Homosexual Marriage and Child Sacrifices

Gay Couple with child
Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Government needs to get marriage policy right, because it shapes the norms associated with this most fundamental relationship. Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that optional would also make other essential characteristics—like monogamy, exclusivity and permanency—optional. ... increasingly confirmed by the rhetoric and arguments of those who would redefine marriage (“revisionists”) and by the policies that their more candid leaders increasingly embrace ... These are the words of leading supporters of same-sex marriage. If you believe in monogamy and exclusivity—and the benefits these bring to orderly procreation and child well-being—but would redefine civil marriage, take note.

Some revisionists say marriage is simply whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults—be they two or 10 in number—want it to be; sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent.
That idea sounds like the abolition of marriage. Marriage is left with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality—it is simply whatever consenting adults want it to be. If so, how can redefining marriage for public purposes to include same-sex relationships be a demand of justice? A matter of basic fairness and equality? From the wide variety of interpersonal consensual relationships that adults can form, why should the state pick out same-sex ones? Indeed, some saw this logic, and thinking that marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, they concluded that the government should get out of the marriage business.
If so, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive?

The future of our country, then, relies upon the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens’ understanding of what it is and why it matters—and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
The public purpose that marriage plays in a political community. ... As the late sociologist James Q. Wilson wrote, “Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.” ... Civil marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture. ... And now we can see the link between the central questions in this debate: what marriage is and why the state promotes it. It’s not that the state shouldn’t achieve its basic purpose while obscuring what marriage is. Rather, it can’t. Only when policy gets the nature of marriage right do we reap the civil society benefits of recognizing it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Popular posts from this blog

Ontario Catholic school board to vote on flying gay ‘pride flag’ at all board-run schools

Christian baker must make ‘wedding’ bakes for gay couples, court rules

Australia: Gay Hate tribunals are coming