Home   News   Schools   Sports   Biz   Opinion   Health   Scitech  Arts   Dining   Movies   Outdoors   Weather   Comics   Archives  NM Jobs Cars Real Estate

          Front Page  opinion  guest_columns

Monday, February 08, 2010

Male-Female Pairing Pays Off for Society

By Tom Riedel
Peralta resident
          Gay rights activists want to make the same-sex "marriage" debate about civil rights versus intolerant religious beliefs. This is an excellent strategy on their part because it distracts from the real reason society should not grant gay partnerships the title and rights of marriages, which is that in the eyes of society gay partnerships are not as valuable as heterosexual marriages.
        A same-sex partnership may benefit the two in the partnership, but as far as society is concerned the partnership creates little value greater than if the two individuals had remained single.
        The marriage of one man and one woman not only benefits the man and woman, but also all of society. The health and endurance of society depends on the procreative nature of marriages to create and nurture the next generation of citizens.
        Procreation and providing the optimum child rearing environment are reasons enough to limit the title and rights of marriage to one man and one woman, but that does not explain why society allows and even encourages marriages between males and females, who either by choice or inability do not procreate or raise children. I can present three explanations.
        The first is that all male-female marriages serve as models of the naturally-ordered procreative relationship. Modeling is important in human development; the young learn patterns of behavior from the old. So even though some male-female couples remain childless, they still perpetuate the coupling society depends on.
        The second explanation is derived from the innate differences between male and female, which make their union optimally beneficial beyond procreation. They complete each other emotionally and physically; one's strengths are the other's weaknesses. Their dissimilarity makes their union unique by creating a much greater whole than the sum of the individualities. Two similar individuals may form a partnership, but they will never achieve the same degree of benefit as the union of two complementary opposites.
        The third explanation has to do with the importance of society staying out of being actively involved in procreative decisions. By granting title and special rights to heterosexual couples, society actively promotes the male-female relationship, but by keeping marriage open to all male and female couples regardless of ability or inclination to procreate, society steers clear of actively promoting procreation. The decision to procreate remains with the two ultimately responsible for the life they create.
        In a perfect world, every child would be born into a nuclear family (mother and father, fully devoted to one another and any life their loving union creates — till death do they part). Our world is far from perfect, so we do the best we can by tolerating all kinds of "parents" and "families," but that does not mean we should stop recognizing and encouraging perfection.
        It really is this simple, society grants special title and rights to the lifelong monogamous union formed between one man and one woman because the return it gets on its investment far exceeds the costs. Neither I nor you would pay diamond prices for cubic zirconias, so why should we expect society to?