Lust Crimes of the Amoeba-Men Part II
In regard to the previous topic, a reader writes in with a comment I thought needed emphasis:
You feel that marriage is good because it prevents men from becoming jealous when their wives have the children of other men. You acknowledge that men can become jealous when their men have the odors of other male lovers upon them but you note … that such jealousy, as well as the love it springs from is illogical and thus it should not be indulged by creating a marriage compact to prevent it. This, I feel, is where your logic stumbles. Marriage doesn’t justify the jealousies of a jealous man – it seeks to prevent it in the first place. As a side effect of the marriage the jealousy may seem more honorable, but if jealousy springs from the infidelity of a marital partner that marriage has failed.
Now, is it illogical to prevent an irrational man from behaving violently? If Narcissus would murder a man who disturbs the clear pool into which he gazes should we allow the act and say that we allowed it because we did not wish to become involved with his madness? Of course not. Likewise, if by codifying the unions of sodomites we can stop them from stabbing one another in jealous fits we should do so even if their jealous fits are unjustified.
My reply:
This is a good point! Indeed, this is a good enough reason, just by itself, to legitimatize homosexual marriage, despite my other misgivings.
The laws that we have now should be fashioned to encourage civil order with the population we have now: which means, the generation with no sexual self-control. In the world of no-fault divorce and no-blame cohabitation (two couples I know live together without marriage, and all couples I know lived together before marriage), to balk at the relatively minor vice of homosexuality would be disproportionate. If indeed jealous rage among disappointed lovers could be curtailed by sanctifying their unions, the law would do more good than harm.
And, I hate to admit it, but a civil union will not do. It is precisely the mystical meaning of marriage, the sacredness of the sacrament, that is needed to encourage loyalty and discourage male sexual violence.
Further, even if the majority of homosexuals award no more loyalty to the sacrament than they do to chastity in general, what of the minority who is otherwise? On a pragmatic level, the majority will be unaffected one way or the other; this minority might be helped. In theory, this sacrament should be reserved only to those sodomites willing to come as virgins (or whatever the equivalent is) to their marriage bed; but, then again, in theory, this sacrament should be reserved to those Christians willing to come as virgins to their marriage bed, which excludes nearly everyone I know.
The gay marriage law, of course, should make provision for those homosexuals who are cured of their peculiar condition. If by a miracle a man falls in love with a woman, I cannot in good conscience see why his vows to his homosexual partner should restrict him. On the other hand, if children are involved, the oath should be kept: their is no honor in allowing one of Heather’s two Mommies to skip out on her obligations.
The insult to the institution of marriage will be real, and perhaps even the straw that breaks the camels back. If the good done the faithful homosexuals outweighs the harm done the institution of marriage, we have no pragmatic argument to give against the legitimation of gay marriage. But that is a matter where reasonable people can agree to differ. Different men will assess the weight of harm and benefit differently.
I concede the argument.
John C. Wright has been proved wrong in a debate, and admitted it! Someone call the Pope: it is a Sign of the End Times.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
