Quick Links to Posts By Category

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

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

How to Destory Marriage

Marriage is under attack. Make no mistake, this attack is intended to destroy marriage and any pretense that there is something unique and special about the union of a man and a woman.

We are to believe that traditional marriage discriminates against gays and lesbians because it prevents them from marrying whomever they wish. But, this presumes that marriage is defined by love and desire. It is not.

Marriage is defined by biology. It is the union of two biological opposites – of one man and one woman. It is unique and special because it is the ONLY union of two individuals that has the potential to create life.

This isn't to say that the individuals united by traditional marriage are superior to those in any other form of coupling. It is only to point out the obvious, that the union between a man and a woman is the only union that can transcend beyond desire to procreation. This is why it's special.

It's about the children!

When government promotes and endorses traditional marriage, it promotes the procreation of future citizens. This is the only reason why the government regulates marriage because it is of national interest to sustain its population with future, potentially productive citizens. For all those who hope to benefit from Social Security, you're going to need lots of young, productive taxpayers paying your way.

Of course, this doesn't mean that government should require the birth of a child to validate a marriage. (Although it often requires the procreative act to consummate the marriage.) It only means that promotion of traditional marriage ultimately leads to the procreation of future citizens.

In his decision striking down California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker concluded (p.111 of his ruling):

"...Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
Judge Walker falsely presumes that the "fundamental right to marry" equates to the "fundamental right to marry a lover." But, this "fundamental right" doesn't exist for traditional marriage either. For the benefit of potential offspring, the government places restrictions on whom one can marry and it doesn't care if the parties involved love and desire each other – it doesn't even ask about love or desire on the application for a marriage license.

Traditional marriage does not discriminate specifically against gays and lesbians. If they seek to enter into a union designed for the benefit of procreation, they can seek a union partner of the opposite sex just like anyone else. Sure, there is a benefit if love and desire are parts of the equation, but it isn't required for a legal marriage. Indeed, American History is filled with marriages of arrangement in which two newly-met became newlywed before discovering a mutual love and desire.

The restrictions on marriage are applied equally to all applicants. In addition to requiring that both applicants be of the opposite sex, one cannot marry a blood relative no matter how much love and desire might be present. There are also age restrictions based on both mental and physical, child-bearing maturity. These restrictions clearly recognize the biological consequences of uniting male and female and upon the children that might be produced. It is a precedence for recognizing biology as the defining basis for marriage.

If the definition of marriage is changed to include the "union" of two same-sex partners, than the law must discard biology as its defining basis and replace it with love or desire. To do so would change marriage to something meaningless. In an effort to eliminate presumed discrimination, the state could no longer prevent cousins from marrying – or brother and sister, brother and brother, sister and sister, or even parent and child.

Moreover, to remove biology as the defining basis also means that marriage need not be limited to union of two persons. The ONLY reason that we think of marriage as a union of two is because there are exactly two sexes – male and female. Replace biology with love and desire, then it would be wrong to discriminate against three or four or more of any gender combination to enter into a "marital union."

It isn't difficult to see that changing the defining basis of marriage to allow for same-sex unions ultimately destroys the institution altogether.



Blogger Force50 said...

Today’s Star-Tribune had a front-page article on a real estate agent trashing a couple’s house during gay sex. This is the hell on earth we are allowing by not standing up for decency and morals. We are letting tiny minorities telling us what we should think and what we should allow. Enough is enough.

If you want more of this kind of thing, if you want it in your neighborhood, then just be silent. More scenes like this will follow unless we are willing to say No.

Traditional values are something we have to fight for. Like it or not.

8/13/2010 4:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger