Posted on 12/29/2006 9:42:16 PM PST by Coleus
In the continuing debate on same-sex “marriage,” proponents commonly highlight the 1,049 benefits extended by the federal government to couples united in marriage. They claim that such benefits and those of the states should also be extended to homosexual couples. Indeed, this was the reasoning of the New Jersey’s Supreme Court judges who ruled that the state must extend state benefits to same-sex couples by the mere fact that they are analogous couples. In the name of a supposed equality of relationship, they mandated same-sex “marriage” or its exact equivalent on the Garden State.
In face of this ruling, some fundamental questions need to be asked: why does the government bestow so many rights upon two individuals in the first place? What possible vested interest does the state have in promoting marriage? How does it serve the common good? If such rights are extended simply to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals, there is no real benefit to society in such an arrangement. The state is not in the business of making people feel good or subsidizing personal happiness. If that were the case, then any group of people or even business partnerships could claim benefits.
It is exactly because traditional marriage goes far beyond the mutual affection of the two parties that makes it an irreplaceable social good and necessitates the conferring of those 1,049 benefits.
Families not Individuals
Marriage is not about individuals but families. It is an institution that predates the State whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to give themselves to each other until death principally for the sake of the interest of the children born to them. The State extends benefits not only to make couples happy but to facilitate the often arduous task of creating a stable, affectionate and moral atmosphere for the upbringing of children – the future of civil society. Thus, it is the procreation and upbringing of children that makes marriage such a social good. The state accordingly invests in marriage between a man and a woman because it knows that it is the ideal and best possible method of insuring its future through the procreation and education of children.
Comparing the Options
Indeed, traditional marriage is so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. The natural state of marriage is to produce not only children but many children to populate the state. On the contrary, same-sex unions are so sterile that those who would circumvent nature must employ costly and artificial means or employ surrogates to bring about adoptive children. The natural state of such unions is not to produce any children, much less many children. Such unions therefore fail to fulfill marriage’s social good since most simply have no interest in either procreating or employing costly artificial substitutes.
Welfare of Children
However, marriage is more than just children. Mere procreation cannot possibly be the only end of marriage for this can be done without the matrimonial bond. Marriage must insure the best possible environment for the growth, development and future of children which in turn increases the spouses’ mutual love. Again, the state knows that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible means of insuring this goal which benefits the common good. Historically, the State has invested heavily in insuring this bond. The reasons are many. First the children of such unions are normally the flesh and blood of both parents who see their offspring as extensions of themselves. Such unions provide a father and a mother, complimentary role models that perform different functions in child development. The children also can have the added intense affection of numerous siblings of those same parents.
The parties of traditional marriage make a life-long commitment to maintain this bond to provide a stable atmosphere for the children to develop. Moreover, they agree to exercise moral restraint and fidelity to their marriage vows to prevent outside elements from interfering in their union and thus disturb the moral well-being of their offspring. The experience of centuries gives irrefutable testimony as to how these blood relationships inside a stable moral climate naturally lead to affection and the creation of the best possible conditions for the upbringing of children.
Deprived of Models
The same cannot be said for the few homosexual households with children. The conditions that are universally recognized as extremely beneficial to the child in traditional marriage are patently absent in same-sex unions. When not adopted, the child will necessarily be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. The number of siblings or half-siblings is necessarily reduced.
Same-sex relationships, which developed from a lack of moral restraint toward social norms and fidelity, cannot guarantee the same moral atmosphere of harmony crucial to the moral development of children. Moreover, any children inside such unions must adapt to sectors of the populations that suffer from abnormally high levels of health problems, infectious social diseases, mental health problems, alcoholism, drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, child abuse and pedophilia. In the absence of long-term studies, no one knows all the effects of such abnormal conditions on the development of the child. In effect, these children are being made the guinea pigs of a cruel social experiment.
Design Cannot be Changed
In short all the indications show that such relationships naturally lead to serious risk in the upbringing of the child. In short, same-sex unions fulfill none of the requirements that would make them a social good necessitating state benefits. Advocates will object that traditional marriage has its abuses and exceptional cases. It is true that many abuse the institution by deciding not to procreate or fail to provide a proper atmosphere for the upbringing of children. Sterility exceptions or the marriage of elderly people too old to conceive, on the other hand, are exceptions accidental, not essential to marriage. Neither the sterility nor the abuses by some in marriage change the design of the institution or become the rule.
Duties of the State
The State therefore does well to bestow numerous benefits on an institution that by its very nature and design are proven to provide all the condition for the mutual affection of the spouses and a stable, affectionate and moral atmosphere for the upbringing of children. However in the case of same-sex unions, the State is not giving its support to the fruit of that union – the children – but to the “love” of two individuals. The State cannot show support for a union which by design will not perpetuate society. It cannot in justice confer benefits upon those who cannot, by the same nature of their relations, fulfill the function for which the benefit was created. It cannot turn the exception of some kind of surrogate parenthood into part of the general rule.
