You’ve all heard the social libertarian/liberal arguments for gay marriage. Tolerance, equal rights, blah blah. They are important and I believe in them, but they are the reasons I support gay marriage being legal. There are many things I believe shall be legal but do not approve of. It is clearly wrong to cheat on one’s spouse, yet few would be so paternalistic (un-libertarian) as to say that such a thing is the government’s business, for example. However, not only do I support gay marriage being legal on basic social libertarian grounds, I approve of gay marriage and these reasons why are what I call my conservative argument for gay marriage. Of course, no one needs my approval to get married, but that’s getting back to the standard liberal arguments you’ve already heard.Any person is, all else being equal, most valuable to society when he/she acts in accordance to his/her own nature. This is because, among other things, there is less resistance and complications in doing what comes naturally to you. This is why the free market works – people provide the goods and services they wish to, instead of delegating the task of choice to someone else. We must reject the notion that a select few or the government knows better how to run a person’s life than the person him or herself. Even if the person is a fool, their knowledge about their own aptitudes and tendencies dwarfs that of anyone else’s. Of course, if what comes naturally to you is bad, then you do have to suppress your nature. Perhaps sociopaths also cannot help it, but that is no reason to embrace their wicked behavior.

One bad argument for gay marriage is “homosexuality is not a choice.” Granted, it is not. For those exclusively attracted to the same sex, there is nothing they can nor should do to change that (I would add, though, that those attracted to both sexes, bisexuals outnumber homosexuals about 10 to 1, and for these people, you could say it is a choice). Indeed, more and more religious organizations that once had the position that homosexuality should be “cured” have modified their position to that the person should live a life of chastity (although some religious organizations had that stance all along). Therefore, gay marriage should only be rejected socially if it is harmful to society, so the task of opponents is to demonstrate that it is harmful to society or that it is harmful to children to have two mothers (when children of just one mother and no father turn out fine). Studies so far have failed to find substantial ill effects.

Opponents of extending marriage to homosexuals always note – correctly – the importance of familes in society. Families are where children are created and transformed into adults, forming the next generation. They say that a marriage is to create and raise children. However, this overly-idealistic fantasy is a slap in the face to a group of people who are rather important in society – infertile couples. They meet only the second mandate – raise children, which is rather important because many, many people (such as teenagers, particularly in places like Texas, I delight to point out) supply only the first and not the second. Homosexual couples are simply a category of infertile couples. If adoption agencies are consistent, fair and accurate in their assessment of potential adoptors’ suitability, there is no risk of homosexual parents being in any way harmful, though there may be a slight correlation between homosexuality and mental illness (presumably to having faced internal conflicts and discrimination growing up). We wouldn’t take the right of marriage away from fundamentalist Christians if we proved that such upbringing was slightly more likely to be harmful to children, would we?

Conservativism is supposed to be reality-based, not fantasy-based. Liberalism, on the other hand, is about well-thought out visions about the future; Conservatives have the job, then, of putting these ideas through the wringer. However, when conservatives are just superstitious or have unrealistic ideals, they are no longer conservatives but instead reactionaries. When people say “every child has a right to be raised by one man and one woman,” that is promoting a ridiculous view of the world while insulting single parents everywhere. The worst is when they say, “every kid has the right to be raised by the parents who created them.” In the real world, parents die, parents go to jail or otherwise are unwilling to take care of what they created. Also, parents split up and find someone else. If a woman is in an abusive marriage with children, she wants to leave and take custody of the children. If she finds someone else and falls in love, then it is only natural to marry that person and raise kids with that person. If the person happens to be man, the new union has the government’s support, but if the person is a woman, then the new couple will not have all the tools they need to rebuild the family. Custody, among other things, will be a challenge.

Lastly, conservatives understandably oppose the lifestyle of some gay males who happen to be more promiscuous. I don’t see anything inherently immoral about promiscuity itself (provided there is no dishonesty involved) but I do say it is vastly better to seek the more meaningul experiences of a trusting monogamous relationship, though human nature is too oft to seek immediate pleasure instead (as Mill says, “if happiness is to be got, it must be forgot”). Furthermore, if one wishes to lead such a lifestyle, great care must be taken to avoid the evils of dishonesty (i.e., full disclosure), sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Regardless, supporting gay marriage isn’t supporting this behavior conservatives find objectionable. Rather, it is supporting the alternative, monogamy. If it is the government’s business to regulate marriage, then the legal tools it affords opposite-sex couples shall be extended to same-sex couples.

One last disclaimer I must add. I am not for the institution of marriage itself. It’s social engineering on the part of the government to bribe people to marry and have kids. Well, we have enough people now, so they can stop. The Libertarian position on gay marriage is to simply say that marriage should be abolished altogether and leave it up to whatever church or secular institution to determine if someone is married or not. I basically agree with this, however I think it is the pansy Libertarian position to, knowing that this is unlikely to happen, not fight so that this same thing can be available to all, particularly when it does really have an effect with regards to immigration. Getting a green card was so easy for me and my wife. If I was a woman or she a man, it would not be so, thanks to the DOMA (defense of marriage act), something Obama had promised to get rid of but has yet to. That’s simply not fair. California gives most of the same rights, but simply aren’t allowed to grant that, as it is a federal thing.

That is all. No one ever indulged me in my challenge to a debate about this, so I just had to let it all out as a blog post. I hope you enjoyed reading it, regardless of whether you agree with me (but you should agree with me, unless you are evil). If you do wanna debate, bring it on, bitch!