So President Obama has now “evolved” in his views on homosexuality and is now in favor of same-sex marriage. Many folks believe it was his view all along but like in so many other cases, he always makes politically expedient decisions.

He probably would not have “come out” now but for the utterances on his motor-mouthed vice president who jumped the gun several days earlier and made it almost mandatory that the president come forth with his newly “evolved” stance.

No logical reason

The president’s views aside, I have tried to conjure any logical reason why any sane society should legitimize same-sex marriages. Call me a bigot if you must because that is the usual charge hurled at anyone who does not agree with so-called “progressive” thought. The simple truth remains that I cannot come up with one valid argument in favor of such an arrangement.

Apparently there are many reasons in the minds of the majority of Americans for not recognizing two people of the same sex who attempt to join the ranks of Holy Matrimony. There are religious reasons for opposing. Surely there are many sociological and societal reasons. And last but not least, there are biological reasons that same-sex marriages do not compute. In fact, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron when equated to the historical significance of the term “marriage.” The biological premise of the joining of one man and one woman is propagation of the species. This simply cannot happen between two people of the same gender.

Once uncontested terms such as “marriage” had a firm, historical, cultural, sociological, biological, religious and well-documented meaning, but “enlightened” thought has enlarged the concept to encompass much more than would have been suspected by most folks throughout human history. I looked up the definition of “marriage” in numerous dictionaries and all pretty much matched the one found in the granddaddy of lexicons, the Oxford English Dictionary – “The formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.” The definitions most often contained the thought that marriage denoted a desire for procreation. The only deviations from this definition can be found in a couple of “modern” on-line dictionaries which tend to promote the views of “enlightened” thought.

Civil right?

The argument that comes up the most frequently is that homosexuals must have the same “civil rights” as the rest of society. Guess what? They already do! They have the same civil right to marry a person of the opposite gender just like the rest of us. We share that civil right. There have always been some restrictions on marriage in addition to the limitation that you must marry someone of the opposite sex.

For instance, marriage laws restrict the age of marriage. You cannot, by law, marry your sister, brother – your mother, two women or men, your pet, etc. But now there are those who would strike down all borders of common law and commonsense. Same sex marriages open a Pandora’s Box for all kinds of kinky arrangements. But thankfully there are now 38 states with mandatory prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Only six states allow such. This gives you some idea of where the American people stand on the issue.

I know. I know. I am a bigot, a hate-monger, a racist and all of the other slurs aimed at folks who oppose the adulteration of gender roles in marriage. But be certain you know what you are talking about before taking up poison pens to complain.

Know of which I speak

I spent a number of years in the entertainment, academic, creative and business worlds. Along the way I have had many close associates and friends who embraced homosexuality. I was able to put aside my personal preferences and acted in accordance with civil society. Although I did not approve of their choices, I never let it stand between them and me as we went about our daily and professional lives. I have always believed that my fellow humans deserve the same respect and treatment as any other.

I have even discussed the matter with those among my circle of associations who have “come out’ as the expression goes. Surprisingly, most felt that the same-sex marriage issue was silly but do favor so-called “civil unions,” whereby, couples of the same sex can enjoy the same rights as married couples. Civil unions are constructed along the same line as the formation of a corporation. I’m still “evolving” on that point. In the meantime, it just makes no sense to me that we should destroy the very foundations of society.

Just as there are certain eternal truths in a successful civilization, there are also specific natural outgrowths of humanity. The prime motivation of the joining of a man and a woman is survival of the species. No individual or group can alter this function however hard they argue otherwise.

John Brock is a retired newspaper editor/publisher and college professor. He can be reached by mail at this newspaper or by Email at: brock@johnbrock.com