Thursday, April 4, 2013

A Refutation of the Case for Gay "Marriage"

I had made it a point to try and restrain myself from writing on temporal matters during Lent and so of course found much in the way of temptation that just cried out for my vitally-needed input into the various debates that occurred over the course of these past forty days.  Unfortunately one of those critically important debates was focused on the topic of gay “marriage” as our Supreme Court heard arguments on this matter last week during the holiest week on the Christian calendar.  Irony abounds as we as a culture further turn away our faces from God and His will and concentrate rather on what we want as self-indulgent adults in our “enlightened and compassionate society” today.

Marriage throughout the millennia was primarily about a man and woman becoming one flesh and the raising of any children that resulted from their unitive and procreative marital embrace.  Marriage was necessary for protecting and caring for the wife and children.  Marriage was about the perpetuation of our species in the most efficient and logical manner.  With that being the case, I guess that one of the main questions of this debate is do children have a basic right to a mother and father?  I would argue that the answer is emphatically yes, and therefore I oppose the redefinition of marriage on the grounds that doing so would dramatically infringe on that basic human right of a child to have a mother and a father. 

Sociology and science reflects what common sense already tells us.  Children tend to fair far better when living with their own mother and father who are living in a committed marriage.  Most gay marriage proponents disagree.  A refreshing exception to the rule, Jean Marc, who is a mayor of a French city who has cohabitated with his male companion for twenty years agrees with me.  He said, “the LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this…The rights of children trump the right to children.”

Unfortunately, many proponents do not see any harm in allowing two people in love, regardless of either’s genders, from engaging in matrimony.  After all, we are an enlightened society today.  If two men or two women love each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry each other?  Indeed!  Well what happens if both my wife and I decide that we both love Susie and want her to be our second wife?  Why should we be restricted from our polygamous marriage if love is the only standard?  For that matter, I love my mother too.  Why should society deem it inappropriate or taboo for me to marry her?  Shouldn’t I be allowed to marry the one I love after all?  And what about that 15 year old down the street?  We do so much enjoy playing video games together while listening to Justin Bieber CD’s.  Why should the government tell us that it would be wrong for us to marry?  And, what about my dog?  She has been a loyal companion for the last decade, and many folks already leave their estates to pets.  This would simply extend that path to its logical destination.  Why shouldn’t we codify it one step further and just allow human/pet marriages?  Continuing, there is already an instance of a woman “marrying” herself and another woman who has “married" the Eiffel tower.  And who are we to deny them this right to marry the person(s), animal, or object of their affections and love? 

 
You see, if the definition of marriage is so transitory and can be redefined based on what our newly enlightened society says it is, then we must also recognize these other “non-traditional” forms of marriage as being equally valid.  Of course if the definition of marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman, but the union of any combination of individuals, then the term no longer holds any discernible meaning. A counterfeit will always devalue the real thing, and thus counterfeit marriages will lead to “everything is acceptable” unions. There will be no legal reason with which to deny anyone from falling under the penumbra of the new definition of “marriage.”  Since love is the determining benchmark, all of these "marriages" now become permissible.

Despite what many critics will characterize and dismiss as that slippery slope argument, it would seem today that many of the proponents of “gay marriage” still insist that traditional Christian morality on the topic is antiquated and unenlightened – indeed it is even bigoted and hateful to many peoples’ way of thinking in opposing gay marriage.  Sadly, many gay marriage proponents fail to realize that I and others can love someone without embracing everything they stand for, and likewise disagreeing (even vehemently) with someone on a particular issue such as gay marriage does not mean that I necessarily abhor that person.  Indeed we are called by God to love everyone, and although I do fail at this, such is nonetheless my goal.  I have gay friends and family members whom I do love and respect.  That does not mean that I accept or condone homosexual activity or the redefining of the sacrament of marriage.  That said, I choose to hate the sin and not the sinner, as we all are guilty of sin. 

This makes me wonder further though.  Is there such a thing as absolute Truth?  And if so what is the standard for that Truth?  Still today, many people would say that absolute and transcending truth is found in God and His will.  I know I am of this particular opinion.

It is my belief that God has placed in each of our hearts the essential knowledge of His truth and love.  We generally know if we are doing good or bad accordingly and this intrinsic knowledge typically transcends geography, cultures, faith, and time.   

So why is that throughout nearly all of recorded human history has marriage always been between a man and a woman? 

Marriage between a woman and a man is definitely something that has transcended thousands and thousands of years, across nearly all cultures, across nearly all religions, and across all continents.  Indeed, the concept of “gay marriage” was so aberrant that for all of these past millennia, humankind could not even conceive of the idea of it.  This is what the Inuit tribes of the Arctic taught.  It was the custom of dynastic China and Japan.  This was the case for the Mayan people of central America and such were the rituals of most of the tribes of Africa.  It was the way of our own Native Americans.  One male and one female marriage was the cornerstone of European society for all of the past ages.  Marriage between a man and a woman are what was recorded in the sacred scriptures and traditions of the world’s greatest religions from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, to Hinduism. 

