Skip to comments.Why We Should Stop Making Arguments for Traditional Marriage
Posted on 05/20/2014 12:34:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Common sense and thousands of years of historical precedent firmly put the burden of proof on those who wish to redefine marriage.
Another judge, this one in Arkansas, has struck down a state law banning same-sex marriage on the ground that the ban has no rational basis. In other words, the defenders of the law were not able to prove that the discrimination (against gays and lesbians) involved in the law served a useful social purpose.
It is a waste of time trying to prove that a law restricting marriage to male-female combinations is rational in the sense that it serves a useful social purpose. Now I happen to think that traditional male-female marriage is useful and that same-sex marriage will in the long run prove to be socially harmful -- very harmful indeed -- but I doubt that I can prove this to somebody who is not already convinced of its truth.
Why not, instead of trying to prove the irrationality of same-sex marriage, simply say that it is a self-evident truth that marriage must be a male-female thing? A self-evident truth is a truth that is known to be true without the need for any proof.
After all, we Americans have a very respectable tradition of holding that some truths are self-evident. In the Declaration of Independence our Founding Fathers itemized a number of self-evident truths -- that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders could make an appeal to self-evident moral truths, why cant we?
Slavery was condemned and eventually abolished on grounds other than rational proof of its inutility. While it is true that slavery was not a socially useful institution, this is not why it was abolished. Americans (at least those Americans who lived outside the South) didnt become anti-slavery because some economist proved to them that it did more harm than good to the GDP. They turned against slavery because they remembered what Jefferson had said in the Declaration and because Harriett Beecher Stowe -- without taking the trouble to give a rational proof that there is anything wrong with cruelty -- showed that slavery was a cruel institution.
Likewise when society, many millennia ago, first decided that marriage should be a male-female thing, this wasnt because social scientists of that primitive society considered the possibility of same-sex marriage and rejected it in favor of male-female marriage because the latter, in their considered and very rational judgment, was more socially beneficial. Those primitive societies, along with every human society that ever existed prior to the 1990s, rejected same-sex marriage because it struck them as an absurdity. They rejected it because its irrationality could be seen on its face; it was self-evident; it didnt require proof.
And if you are somebody who disapproves of same-sex marriage, is this because you have given it impartial consideration and, after much reading and discussion and contemplation, and after weighing up the pros and cons, you have been compelled by your sober and dispassionate rationality to the conclusion that it will be more harmful to society than beneficial? Or did you say to yourself when the idea of same-sex marriage was first proposed, This is an absurdity?
So if this is how almost every society that has ever existed on the face of the earth has decided that same-sex marriage shouldnt be allowed, and if this is how many of us as individuals still decide against it, why when we enter a courtroom must we pretend that have a rational proof against same-sex marriage?
We ought to be able to go into a courtroom and say to the judge, Your honor, you know as well as I that same-sex marriage makes no sense; and so I rest my case.
-- David Carlin, a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island at Newport, is the author of Homosexualism Versus Catholicism.
I think a major strategic error overlooked by conservatives is adopting the terminology of the enemy:
Using the term, “traditional marriage”
Tacitly one is crossing a very important psychological threshold just by using that term —you are allowing for the concept of NON-traditional marriage.
Right away you are giving away 50% of the battle, just by doing that. NEVER never never use enemy terminology, and the left rarely does that:
They always say, “anti-choice”, they never say, “pro-life”.
You can “love” many people....doesn’t mean you should MARRY them...or be sanctioned by the state into a marriage with them. And, yes....homosexual marriage is impossible...ie...”absurd”.
And...we should call it NATURAL Marriage....
We ought to be able to go into a courtroom and say to the judge, Your honor, you know as well as I that same-sex marriage makes no sense; and so I rest my case.
The real solution is to have the judge recalled and thrown out.
Problem is that there is no such thing as a self evident truth to the left. To them right and wrong only exist as long as they agree to it and they get to decide when to move the boundaries.
The problem is that this is already the argument of the opposition to God-designed marriage: “it’s a self-evident truth that people who love each other and want to commit to each other should be allowed to, regardless of their sex.” (Next year it will be “regardless of their number,” and the next it will be “regardless of their age.”)
There is no rational argument, because the argument is not rational, it is spiritual. I Corinthians teaches us that the rational mind cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God. Period.
