Saving Traditional Marriage

Hearing two cases this week concerning the legal status of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, SCOTUS asked for compelling reasons to protect this institution to the exclusion of homosexual unions. 

The first case before the court examined an appeals court’s decision to overturn California’s voter-approved ban on homosexual marriage known as Proposition 8. The second case considers the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 before homosexual marriage had gained momentum. Justices seemed to tread lightly in the first case since it was approved by voters as an amendment to the California state constitution. They were more aggressive in the second case due to it being a federal law with implications to federal benefits derived from marriage.

During arguments for each of these cases, several Justices asked the counsels defending these laws for compelling reasons why traditional marriage deserved protection and how extending marriage to homosexual couples might harm the institution of marriage.

Marriage in the legal sense is conceived as an institution worthy of special benefits from the state to encourage those couples with children to continue their union. This is so that their progeny might be properly raised in a loving and stable home environment necessary for the development of well-adjusted adults who can then become productive members of society. Numerous social studies demonstrate that children from broken homes tend to have social and mental problems as adults and are much more likely to join gangs, become criminals, abuse drugs, fail at marriage, and generally become burdens on society. Hence, it is in society’s interest to encourage traditional marriage with all of the incentives at its disposal because the good of a stable family environment far outweighs the harm of maladjusted children from broken homes.

Marriage is also intended to be a religious institution in which two adults form a single union to the mutual exclusion of all others whether children are involved or not. Social harmony is promoted through this institution of exclusive union as its practice slows the spread of social diseases, inhibits the practice of prostitution, and generally promotes the stability of society through its effect of causing the participants to settle down at home instead of carousing in bars and causing all manner of social disturbances.

The lure of homosexuality lies in its easy access to sex as has been explained to me by members of the lavender mafia who happen to be friends. They tell me that arguments to the contrary are pure BS designed to obfuscate the issues and mislead the public. Additionally, the goal of the gay marriage push is nothing more than societal acceptance for an act that at one time could get you sent to prison. Civil unions and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” accomplish all that the gay community demands except for acceptance. Homosexuality is a lifestyle appealing to those who seek lots of sex but are frustrated by rejection from the opposite sex.

Coincidentally, they fear the argument that anyone is born homosexual because it implies there’s a gay gene which can be discovered and either tested to determine predisposition, or manipulated to avoid predisposition. This phony theory was at one time advanced as an explanation justifying homosexuality as being something beyond one’s control instead of the lifestyle choice it truly is.

Access to easy sex being the lure of homosexuality would tend to dispel the notion that homosexuals as a class could settle down into monogamy, and that those who could would tend to be outliers from the norm. The predominance of San Francisco bathhouses and the rapid spread of AIDS through these facilities in the 1980s lend support to this explanation. Sure, there are exceptions of those who might prefer monogamy, and monogamy might become more appealing with age, but for the vast majority of homosexuals, monogamy would defeat the purpose of becoming homosexual in the first place. After having destroyed traditional marriage for the illusion of societal acceptance, how many would actually take advantage of their new right to marry, and how many would remain married after the new had worn off?

By redefining marriage to be a strictly legal concept of nothing more than a contract to convey state benefits, the idea of any religious significance is immediately destroyed along with the idea of conveying special status and benefits to encourage the raising of children. Instead of being proud to marry because it is held to be a privileged institution, marriage is now nothing more than a contract to be filed at the courthouse at one’s convenience and is no more special than obtaining a driver’s license or voting registration.

Losing its status as a way to convey state privilege and extra benefits to promote a stable family home environment means that couples with children no longer have special financial incentives to remain married for the benefit of raising children. Everyone will have the same tax breaks, no one need endure the shame of an out-of-wedlock birth since anyone can marry anything and marriage is just another state document to obtain, and the idea of marital exclusiveness is relaxed since religion has been removed.

Now, marital infidelity becomes passé as marriage is no longer seen as religious or special. The social order becomes less settled down as marriage is no longer there to regulate our baser instincts. Social disorder will rise with higher rates of prostitution, more pornography, more infidelity, more running around chasing the opposite sex for sex, and more of seeing others as sexual objects instead of people.

To answer the Justices’ question, the institution of marriage will be irreparably harmed to the detriment of our social order on many levels if gay marriage is imposed by judicial fiat from SCOTUS as the law of the land without understanding the full effects of just exactly what they are about to wrought upon this country in opposition to the majority of the population. There are many social studies documenting the effects of the destruction of traditional marriage on both the couples and the children involved. It is incumbent upon us as a society to preserve and protect this institution that produces so much societal stability and not allow it to be destroyed by those wishing to make a point in their illusory drive to gain societal acceptance.

This entry was posted in Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Saving Traditional Marriage

  1. margaret says:

    I know a lot of people and we are strongly support this statement……what we can do ?…. America is going wrong too much freedom( before about food now about sex……is destroying society, schools enhances students to try different sex…..there will be no communication…….

  2. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter of marriage equality. It is fine and good to claim that marriage is between one man and one woman, however, the Dictionary’s definition is the only valid one.

  3. Tom Roberson says:

    Remember, the dictionary was written by men while the Bible was written by men under the influence and inspiration of God to become God’s Word. The church has allowed the state to wrest marriage away from it to redefine it into nothing more than a contract filed at the courthouse for the administration of federal benefits. Any illusion that holy matrimony remains in the idea of marriage has long since been dispelled. The ecclesiastical sacrament of holy matrimony was gradually removed from marriage over the centuries as the state increasingly gained dominion over it until nothing remains except the state concept of contract law which replaced the holy matrimony sacrament. The definition of marriage found in the dictionary became the only valid definition of marriage when marriage ceased being a holy sacrament. However, the sacrament of holy matrimony remains a purely ecclesiastical concept.

  4. Tom Roberson, legally speaking, I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage should stand. Having said that, marriage should ultimately be left to the Churches to address in my personal opinion..

  5. Tom Roberson, here is a video for you: Regardless of who marries who, if that neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket, it is none of my business. Why should marriage ceremonies only occur in Churches? We could have just let the issue rest after the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, for hardcore religious conservative types, they want to impose their values on people whose values may be different.

  6. Tom Roberson says:

    Why should marriage ceremonies only occur in churches? Because marriage was once an exclusively ecclesiastical sacrament under the purview of God and not the state.

    Just because you are unaffected by an issue does not give you the right to dismiss it from consideration by the rest of us. Much has been made of the rights of homosexuals to enter into marriages, but the rights of Christians to preserve traditional marriage as a holy sacrament are trampled and ignored. Civil unions would have given homosexuals all the legal rights of marriage, but they were not satisfied by this compromise. Their intent was never to gain access to legal rights, but to undermine and destroy marriage in their march to destroy Christianity and further destabilize America.

  7. Tom Roberson, my reasons for asking is because you may have atheists who want to marry. So in that context, this question should be legitimate. Personally, I think marriage ceremonies should be left to the Churches to acknowledge or not to. As far as I am concerned, if a relationship between a same-sex couple neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket, then it is none of my business.

  8. Tom Roberson says:

    It is your right as an American to hold whatever opinion you like.

  9. Tom Roberson, on May 12th, I said that legally speaking, I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage being legally recognized should stand. Reviewing that comment, I forgot to put the word ruling. Can you add the word ruling into that comment for me, or does your blog not have that option? If it does, can you delete this comment so I can make a fresh one?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.