Monday, May 11, 2015

The real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

Recently, the push for same-sex marriage has become quite popular with the government of various jurisdictions. It is popularly justified on the grounds that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination. This argument, however, fails miserably. It fails because the rules for government recognition of marriage are consistently applicable for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. During the oral argument in the recent Supreme Court case, interrogation of lawyers by Justices Scalia and Alito revealed that traditional marriage was normative and same-sex marriage absent even in societies that were very pro-homosexual.Additionally, there is an abundance of evidence that people have Fighting discriminatio sincere religious beliefs concerning homosexuality who practice nn is simply a smoke screen to hide the real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage.   

The real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage is rooted in the fundamental differences in the definitions between traditional and same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is grounded ontologically in certain fundamental realities that are normative of human sexuality. Heterosexual relations are normative among humans, and the traditional institution of marriage was constructed to channel these powerful forces to function in a manner conducive to the formation of civilization. Traditional marriage fostered the formation of stable families as the basic unit of civilization and the front line for socializing children into behaving like civilized human beings and not like wild animals. 

  Same-sex marriage, however, is not rooted in any ontological ground. It only exists in the minds of those who identify theirs or others’ homosexual relationships as such. It is merely a virtual construct. In fact, much of the radical LGBTQ agenda can only be understood understood as redefining the fundamentals of personal and sexual identity as nothing more than merely virtual constructs. It is this idea that fuels the idea that a person can choose whatever gender they are regardless of the biological facts that pertain to gender. This idea of de-grounding the fundamentals that ground personal meaning has been around for quite a while. The significance of Roe v Wade is that it divorced the concept of person-hood from  any grounding in the sanctity of human life. It only mattered if a fetus was a legal person, and that was determined in terms of recognition by society and the state. Person-hood  is seen here as a mere construct of the state. 

Grounding person-hood, relationships, and sexual identity imposes limiting principles that are inherent in the nature of whatever grounds these things. This imposes limitations on what individuals and states can do with these constructs. The abortion rights and LGBTQ movements attacked these grounds and persuaded many to abandon these foundations because they were seen as too limiting. What they failed to see was that ontologically grounding personal and sexual identity also limited the role of the state. Once these were taken away, there were no longer any limiting principles to super-massive state intervention in matters that were very private and personal. Another problem in de-grounding personal and sexual identity is that this created a need for a virtual replacement. Personal and sexual identity cannot exist in society in a vacuum. Without any ground in the fundamentals of human nature or higher law, then an arbitrary ground had to be created and vested with sufficient force to hold these things together This need of a virtual ground has resulted in these groups looking to the state to step in to create and uphold these constructs.  If person-hood and sexuality are nothing more than constructs of the state, then there is nothing to limit the power or scope of the state in intervening in some very sensitive and private matters. This would give the state unlimited control over personal lives, and this is the real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

No comments:

Post a Comment