Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

How to Silence Supporters of Traditional Marriage

So, you think “gay marriage” won't hurt traditional marriage? Think again.

If you think supporting “gay marriage” is simply being more inclusive, think again.

In Canada, where marriage has been redefined to include same sex “spouses”, those who promote the benefits of traditional marriage are being punished by the government. Read this again. In Canada, those who suggest that it is beneficial for children to be raised by a mother and a father are accused of discrimination. As Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune reports, even members of the clergy stand accused.
Ah, but this won't happen here. Think again.

In Massachusetts, where marriage has been redefined to include same sex “spouses”, speech that suggests a preference for marriage between a man and a woman is being labeled as discriminatory.

Consider the following argument:
Marriage is a unique union between one man and one woman. It is the joining of two biologically defined partners from which life might be created -- without outsourcing. No other definition of marriage offers this potential.
While it knows no legal boundaries of race or creed, marriage does have restrictions. For example, one cannot marry a blood relative. But, notice that the restrictions are for the purpose of protecting the potential children of the marriage. Hence, it is for the benefit of the children that government gets involved with the definition and promotion of marriage.

Arguably, the only reason that government should even promote marriage is that marriage promotes the procreation of future citizens who benefit the future of the nation. By all accounts of logic, reason, and pollsters, children of traditionally married parents are more likely to become self-sufficient, productive, law abiding citizens. They are less likely to become dependent on social welfare programs and less likely to break the law.

It isn't the union of two people that makes marriage beneficial to children, it is the union of a man and a woman. First, because biology requires this specific union to create life. Second, because each brings influences unique to their gender that benefit their children.
Not long ago, when deadbeat dads were the ilk of our social conscience, ramifications of raising a child without a father were widely understood. Girls raised without dads were more likely to become pregnant teens. Boys raised without dads were more likely to end up in jail. Today, these concerns are still valid and highlight the need for both a father and a mother in the raising of a child.

The definition of “family” may be growing widely, but the definition of marriage should remain the same – for the sake of the children.
If marriage is redefined in Minnesota, it will become an act of discrimination to suggest a benefit of “traditional marriage” over “gay marriage”. To espouse the benefits that have been raised above, while substantial and demonstrative, would be labeled “hate speech”.

If you think allowing “gay marriage” in Minnesota won't affect you – think again.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are good!

3/25/2006 11:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger