Skip to main content

Is marriage a right?

Is marriage a right? I suppose it depends on what definition of marriage is used. If marriage is a religious/spiritual institution, then it is a right because we believe that all people have the right to exercise whichever religion they choose. If it is merely the expression of love and commitment that two people will dedicate their lives to each other, then I believe this is also one of the fundamental human rights. In my opinion, it is only a legal/political definition of marriage where its status as a right may be called into question. In our society, couples who are legally married enjoy certain benefits that two people who are not married do not enjoy, such as inheritance rights upon the death of one spouse. For this reason, I assert that this definition of marriage is not a right but a privilege. 

What is the difference and why does it matter? A privilege is something that is granted only upon meeting certain criteria. For example, upon completing education at a university a person is awarded a diploma and the privilege of appending a suffix or prefix go his name (eg, Dr or PhD). A right is something granted not by other people but by nature itself. That is, it is a privilege where the only criterion for being given the privilege is existence. In the Declaration of Independence, the assertion is made that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among other rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates other basic human rights granted not by the Constitution itself, nor by the government nor any other mortal being or institution, but by Nature. All humans who are born into this Earth inherit those rights, apart from any action on their part or on the part of anyone else. Therefore, if marriage is a right then no one has the authority to prevent anyone else from marrying (assuming, of course, that both--or all, in the case of polygamy--parties entering the marriage do so of their own consent). If marriage is a privilege then the requirements to be granted that privilege must be agreed upon, established, and clearly stated. 

I have already asserted that the religious and the personal definitions of marriage both would make marriage be a right. Certainly two people have the right to dedicate their lives to each other, regardless of what other people may call their relationship, and fortunately (as far as I am aware) this right is not questioned in modern America. The right of a particular religion to perform ceremonies that they wish to call marriage, uniting together two people in love and holiness, however is called into question and is not (except where marriage is legal) granted to those religions who wish to perform same-sex marriage. This should not be the case. 

Finally, the legal definition. I do not believe that it is a right for two people to decide that they should be allowed certain legal benefits unless the government grants those benefits to all. That is to say, if the government wishes to grant certain benefits to a certain class of people and it wishes to call that class of people "married" then it should be allowed to do so, but it should be in the interest of the state and not merely arbitrarily assigned. That is, if the state has reason to grant privileges to straight couples that it wishes to call married but deny those privileges to gay couples, then it should have cause for such action. Let us examine some specific privileges, starting with the privilege of adoption. Straight couples are allowed to adopt children. This is in the interest of the state because there is reasonable evidence go support the claim that the child will have a better chance at living a respectable life if he is raised in a home with loving parents. So, the criterion for this privilege should be that one or more adult(s) who are capable of providing a healthy environment for the child to grow up in should be allowed to adopt. That is, the state has an interest in maximizing the child's probability of becoming a respectable citizen and thereby helping reduce future crime rates. Therefore, the state should allow parentless children to be adopted by those adults who show promise in being a positive role model in the child's life. Whether that is a single adult or a straight couple or a gay couple or a group of more than two adults should be largely irrelevant. What should be the matter of concern is who will be most likely to raise the child well. What interest does the state have in allowing the number of orphans to increase when there are loving gay couples who are willing and able to provide a loving environment in which a child may be raised? There is none, since studies show that orphans are less likely to become contributing members of society. Therefore, it stands to reason that it is in the interest of the state to allow gay couples to adopt. 

At any rate, the point is that all of the legal benefits that are granted to married couples should be examined one by one. Of each of these benefits granted, is it truly in the interest of the state to grant them only to heterosexual couples or is there an interest in the state to grant them to any couple (or group) wishing to be granted the benefit? There are tax benefits granted to married couples. How is this in the interest of the state? Granting tax benefits for an act promotes that act, so it stands to reason that the government grants tax benefits to marries couples in order to encourage peope to marry. How does the state benefit from more people being married? I believe it has been shown that most people are happier and perform better in life when they have a companion. Most people are social beings. We need interaction with other humans and most importantly we need companionship to have someone to love and cherish. However, many gay people do not get this benefit of companionship with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, in order for them to have that same feeling of companionship they must be allowed to partner with a member of the same sex. So, if the reason for granting tax benefits to married people is to promote the well-being of society by encouraging people to have that feeling of companionship (and I'm not saying that is the reason, I'm just proposing the possibility that it could be one such reason) then it would be in the interest of the state to grant the same privilege to gay couples in order to maximize the benefit of a happy society wrought by its members enjoying companionship. 

Popular posts from this blog

What's a gainer?

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest reading my previous post before reading this one.  It's sort of an introduction and gives the motivation.  Also, by way of disclosure, this post is not sexually explicit but it does touch on the topic of sexuality and how that relates to the subject at hand.

So, what is a gainer?  I'll relate, as best I can, the experiences I have gone through myself to help answer the question.  I remember when I was a young boy--perhaps around 6 or 7--I would have various fantasies.  Not sexual fantasies, just daydreaming about hypothetical situations that I thought were interesting or entertaining.  I had many different fantasies.  Sometimes I would fantasize about becoming very muscular, sometimes about becoming very fat.  
These fantasies varied in degree of magnitude and the subject of the fantasy.  Sometimes I myself would change weight--I would become muscular or fat.  Other times, I would do something to make other people fat or musc…

The scientific method vs the religious method

I find it interesting when people cite the fact that science keeps changing as a reason to disbelieve it and to believe instead in the "eternal" doctrines taught by some church or other.  Let's examine why science keeps changing.  Here's the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis (this means "have a belief").Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.Conduct the experiment.Determine whether the hypothesis is believable based on the results of the experiment. This is why science keeps changing--because people notice flaws in it and correct them.  People once thought the solar system was geocentric, but now know that it's heliocentric.  How did this happen?  By using the scientific method.  Scientists are willing to admit that they're wrong.  They're willing to give up a bad idea when they see evidence that it makes no sense.  Contrast this with the religious method (simplified version). Have a belief.Look for evidence to support that belief.Ignor…

Gymtimidation

Like many of my posts, this one has been floating around in my mind for a couple months.  I know many people avoid the gym because it is intimidating, so I'd like to share my thoughts about this phenomenon.  First of all, obviously going to the gym isn't the only intimidating thing in life, and many of these thoughts are things that easily translate to any other of these intimidating things.

So I'd like to share some of my personal experiences with gyms.  The first time I recall ever going into a weight room to use it was my first year of college.  I had PE classes all through K-12, but I don't remember ever using the weight room--just group sports, etc.  I recall being intimidated by all the machines.  Some of them I could figure out on my own, but many of them I just stared at and couldn't possibly conceive how it was meant to be used.  Fortunately, I occasionally went with friends and one friend was very familiar with all the equipment so he could help.  So, kn…