Why the State Should Not Legitimize Homosexual "Marriage"
A traditional family from the stone age (4,600 YBP). DNA testing has confirmed that the two children were related to the male and female adult buried in an embracing posture with lips touching.*******************************
I am not the first to say it, but the nuclear family is the only human institution that can create new life, and keep that life in daily communion with its creators. The nuclear family is a near-universal bedrock in every culture in the world. A non-anthropologist would be hard-pressed to name even one nation where any other arrangement for conceiving, nurturing, and raising children into adults was considered the optimal social arrangement.
Now a decent anthropologist could name some tiny cultures where other arrangements are the norm, such as the "mother's-brothers" type where there is no father figure and the brothers of the mothers are the role models for young men. They might cite an example or two of truly communal living. So other arrangements besides the nuclear family have been tried, and the results are in. The thing is, these examples are so rare, and the cultures they produce so backward, that the exceptions serve to prove a rule: the traditional nuclear family is the superior social structure for building a healthy society.
The nuclear family forms spontaneously in all successful cultures regardless of the race or religion of the society. Other family forms which usher in the next generation (and thus continue the society) are so uncompetitive with the nuclear family as to be nearly extinct. Note that a nuclear family can take two forms: monogamous or polygamous. Of the two, cultures espousing the former have had greater success in producing advanced, healthy societies than the latter, and even in those cultures where polygamy is practiced by the upper class, monogamy is more common even if only as a result of biological necessity (male and female babies are born in about equal numbers).
Marriage is what binds men and women together to produce a nuclear family. Given the essential historical role of the nuclear family in producing a healthy and well-adjusted next generation, it is crystal clear that the state needs marriage more than marriage needs the state.
(we are just warming up here, click on the jump for the rest)
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Tuesday, November 18, 2008
5 Comments:
In our nation there is a culture clash of two major world-views. One is secular, naturalistic, results-oriented. The other is Christian, faith-based, theistic, and more willing to look beyond immediate results in order to make choices in agreement with their moral code.
On most issues, these two groups clash. On this issue, they shouldn't. On this issue, it does not matter whether you believe Man is the result of four billion years of evolution or you believe that Man is the creation of God Almighty. The bottom line is that same, one social arrangement is clearly the "right" one for society to uphold with the exalted recognition of "marriage" - the nuclear family.
If you believe that Man is the creation of God and that marriage is ordained of God to be between one man and one women from the Garden on then you agree that the traditional family is the best option for a healthy society. If, on the other hand, you believe we are simply the product of evolution then the evidence demands that you believe that humans evolved to be socialized from a foundation of a nuclear family.
Whether we are the creation of God or the product of evolution the bottom line here is the same: nuclear families do the best job of successfully producing a succeeding generation to continue the kind.
Marriage is an exalted status given by society to a social status that both God's law and scientific study has shown are best at sustaining a culture and its people.
Notice that marriage is not about how you "feel" about your partner. It is not about what you and your partner consider each other. Marriage is about society's sanction, approval, and recognition.
Homosexual activists want us to alter the definition of marriage, and grant that same recognition to their relationships that we previously gave to heterosexual couples who typically could create a nuclear family.
The problem for them is reality. Their relationships simply don't do the things for society that a traditional nuclear family has done for civilization. We have a collective right to self-defense, and a right to give, or withhold, or stamp of approval on relationships or conduct based on whether it is good or bad for the continued health (and even existence) of our society.
Granting exalted status to homosexual marriages does the exact opposite of what is in our self-interest. It further dilutes the honor and good-will we have traditionally given to the nuclear family. It is not in our self-interest to honor that which will further erode the institution on which civilization has depended for all of human history.
That family is already under great stress in our culture, and our social ills are multiplying accordingly. Our inner cities are testimony to what can happen when we try to replace the nuclear family with other forms of creating, nurturing, and socializing children. We have found that a mother and a caseworker are no substitute for a nuclear family.
The idea that the government could replace the father was a mistake we have yet to understand how to fix. Are we, in our great arrogance, about to make another such mistake, ignoring both the laws of God and/or the remorseless evolutionary path of our existence?
In conclusion, homosexual marriage is not about the "rights" of the homosexuals. If the Christians and the Founders are correct, our rights come from God, and while one may have a "right" to sin, no one has a "right" for state approval of their sin.
If the secularists are correct then there is no such things as "rights". Man, not created in Gods image but only a cosmic accident, has no inherent rights. He is only what evolution has shaped him to be- a creature whose best chance for success comes by being reared in a nuclear family.
A more rational view of a "right" is the right to self-defense. And we are defending ourselves and our civilization by rejecting the idea of elevating homosexual relationships to the elevated status. The debauched cultures of western Europe are now under siege by Muslim peoples who are inferior to them in nearly every cultural aspect except that they have not lost sight of the necessity of channeling sex toward marriage, and marriage toward family.
The times we are in, when our nuclear families are failing, is the worst of all possible times to make them even less honored by society and the state. To say that it takes nothing away from traditional marriage by extending the same honor and recognition to homosexual couples is akin to saying it takes nothing away from the sex you have with your wife if you have sex with someone else. Removing the exclusivity of the status of the relationship does indeed lessen it.
I urge my fellow citizens who are still rational enough to follow reason instead of emotion and strong enough to defend their loved ones rather than sacrifice the future of their descendants to stay strong in opposition of this mad plan to redefine marriage. This is not about what militant homosexuals feel or how strongly they feel it. It is about truth, it is about justice, and it is about defending civilization.
Once polygamy is adopted, the family ceases to be 'nuclear' though, unless you are operating under a new definition of the term.
The term was coined in the 1940s to contrast it with extended families beyond parents and children. As far as I know the term "nuclear family" does not speak to the issue of how many wives there might be, except that it was coined to describe the arrangement in western countries which are monogamous.
But come now, this is mere quibbling on the edges. What of the main point of this article, that society should only grant exalted status to relationships which benefit the society?
And how again does it hurt you or your family if a couple that loves each other wants to get married?
Fess up, you didn't read the article did you?
The whole article addresses that flippant cliche question. If you'd read and understood the article, you would not be asking that question, but instead offering some kind of rebuttal to the facts or logic being presented in the article- if you had any.
Post a Comment
<< Home