Argue that permitting Gay Martiage in a state violates the First Amendment Rights of Christians.
Now that would really set them off.
The one thing they can’t stand is someone pointing out that they’re freaks.
We destroyed the particularity of natural marriage by winking at premarital sex.
We destroyed the stability of natural marriage by OK'ing easy, even no-fault divorce.
We destroyed the procreativity of natural marriage by accepting contraception, sterilization and abortion.
We destroyed the paternal significance of natural marriage by expanding the state to fill the role of the husband, making provision by actual men, husbands/fathers, redundant.
"Natural marriage" has been smashed to the pavement --- by heterosexuals -- and consists of a broken chassis and a scattering of shiny bits.
So now that there's nothing left of "natural marriage" except two adults registering their self-centered self-gratifying coupledom, there's no rational reason why they can't sift through the wreckage and pick out the fragments: the cake, the reception, the honeymoon, the bits they like.
The problem is that Progressives reject the ideas of the Declaration and its assertions of natural law. Progressives see “truth” as whatever is the contemporary sense of the norm. . .even if the contemporary sense is perversion. That’s why, for Progressives, it’s all about propagandizing the people to cow them toward the “norms” that their superiors, the experts, feel is best for them.
They already stole the word gay, leave marriage to the ‘breeders’. They can call their arrangement anything else they want.
Only a science denier would believe that it takes a male and female member of a species to advance that species! Only a science denier would believe that a gay trait in any species could survive millions of years of evolution without being able to procreate....
You science deniers are a whacky lot!
Wasn't much of a bother when, from 1969-1973, marriage was comprehensively redefined by the States and the courts.
Except that in many (most?) cases the judge is a federal judge who has a lifetime appointment.
Mrs. Don-o, I'm totally stealing every point of this post! VERY WELL SAID!! Bravo!
As for the judge and his 50+ year old term, rational basis is code for judges in disagreement with elective assemblies. It is a judicial bumper sticker that replaces thought with raw despotism.
Oh, and I ask everyone, do we live a free republic if unelected, unaccountable blackrobes can so casually redefine the foundation of western civilization?
When judges are so comfortable sticking pins in the eye of the civil society, how much longer can we expect any of our remaining and dwindling freedoms to last?
Common sense rationally dictates that when you go to a hardware store to buy electrical connections, if you go home with a male-male instead of a male-female you gotta go back cuz the guy behind the counter sold you the wrong equipment and it ain’t gonna work.
That was a surrender statement, not accurate either.
It doesn’t cover the change in the voters of America through immigration and how that has empowered the left, and the modern democrat party, and America, which is what is making American law what it is, as traditional Americans continue to vote mostly as they were voting 200 years ago.
I wonder if you are aware of the first crisis in marriage in America, it was one reason the republican party was formed, in the 1850s.
Their mode of operation is to take the issue away from where it belongs. SODOMY is and always will be a disease ridden state. So when the left talks about "Marriage Equality" they are taking us away from where the issue belongs. SODOMY is condemned around the world for what it is - it is an abomination to God. BUT - we don't even have to make that argument because we know that is going nowhere fast. We only have to refer the lefties to the CDC website and point out the fact that SODOMY is a severe health risk! We can point people to the American Red Cross for blood donation paperwork - SODOMY disqualifies a person from donating blood FOR LIFE. So why is the Federal Govt promoting sodomy through the President and yet his own branch of the Govt instructing people to avoid sodomy?
It's time to bring this topic back to where it belongs Sodomy is a health risk - there can be NO "marriage equality" between "homosexuals" and heterosexuals!
They could be arrested and charged with judicial misconduct.
But realize that the problem isn't the homosexuals, who make up only 2% of the population, or the homosexual "activists," who make up only 2% of that, or even "gay married" couples who make up an infinitesimally small percentage of that already small subset.
The problem is that heterosexuals --- the 98% --- have effectively abandoned natural marriage. We created sterile, self-gratifying, simulated marriage for our contracepted simulated sexuality. We created gay marriage --- no surprise that now the gays want in.
To be tried by other activist judges?
But tell me about the 1850's marriage crisis you referred to: that's of interest to me.
It's true that "marriage" was always understood to be "one man and one woman for life." But it's also true that it meant that the couple accepted children as a gift of God and that they stayed together for life.