Moreover, the State cannot actively promote a state of affairs that puts at risk in any way or creates obstacles to the natural development of those few children that are thrust into this anti-natural family model. By conferring benefits on this flawed design, the State becomes its active promoter and works against the common good. Indeed, the very 1,049 federal benefits that same sex “marriage” advocates claim as the grounds for a misplaced and misunderstood “equality” become 1,049 reasons for opposing such specious unions.
The family is under attack. In the name of equality, activist judges at the New Jersey Supreme Court have ruled that marriage, that is, a stable union between a man and a woman in order to procreate and perpetuate the human species be placed on the same footing with relationships based on the homosexual act.Read: Don’t Call it Marriage – Call it Court-Mandated Madness
Click here and send an instant protest email.
Gotta read/pingout.
Thus each man tries to flee from himself, but to that self, from which of course he can never escape, he clings against his will, and hates it, because he is a sick man that does not know the cause of his complaint.
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 3.1068
What about good buds? Can I get analagous benefits for a good bud? It's not fair to discriminate against good bud relationships.
Gee, I dunno, as a conservative, I may want to support this gay marriage thing. After all, if enough same-sex marriages get to experience the joys of the marriage penalty tax, their anger may be enough to get it repealed!!
We sure know that making conservatives angry over the marriage penalty tax doesn't carry much weight with politicians. Maybe having an army of screaming gays in their faces after they discover the marriage penalty tax will get them to finally take action to end the marriage penalty!!!
It couldn't hurt, at this point!
In a word: that's a bad idea; oh and the author is correct that is "maddness"!
Sorry. I forgot to add the "/dripping sarc" tag for you.
Homosexual Agenda Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Here's the quotes:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
"Divided over gay marriage" by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."
"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman."
He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
"Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
"Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Thanks for the ping, but I didn't think this was all that good of an article.
The part that I didn't like was that it was based on a faulty premise: that there are significant legal and practical benefits conferred to married couples. Perhaps that was the case some time ago, but the reality is that there just aren't that many legal or practical benefits conferred to married couples these days. The trend is actually the other way. Particularly with regards to tax policy.
I think we should quit giving rise to this idea that marriage has many practical or legal benefits, and instead acknowledge that the lack of practical advantage is contributing to a rise in both illegitimacy and cohabitation. We're rapidly approaching an America where the only couples who will choose marriage are those who are either deeply religious, or who want the legitimacy that they think marraiage convokes (e.g. homosexuals).
You can't fix a problem unless you're willing to acknowledge that there actually is one.
The article didn't cover every argument against homosexual marriage, but IMO did what it did well. Covered in brief the damage to children, which is important to remember.
Have you ever read any of Stanley Kurtz' articles? A few have been pinged out in the past. He's one of the best, do a search if you haven't read of his. He writes very comprehensive, well-researched articles that dismantle the "gay" agenda, in particular, marriage.
My personal opinion is that many things are so FUBAR that it's going to take some major - shakeups, who knows what - to jar loose the hardended madness that currently passes for normal.
Oh, and Happy New Year!
A Pysc MD, who is conservative and believes in the death penalty, believes that the children from these so called marriages will be walking time bombs for our society.
This author does a great job of summarizing these realities:
"Deprived of Models
The same cannot be said for the few homosexual households with children. The conditions that are universally recognized as extremely beneficial to the child in traditional marriage are patently absent in same-sex unions. When not adopted, the child will necessarily be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. The number of siblings or half-siblings is necessarily reduced.
Same-sex relationships, which developed from a lack of moral restraint toward social norms and fidelity, cannot guarantee the same moral atmosphere of harmony crucial to the moral development of children. Moreover, any children inside such unions must adapt to sectors of the populations that suffer from abnormally high levels of health problems, infectious social diseases, mental health problems, alcoholism, drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, child abuse and pedophilia. In the absence of long-term studies, no one knows all the effects of such abnormal conditions on the development of the child. In effect, these children are being made the guinea pigs of a cruel social experiment."
Equality in all things.
The question is which one of the same-sex couple is the man? One of them has to be the man so that the court will know who has to pay alimony, child support and the bills, and who will get the house, kids, dogs and van.
I liked those parts especially, myself. A very egregious example is those lesbians - one of which did everything she could to make sure her child was deaf! Remember that one? Purposely having a deaf child?!?!
People don't treat their pets that cruelly.
Happy New Year to you as well! When I get the chance, I'll search one of the articles mentioned.
I don't doubt that there is a more sinister agenda out there. The culture of death has always been that way. Unfortunately, we tend to approach the culture of death from a weak defensive position instead of a strong offensive position. Contrast the defensive position of aptly titled "defense of marriage" ballot initiatives to a more aggressive posture that says; what, only 1,049 benefits? Thanks for bringing this to our attention! We'll work harder to make sure that there are at least 2,000 in two years. Oh, and while we're at it, let's start focusing on the high societal costs incurred by the unmarried.
As for the hardened madness, we conservatives bear a lot of the blame. We're the complacent, sleeping giant that can't seem to be awakened. My fear is that in time, the demographics are going to catch up with those of us in the west. And that is going to be All She Wrote.
I agree.
"The best have lost all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Maybe not exact words, but close enough.
Spinelessness and lack of courage in reality equal ill motives. Because the result is the same.
"The best have lost all conviction, While the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Interesting quote. Where is it from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.