Why I Oppose Homosexual Marriage

   Republicans and democrats have made a great deal of noise recently about the issue of gay marriage. Several pastors have even crossed over to a more 'tolerant' worldview in what some say is an effort to keep the church relevant to our world. I cannot resist commenting on the magnitude of this break. If Christians take their scriptures seriously, they ought to condemn homosexuality, there can be no denying this. When a religion or any movement suffers from such large internal divisions it must be coming near the end of its cultural and intellectual hegemony.


   But speaking to the point, the national conversation sounds a great deal like conversations in my ninth grade Mississippi Studies class: off topic and often bigoted. From the point of view of a homosexual couple, the system is against them. The heterosexual ruling class does not want to include them in the ranks of the socially respectable. A just criticism of a flawed system.
The first flaw is this: the very assumption that the government exists to create standards for social respectability. Republicans assume that this is one of the tasks of good government yet would never say it was also the role of government to create standards which determine what is or is not socially productive (i.e. interference in the world of business). We may give some credit to President Obama for consistently being on the same side of the issue, that is,  in favor of state regulation of both your marital status and your pocketbook.


   The appropriate policy transcends the stated positions of both parties. Homosexuals should not be prohibited from marrying nor should they be given marriage licenses by the state. In fact, the state should have nothing to do with marriage. In a society where people are free and possess individual rights, it is not within the proper mandate of the government to determine how its people associate with each other. Their should be no state sanctioned marriage simply put. This is true equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals: the freedom to associate with persons of their own choice free from state interference.


  It is important to realize the broader principle at stake here. The issue is not one which affects simply homosexuals. The great evil here is not the oppression of the homosexual class by heterosexual bigots. The issue is government interference in the lives of private citizens. Marriage licenses themselves date back to the European middle ages and gave the church certain powers to prevent or permit marriages. In the U.S., licensing was not employed until the mid to late 19^th century. In the early 20^th century, licenses were a way that states could prevent socially undesirable interracial marriages. Since their inception, marriage licenses have only hampered freedom and individual rights. It is thus with pride that I can say I oppose all government policies which seek to license marriage, homosexual or heterosexual.

The State of Reason

       We have come to a point in the history of the world as I see it where it would appear that reason prevails over faith. Looking to the past, reason has overcome a great many of its most deadly foes. Governments of the modern era are typically thought to be best if they are democratic, people are thought to be most intelligent if they are reasonable, but this is the extent of our progress. In the world we live in, most people rely on reason to make everyday decisions. Unfortunately, their application of reason often does not extend much farther into their lives. Let me offer some examples before touching on the deeper problem.

If for instance, a not very well educated (yet sane) person were attempting to wash their clothes only to discover that their washing machine was leaking or their dryer burning holes in clothing their immediate response would likely be to stop washing clothes and call a repair person or attempt to fix it themselves. A person in a pre-modern era faced with such a problem or a similar one, would likely call a priest to exorcise the 'bad spirit' from the machine. While humorous, the same situation applies to sick children, unhealthy animals or any other problem which people cannot immediately solve. Yet, there is a crucial difference between the two responses (aside from the fact that holy water never cured anyone). The difference is that the first, modern response relies on a system of reasoning. If the owner of the machine, child or animal cannot fix it they will find someone who can and it is based on their reasoning that they call in a repairman, doctor or veterinarian. The individual who calls the priest in does not rely on reason, they instead rely on faith. A faith, which is in this case based on an unreasonable premise (i.e. the existence of something unreal such as a spirit or demon).
        And here we strike at the central issue, the same sane person who called in a repair person and not a priest would not utilize their capacity for reason to approach bigger problems. More likely, they would cripple their reason by tying it to the faith which could not repair their washing machine or heal their children. Let us here proffer another example.
Let us have for example a man in the middle of his life who decides to open up his own business after years of working for other people. At first the business, a grocery for instance, is very successful, appealing to a niche market of consumers in a large city. Flushed with his early success, the businessman begins to take on employees who are not capable of high quality work or who are unwilling to do their job properly. He does this out of his desire to be altruistic and give them a chance. He ignores their incompetence for a 'higher cause.' Being a man of faith, the businessman makes frequent donations to his church on behalf of his business in the form of money food or other goods. The property is his and if he so chooses, there is no problem donating that money. Furthermore, if the business is doing well it likely will not be a problem. At church he meets a new supplier of fresh vegetables whose prices are higher but who is also a Christian and a 'good man.' He chooses to help this supplier out believing that his altruistic actions will benefit him in the end.
        As the years move on, the city expands and another store that appeals to a similar niche of customers opens up across the street. Our businessman believes that there is room for both stores in a city of this size and treats his competitor very cordially. Within a few months, our businessman discovers that his revenues have decreased drastically and many of his devoted employees, tired of working with incompetent people have gone to work at the other store. He concludes that the problem is a lack of ready money – clearly the other store has money to attract better employees – so he applies for a line of credit from the local bank for the expansion of his business. Based on his prior record of success and the value of his store, the bank grants him the line of credit. Our businessman pays his employees more money and even hires a new manager who he pays double the salary of the last manager. Thinking the problem solved, he uses a small amount of the money to take his wife on a month-long vacation. He returns to find his revenues steadily decreasing. The manager blames the employees, who cannot perform their duties despite their raise, and the owner blames the manager for not fixing the problem.
        It seems, many months later, that his business will collapse, the bank will not loan him more money and he cannot repay what he already owes. In desperation, our businessman prays to god for help. He reminds god of the frequent donations he made to the church which came directly from the business and begs god to fix the situation. In faith, he returns to work and manages the store himself though he changes nothing about his profit structure or employment policy – except to fire the manager. At the end of the month, he cannot make payroll or purchase stock. His employees, whom he was so kind to hire look for other jobs, the supplier will not extend him credit. His once thriving store in ruins, the businessman closes it down and begins working for other people as he struggles to pay down the loan he received. His faith has ruined him, his reason might have saved him.
This is the dilemma modern people face. It is a choice between reason and faith, rational self-interest and patronizing altruism. The primary purpose of action based on rational self-interest is not the well-being of society and yet all of society benefited from that businessman being in business. His employees, his customers, his competitors and his suppliers all benefited from his success.  Some people will try to say that one can act in one's rational self-interest and continue to be a person of faith, but the problem is that people are not segmented into little boxes. That is, the way they run their business or do their job will be affected by their reliance on either reason or faith. Unreason, i.e. faith is strongly linked to altruism and any attempt to mix altruism with reason will result in reason being overcome by faith. Whether it be faith in government or god, faith is the enemy of reason and those who attempt to combine them do so to their own destruction.

          What follows is my attempt at creating a primitive graph of my hypothesis that people tend to use reason to solve small problems but not large ones.