First came divorce, instituted by King Henry VIII and the Church of England. No more together for "life". Marriage became more and more terminable at will. King Henry and his Church of England were the first "re-definers" of marriage.
Then, in 1928, this same Church of England broke with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition by allowing artificial birth control for married couples. By placing artificial barriers to conception, it was Christians who left the "marriage" contract.
Both divorce and contraception involved the wholesale disposal of an enormous tradition. And it was done by Christians. First the Church of England (who is directly responsible for the decay of our civilization), and then by other Christians - Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran. Luther condemned contraception in no uncertain terms.
For our God, this is the equation:
(HETEROSEXUAL SEX) + (CONTRACEPTION) = SODOMY.
There is no fundamental spiritual difference between a "married couple" that is engaging in artificial birth control and two men having at it. Spiritually, it's essentially six of one, half dozen of the other.
And that's essentially what the courts are recognizing here. Homosexuals have sterile sex with more than one partner. Their relationships are general characterized by their sterility and less-than-lifetime duration - just like most of us Christians.
So homosexuals are just saying to the courts "hey, our relationships look an awful lot like contracepting heterosexual couples. They get benefits for getting married that we can't access because we're same-sex, even though in essence our relationships are the same. We pay our taxes. We're citizens. We have a right to the equal protection of the laws. So please make this institution of "marriage" as it's come to be defined by heterosexual Christians open to us." And the courts are compelled to agree.
As am I.
And I'm as guilty as any. I sinned and grievously.
I am the one who killed marriage.
My fellow Christians, the fault is ours. This will not get better until we start with a frank admission of our own sin.
Very good. Another way we destroyed marriage?
By declaring it was of no business to the government. That it was only a religious concern and the State should butt out.
I think the 1850s marriage issue referred to was the issue of polygamy. The writer mentioned the Republican party being involved with marriage. When the Republican Party started, the party opposed two “barbaric” issues: slavery and polygamy.
OH! Thanks, interesting.
“We” didn’t create gay marriage, democrat voters did, and everything that has fed the creation of ever more leftwing democrat voters, for instance JFK’s immigration law, and modern immigration and groups who vote democrat today, some of who have been voting democrat since the 1850s, and never changed.
Republican Platform of 1856 “”Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism Polygamy, and Slavery.””
Marriage is the joining of unrelated heterosexual members of different families through public profession of commitment to fidelity and support. To secure this commitment and to provide reasonable resolution to issues of inheritance, property division and family responsibility, as well as to ensure that the force of law can be applied to these concerns, Civil Marriage was instituted by human societies many centuries ago. It had nothing to do with love or emotional attachments, nor should it. Government must not be given the power to define, legitimize or legally characterize love relationships in any way!
If, however, society insists on such redefinitions as are required to authorize homosexual marriage then it is opening the Pandora’s box of just such governmental intrusion into the affairs of mankind. By saying that loving someone should be enough of a prerequisite to civil marriage we cannot restrict, for long, any union that two, three or more individuals may desire.
Marriage would be better off, in such a case, being “privatized” and taken away from the corrosive power of the state!
I have to respectfully disagree. The argument was lost when government got involved and was made the ultimate authority on marriage. This is the perfect example of social conservatives gone wrong.
Supposedly small government “conservatives” set up a system of government authority using laws and rules derived by politicians to provide special benefits to those who engage in what is essentially a special interest activity. And now that the authority is used by opponents of marriage to destroy it, “conservatives” cry foul.
Government should have no role in marriage. Why does one need the blessing of government for the joining of two people before God?
The domestic court system and the rules and laws the govern marriage in this country are corrupt. And like all corrupt systems they eventually fail.
That is a silly post, when do you think formal "legal" marriage first emerged in America, or in history, or in all societies everywhere?
Rome? Greece? Tribes whether European, or Indian, or Asian?
You are right about America being created by social conservatives, they are the only humans that could create such a free nation, but when do you think that they didn't have the concept and practice of a "legal" marriage?
the reply to the “love” tards -
- you going to marry your mom? you love her’don’t you? hoq bout your dad? sister? brother? dog? you love your dog? why not, if love is all it takes? what’if you love them but they’re already married? why now’put limits on it? all you say is that’s most’important islove. and what if you love someone else later, but you’re married? what to do then? marry themtoo or be in a constant marry/divorce scenario? i mean follow your heart right? follow your crotch is more like it.