And after all these millennia of wisdom from man and the heavens, we as a people have finally become so smart and enlightened that we can reject them all.  We can now disavow all of human history as wrong and bigoted in order to redefine the term of marriage to allow for the union of same sex couples.  If all of these cultures, faiths, and traditions taught such a fundamental falsehood, then that would tend to indict them all as being false themselves.  All of the world throughout human history has been wrong, and now in the last two decades of our history we have finally evolved to know that we now have the Truth. 

But truth is not to be found simply in a majority of voters’ ballots or in a Gallup poll.  Real truth transcends time.  It is found in God.  And since the sides of history and the present are mutually exclusive in their view points on this topic, obviously both cannot be right.  Many of our progressive friends ironically decry the fact that those of us who fail to support gay marriage will ultimately end up being on the wrong side of history.  The wisdom of the millennia of past history screams out to be heard and is ignored by such people accordingly.  And while history does teach us what is right in this case, shouldn’t we be more concerned with being on the right side of Truth?

If we are to legalize marriage between same sex couples, does this not enshrine into law and teach our children that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and ultimately irrelevant?  Doesn’t it say that there are no significant differences between the genders?

Regardless of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court a few months from now, I think it is sadly likely that “gay marriage” will eventually become the new norm of the land.  It would seem that we are indeed continuing to slouch towards Gomorrah in our new enlightened society.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone when interviewed on the topic of gay marriage last year stated, “Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.”

Simply identifying what is “right” with the will of the majority is a dangerous thing.  At one time in America’s history, a majority in the South thought that owning slaves was right.  Indeed a majority of the crowd on that first Good Friday called for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Christ. A majority does not necessarily lend itself as a credible moral authority.  As the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “there is a world of difference between an authority on which you rely when it pleases you, and one which you trust absolutely whether it pleases you or not; for what the world needs is a voice that is right not when the world is right, but right when the world is wrong.” 

I hope and pray that the Supreme Court will concur with the wisdom of all of human history and God, but whether it does or not, the Truth about what constitutes true marriage will not be altered.

2 comments:

General Urko said...

The problem with this argument is that it is religious in nature. This is an issue of how the government is going to treat the citizens of the country. It is also what happens when you involve government in any issue. If laws would not favor married people over unmarried people then we don't have any kind of argument of being married is a good thing or not. At least you can say that on a policy level. The same can be said with Heterosexual Marriage and Homosexual Marriage between consenting adults. The government shouldn't be treating people different for tax purposes, insurance purposes, child rearing purposes, inheritance purposes, and a plethora of other purposes that adults in relationships make decisions on one another.

What should the government do in the case of relationships between people? They obviously can get involved if we are talking about children marrying children or adults. Or sex between children and adults. However, that is about it. People should enter into consenting adult relationships without government encouragement or with government non-encouragement. Religious people loved it when government was involved in marriage and it benefitted them, but as usual government takes things where it wants after it gets involved. This is the moral of the story is not that homosexuality is immoral. Government should be in the business of protecting liberties not in the business of deciding whose liberties are more important than others.

T. Paine said...

General Urko, part of my argument was indeed religious. A large part was based on natural law and thousands of years of anthropological history and societal constructions that have proven to work best over the millennia for the propagation of our species and the advancement of our societies.

As for your comments regarding the government laws on this issue, the Libertarian side of me would be inclined to agree with you. I would be fine if the government were to now disavow itself of any perq’s or disincentives in the law for married people if they were to rescind such laws and remove themselves from the debate entirely. The fact of the matter is that there is no way that is going to happen now.

I can understand in the past why the government wanted to promote marriage. One of the typical products of marriage is new future tax payers. Further, kids raised in a home with their married parents are less likely going to become troublesome with law enforcement and more likely to do adequately well in school. In other words, they are far less likely to become a burden on society and governmental safety net programs.

Since marriage is largely seen as irrelevant by many folks, especially by the younger generations these days, the point is basically moot. How many weddings have you been to of younger couples where they had been living together before hand and/or already had kids by the time the ceremony came around. Marriage isn’t taken as the commitment and religious sacrament that it was originally intended to be any more, and as such, since marriage has no major importance societally as it once did, why shouldn’t the definition be expanded to include any adults, animals, objects that are consenting in their agreement to tie the knot?

Furthermore, why should we be discriminatory against pedophiles marrying their consenting child spouses? It used to be that all of the psychological societies would stipulate that homosexuality was disordered. Now it is normative and just another lifestyle choice. I guarantee you that polygamy will be the next battle and then eventually pedophilia. There are already arguments being made in support of that around the fringes today. How long until that fringe group becomes as mainstream as the LGBT lobby.

Again, I am not for sodomy laws or preventing any adult from any private behavior. Further, I think inheritance , insurance, and many of the other legalities should be open and available to everyone to manage such things as they see fit, regardless of whether they are married or not.

Society is already careening out of control. Same sex marriages is just one more symptom of that decline, in my opinion. Like I said in my post though, it really doesn’t matter what I and those of like mind with me want when it comes to defending the sacrament of marriage. The government is involved in the process and the LGBT lobby will eventually win the day soon when they can legally “marry” their same sex partner.

I will ask you, as a bright and relatively objective person, what do you think the ramifications for society will be a generation or two after this comes to pass? Do you really think things will be better because of this or worse?