August 16th, 2010
A follow-up to our earlier Happenstance Prop 8 post, inspired by Prop 8 Backers: Gay Marriages Would ‘Harm The State’s Interest In Promoting Responsible Procreation’ (Huffington Post 8/16/10).“Only a small proportion of homosexual men who live as ‘gays’ seriously attempt anything even resembling marriage as a permanent commitment… And this is no mere happenstance. The reason why marriage involves the commitment to permanence and exclusiveness in the spouses’ sexual union is that, as an institution or form of life, it is fundamentally shaped by its dynamism towards, appropriateness for, and fulfilment in, the generation, nurture, and education of children who each can only have two parents and who are fittingly the primary responsibility (and object of devotion) of those two parents.” — John Finnis Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’ chapter in book Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (coincidentally, or maybe not, NOM Chairman Robert George, studied under Finnis at Oxford) “Most heterosexual parents.. marry, have sex, and then suddenly: ‘Whoops! We’re pregnant!’ Our families are designed. They’re conscious. They don’t just happen by happenstance.” – Someone named Candi quoted in The Basic Point on Marriage (Anchor Rising 8/13/10).
The first comment summarizes the case made by Prop 8 proponents.
The second shows why that view reality misrepresents.
Prop Eighters claim the majority of gays can’t and don’t form stable relationships,
And that children’s right to stability gays’ right to marriage outstrips.
It’s true that when gays are allowed to marry, some of them will split
And that children from parental separation clearly don’t benefit.
But Finnis’ condemnatory comment is acutely premature:
There are no statistics to show whether gay marriages will endure.
Since gay marriage is a relatively new thing,
There’s as of yet no way to tell what it’s future will bring.
Of course, straight marriage has set a very low bar,
Gay marriage won’t have to do much to be on par.
More than half of straight marriages end up split
That’s a pretty big number, one has to admit.
And if it turns out that gay marriages are more stable,
Will NOM start lobbying, more of them to enable?
Will they lobby to deny remarriage to those who serially divorce?
(Ironically, many “conservatives” who “protecting marriage” endorse.)
For some reason, I doubt that:
They say they’re for marriage, but it’s not about that.
Their entire raison d’etre is to be anti-gay:
They’ve got little about other “threats” to marriage to say.
But if it’s really the welfare of kids that worries NOM,
Then they can go ahead and stop their pogrom:
Gay couples can already have kids without being wed,
So keeping gays from getting married provides those kids less stability instead.
And even if Dr. Finnis were right about gays
And their inconstant, unstable, promiscuous ways,
Those that meet that description are unlikely to have children,
Since they’re too busy living in licentious sin.
(Why is it that I get the strong feeling
That there might be something Dr. Finnis is concealing?
Why does he seem so threatened by wild gay sex?
Maybe his opinion inner turmoil reflects?)
But like I said at my poem’s start
Before I got into this whole NOM part,
Gays may end up being more responsible parents than straights,
Since it’s always a conscious decision when a gay couple a child creates.
Unlike with straights, it doesn’t just happen by chance,
Which is why Dr. Finnis just happens to have the completely wrong stance.