A Millennials Take on Marriage
The debate over same-sex “marriage” has been thrust onto the national in 2008 when California voted to affirm their DOMA law into their Constitution. Until 2013, people who supported the male/female definition seemed to have little to worry about because well, the only way to really get rid of an amendment is to re-amend the constitution via the democratic process; such is the beauty of our Republic. Now things have changed with the Winsdor ruling, one by one state amendments are being overridden by judges across this country with few exceptions. Proponents of same-sex “marriage” claim that this is the civil rights fight of our generation not unlike the fight to overturn Jim Crow and bans on interracial marriage. Unfortunately this prevailing narrative has been the defining factor in many of the court rulings that have eroded our Republic.
There is this question that lingers in my head like a bad itch that won’t go away: What are these attorney generals saying in defense of these amendments? Now I’m not a legal expert but I would think one-if determined enough-can compile the information needed to mount an effective defense. Since this doesn’t seem to be case I have decided to provide my own list of arguments and rebuttals when debating this issue. Feel free to use them at your leisure.
1) “Why are you against marriage equality? It doesn’t harm you!”
The question isn’t whether or not it “harms” people personally; in fact if the foundation of this debate circled around that one phrase “it doesn’t harm you” then no state would have voted to affirm Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However that is not the question; the question be how does this definition affect society? Marriage as an institution enshrines the unique characteristics between male and female that benefit a child’s development. To change the definition is essentially saying that mother and father have no basis in child-rearing; that the two are interchangeable. This despite the effect about fatherless homes have on children.
2) “Just as bans on interracial marriage were irrational and bigoted, so too are bans on marriage equality bigoted and irrational.”
This is possibly one of the most overly used arguments when debating this issue; it is however the biggest lie of them all. Bans on interracial marriage were irrational because racism is irrational. There is no difference between a black man and a white man but there are inherent and profound differences between the two sexes. In fact black Americans reject such a comparison. There is no forced segregation of homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather the rise of gay bars, villages, and parades impose a soft form of segregation.
3) Religion is an outdated concept and is a mask to justify your hatred and bigotry.
Again with the bigotry. It takes a very narrow mind to dismiss arguments for Traditional Marriage as nothing more than biblical citations. There are perfectly reasonable , cogent, even small government arguments that do not rely on scripture to get their point across. This goes back to my first point; Men and women are inherently different and it is those differences that benefit a child. Marriage is designed to unite the two sexes.
4) You would have a gay man live a lie by marrying someone he’s not in love with?
When a man marries a woman, he is shedding all potential sexual partners in favor of the woman whom he is permitted to touch. Should we therefore conclude that the man is living a lie because he is depriving himself of other female partners? Love is an emotion that bobs and weaves in all relationships.
5) Children benefit when they’re parents are married!
Point taken, but two men cannot be a mother nor can two women be a father. Anyone can raise a functioning productive member of society but that does not negate the importance of a child having a mom and a dad. This does not to dismiss homosexual couples who wish to raise children; but it is false to demand that it is the same as having a mom and a dad.
Marriage came about because men and women are biologically compatible with one another. They are the only romantic make up that can bring new life into this world. However this was practiced or initiated in various cultures or civilizations past or present is irrelevant in that each and every one of them understood that there was something unique about this one particular union that merited a specific title.
That’s if you want to look at it from a secular standpoint; theologically it was God who instituted Marriage for the development and survival of humans as a species. A stable relationship between a man and a woman ensures a stable society. One can argue this ties into the secular understanding of Marriage because if you detach child rearing-by extension family-you don’t have much of society instead rather you have a union that permits the spouses to perform sexual acts upon one another. This is a reason why such a detachment has led to high illegitimacy and single mothers.
The religious understanding of Marriage affirms man’s moral obligation to the continuation of the human race and stability of a society and culture.
The secular understanding is that men are civilized when married to a woman and his character as a person grows when he has responsibility(children).
If any of you are worried about the culture as it stands today, by all means read this.
Let us continue fighting for faith, family, and freedom. God bless you all and God bless America.