Funding foolishness

Apparently, President Obama signed an executive order today expanding certain marriage benefits to gay employees of the federal government. Does anyone else find this decision ridiculous?

Imagine yourself as a parent with three children. These children are fairly wild, but they really like ice cream. Every now and then you have to bring the kids to a social gathering (perhaps a wedding, or a funeral) where their misbehavior would embarrass you. Therefore, you offer to buy the children ice cream if they stay calm and behave at the event.

At a certain party you are attending, the two older children both do well, but the younger one starts whining and crying, and you have to deal with him at the event. Do you buy him ice cream? Of course not.

Eventually, though this same pattern happens over and over again, with the youngest one misbehaving the most often. When you deny him ice cream afterward, he repeatedly complains that he has not received the same “rights” as his older siblings. Eventually, you decide to cave in. You start buying them all ice cream, regardless of their behavior. After all, it’s not fair to discriminate against the youngest child. Ice cream is a right for all your children.

Ahh, but you have just completely forgotten why you instituted the ice cream bribery in the first place!

bad boy

We offer incentives to encourage desirable behavior. Marriage is desirable behavior. Marriage produces children. These children grow up to fight wars, fund social security, invent new technologies, etc. Marriage encourages monogamy. Marriage reduces the spread of disease. Marriage tends to boost a man’s productivity, and hence the GDP.

Can we say the same things about homosexuality? Do we really want to fund homosexual relationships, or any non-marital relationships?

Are marital benefits — whether tax-based or pay-based or honor-based or whatever — any sort of right? No, they serve a purpose. We act like fools when we forget that.


2 Responses to “Funding foolishness”

  1. 1 Shawn June 24, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Drew, I don’t understand why the benefits you attribute to heterosexual marriage cannot also be attributed to homosexual marriage. Clearly, marriage of any kind supports monogamy which leads to a reduction in the spread of disease and an increase in mental stability. There is nothing to suggest this should be different for homosexuals. And if you believe it is solely about children, then how about the children that gay couples would like to keep out of the struggles of foster care thus increasing the child’s chance of becoming a productive citizen. Studies have shown that there is no increase in homosexuaity in children adopted by gay couples but they definetly have a lower chance of going to jail. In the end, unless you believe that your “morals” trump these benefits, I don’t understand your position. Gay marriage does nothing except promote stability in more lives in this country and I don’t understand how that can be a negative thing.

  2. 2 Drew June 25, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    My post wasn’t actually about gay marriage, but rather about the basic concept of subsidizing homosexuality. I assume that very few of the people receiving these new benefits are “married” homosexuals, considering most states do not allow the practice. Federal law also bars the U.S. government from recognizing these marriages. Obama is simply giving out benefits because individuals are living with and having sexual relations with others of the same sex.

    Regarding adoption, children (and especially boys) perform best when they have a mother and a father to learn from. And moreover, I’m a bit suspicious of these pro-homosexual “studies” we always hear about. You might check out the following recent story:

    That said, allowing gay marriage would probably make the same mistake that I’ve accused Obama of — confering a supposed “right” on a group of people without keeping in mind the original purpose of the “right.” Homosexual relationships are clearly inferior to heterosexual relationships. The fact that gays cannot naturally produce children is an important argument that should not be sidestepped. If not for immigration, the American population would actually begin declining slowly. Furthermore, heterosexual relationships should ideally be the more stable form of sexuality. The high divorce rate among heterosexuals in this country is certainly regretable, but it’s the result of feminist laws and degraded culture. You could rightly criticize the heterosexual divorce rate. If it were up to me, I’d fix that too.

    But one thing at a time. I can’t save the world all at once.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: