee this.
