Marriage, Homosexuals, and Abortion
The underpinning of most arguments I’ve heard from homosexuals in favour of having the same status as married couples seems to rest on an assumption of equality of motherhood and fatherhood. While the definition of marriage is male and female, let’s posit that the real purpose of marriage is related to traditional definition of family.
I’m also going to posit that motherhood and fatherhood begins at the moment of conception, which may be a difficult proposition for some to swallow, but it makes the most sense for biological simplicity.
So, under “full equality” that homosexuals call for, motherhood and fatherhood are societally equal, if biologically significantly different. Does the father have equal say in the termination of pregnancy as the mother? Currently, a mother can terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including financial hardship, (the cornerstone of most “low income women” arguments presented by the abortion advocates). If a father determines that a child would be a financial hardship, does he have the same rights, if not to physically terminate the pregnancy; to terminate his legal obligation to the child? I don’t think it works that way, and don’t think it should. In order to have “full equality”, this seems to be a point where society has an obligation to treat motherhood and fatherhood differently, at least in a sane society.
There very well may be some arguments in favour of changing the tax codes as it relates to families and gay couples, but I haven’t heard anything convincing yet. To simply say one commited couple is the same as another, when there are such obvious biological and ethical differences just doesn’t stand up in a way that has convinced me.
I didn’t intend to get graphic with this, but the thought came to me, so here’s a little more.
When a man willingly puts his penis in a woman’s vagina, there is a societal understanding, that he accepts responsibility for whatever happens next. He will be held accountable in the courts if a child is born, regardless on his desire to see a pregnancy through, and the following 18 years of providing for a child through to adulthood. This is a very basic difference in heterosexual versus homosexual behaviour. There is a consequence, which is avoidable, for a period of time, under current law, available to the woman only. The man has no say, once he’s impregnated a woman, in the outcome, a child or a terminated pregnancy. Only the woman, under our system, has this option. I’m not judging the rightness or wrongness by stating this fact. I’m only elucidating, there is a very clear difference between, not only marriage, but heterosexual coupling, and, well, every other combination you can think of. If a woman has many lovers, and becomes pregnant, only the biological father is responsible, under our laws.
I really don’t care much about gays, any more than I care about any other people who might want to do whatever. But since the activists seem to bring this up again and again, I find myself mulling it over, more than I feel the subject deserves. I don’t share the vision of our safe school czars that homosexuality should be a part of our school’s history curriculum. The subject is broader than just what goes on behind closed doors, when there are activists pushing this to be part of mandated school curriculum.