Completely agree on all counts...and would add, we destroyed the reverence for natural marriage by forgetting that law is based on morals, not “fairness”. And, the morals the US was founded on came from the Scriptures...not Darwin.
The idea that something could be called “socially useful” is a concept of subjective political values. I ask how is it that ANY judge other than a tyrant can have authority to dictate what is and what is not “socially useful”.
That is after all dictating Social policy goals.
Weather or not marriage is a socially useful institution, is a political judgement on the desirability of product of marriage. A product technically impossible to achieve without a man and a woman.
This article exemplifies the attitude of the quitter. We should not cease making good arguments just because they will face resistance and rejection. We need to let everyone know that there IS another side, even if many, if not most, will not listen. Also, the defenders of real marriage need to work the supporting arguments deep into their own minds, and hearing them made by those who can make them best will help them to do this.
Was in for reproduction or personal enjoyment?..well if its for any other reason then reproduction then there no need for more the one sex..as gays prove.
So why is the state involved in person entertainment? It has no need
Conversely the state does have and interest in reproduction..else we die out as a people. .
Well-said, Dutchboy. Thank you.
Government became involved in marriage when questions of faithfulness and inheritance became subject to dispute.
In this respect agree with you. However in the respect of licencing marriages rather than simply recognizing that which has already happened by the power of God and thus implications there to I agree that Government has no business.
Government does not and Cannot form(or for that matter break) a marriage, it can merely recognize it’s existence in terms of legal implications.
I would thus propose that the question is not so much about the unfailing sinful foolishness of the State and Sodomites around us but of yourself.
Do we recognize the unions of Sodomite as legitimate? I would say absolute not. Its time to tell theses people that, they are not really bounded and have no real moral obligation.
Their only real marriage has been to that of Sin, and we believe in Redemption.
Urge them to leave Sodomy behind and Imply in no uncertainty terms that includes the one to whom they claim to be bonded.
What they call a marriage is a lie, and that is in no meaningfull way a marriage.
Hate the sin love and remind the sinner of their path to redemption!
Why not dub these homosexual unions as Freak Shows? So what if it sounds harsh. Calling their actions unnatural obviously hasn't affected them or some seemingly conscience-less judges. They don't give a damn when they usurp real marriages but we don't have to agree with or accept their destructive agenda.
I've long believed that many heteros have given ammunition to the homos due to adultery, babies born out of wedlock, the huge number of divorces, and the harm brought on so many children. Still, that doesn't excuse the behavior and demands of homosexual activists.
For now I will call these unions Freak Shows.
That made be good and fruitful but he is right about one thing in respect to how we interact with the issue.
This isn’t an argument or a debate this is a simple truth.
There is no such thing as a marriage to sodomy anymore than there is such a thing as a marriage to any other form of sin. There is no more obligation than there is morality in these unions and as such they are by the power of God Devolved as they were no union at all.
As Christians we should urge theses people to seek redemption.
RE: by evolution or creator take your pick)
If it is by evolution, then anything goes.
So countless thousands of years, since there has to be something known as a legal marriage.
When in American history was marriage considered legal, based on whatever a mosque, or cult, or gay church, or Mormon Temple, said, just because they were a religion?
Is that what you are calling for now? What do you think your chances are of ending the need for law in marriage and divorce? Even Thomas Jefferson (marriage license bought 1771) dealt in divorce law as an attorney, the federal government was passing laws in regard to marriage in the 1780s and 1790s.
She called me a hater. I said, I don't hate homosexuals, but they do have a mental disorder. I asked her if she had a choice to choose her sons' sexual orientation, would she push the button for homosexuality or heterosexuality. She refused to answer. But I know what button she'd push.
“Is that what you are calling for now? What do you think your chances are of ending the need for law in marriage and divorce? Even Thomas Jefferson (marriage license bought 1771) dealt in divorce law as an attorney, the federal government was passing laws in regard to marriage in the 1780s and 1790s.”
I’ve never heard of such laws except in cases of employment.
There was a recent article (can’t remember the author) about the national psychiatric conference in 1973 where they rescinded their position that homosexuality was a mental disorder. The author of the article investigated the conference and discovered that many of the chief people at the conference making the decision to redefine homosexuality were themselves homosexuals. In short, there was no scientific analysis, they just decided that homosexuality was as normal as heterosexuality.