Refuting the Claims in Adam Kolasinski’s The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Gay marriage has been one of the most controversial topics of the twenty first century and the topic has mainly circulated around such issues as procreation and marriage benefits. Although Adam Kolasinski, the author of “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage,” never refers to homosexual behavior as “wrong,” he argues several key points, including financial issues, to conclude why homosexual marriage is not allowed in the majority of states. The author, with a degree in financial economics, will first of all already have a biased attitude towards any subject that promotes a better fiscal policy. Second of all, financial economics represents only one factor in the debate of gay marriage. This minute detail diminishes the author’s argument significantly since he is probably not extensively knowledgeable in the subject, even if some of his positions are legitimate. Kolasinski’s assertions and assumptions contain falsehoods and flaws, specifically concerning the overemphasis on procreation and the notion of sexual love.
Kolasinski begins his debate with the notion that “marriage is not a universal right.” He states that a majority of states ban many people from marrying one another – including first cousins, blood relatives, and people with venereal diseases. Although these statements hold true, the United States did not allow other “traditional” or “normal” marriages. For example, in the 1960’s, the government would not allow interracial marriages. This exemplifies how the government and the majority can sometimes be tyrannical or even wrong. Obviously, two heterosexuals of different races can marry without any government opposition. Although marriage is not a universal right as Kolasinski asserts, the reasons for a ban on some marriages have specific purposes. States ban the marriage of first cousins, blood relatives, and people with venereal diseases because they want to prevent genetic disorders and the spread of the venereal diseases. Although sterile blood relatives still cannot marry, this proves that tradition plays a larger role in our society than logic.
Kolasinski reasons that the government does not want to allow gay marriages because it would cost the government more money to grant them the normal benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. The return benefit from the heterosexual married couples comes in the form of procreation, which the author reiterates and emphasizes as a major part of his argument. Basically, since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the author, along with the government, sees no other incentive to allow gay marriages. Since every citizen has the right to protection from the government in terms of family decisions (including marital relationships), “there is no basis in the law for the assertion that the fundamental right to marry extends only to couples capable of biological procreation. The original statement that...