February 8, 2013 · By David Mann · 0 Comments
Here are the basic rules regarding marriage.
Every currently unmarried person of legal marriage age is allowed to marry a consenting person of their choice who is:
Each one of these conditions is there for a very important reason that should not require much explanation to any reasonable person. When all of these rules are applied to all persons, then everyone has “marriage equality.”
Some problems come in when people try to add conditions to the above list that don’t belong there. For example, there is no good reason to add a condition that the consenting person must be of the same race. Race, contrary to outdated ideas about it that some still cling to, is superficial, genetically meaningless, and not even clearly definable. Adding such a condition would actually violate the definition of marriage, because it would prevent people from marrying who are perfectly eligible to marry.
Further problems come in when people demand to be allowed to waive one or more of the individual conditions of marriage, while still being treated as if they meet the conditions in general.
The first question that has to be asked is this: Why should anyone be allowed to waive one of these conditions and yet still consider their relationship to be a valid marriage? Just because they want to? Is that a sufficiently compelling reason?
The obvious answer is no — that is not a sufficiently compelling reason. One of the inconvenient realities of life is that the desire to do something does not automatically create a right to do it. If it did, there would be no reason for laws or any other limitations on behavior.
The next question is, if anyone is allowed to waive one of these conditions, what reason can be given that any of them would not be allowed to be waived? If someone is allowed to consider a relationship with someone of the same gender to be a “marriage,” for what reason would someone else be disallowed from doing the same with a child, their own sibling, or an additional spouse?
That question is actually a little more complicated. Many people under 18 have legitimately gotten married in the fairly recent past. (Of course, they were not prepubescent at the time.) There was a time early in history where close relatives married because no one else was available (reference the old “where did Cain get his wife?” question) and because the state of the gene pool did not yet make it a problem. And of course Biblical history records many examples of polygamy which, while not exactly endorsed as ideal, was not expressly forbidden at the time either.
Nonetheless, it’s hard to disagree with the last three conditions above. A prepubescent child is clearly not ready for a sexual relationship of any kind, and even an older underage person is not likely to be ready for the responsibilities that come with one. The marrying of close relatives is something whose time was over very far in the past. And polyamory was never what marriage was designed to be in the first place.
So why should anyone be allowed to violate the first condition? There is no good reason, and anything that pretends to be a good reason is firmly rooted in an understanding of homosexuality that is utterly false, however popular it may be. Arguments for same-sex “marriage” abound in false analogies, likening same-sex attraction to things like race, eye color or left-handedness. Does anyone really believe that a fetish for the wrong gender (which is what homosexuality basically comes down to) is similar to such superficial and neutral qualities in any meaningful sense? Or do they just hope other people will?
Either way, the realities of homosexuality — constantly denied by people with same-sex attractions, even as they continue to demonstrate them — remain. Its strong tendency to lead to promiscuity and recklessness, the denial and inner conflict that comes with it, the physical and mental damage it creates, and much more — these realities do not change just because people are ignorant about them, willfully or otherwise. Homosexuality has always been, and will always be, in violation of the design of sexuality. And it remains something that people can (and do) walk away from if they are sufficiently determined to do what’s right over what’s easy.
If anyone does not wish to participate in marriage on the terms it comes with, they are more than welcome to excuse themselves from it. They are not welcome — at least in the eyes of anyone who truly understands and values marriage — to change its terms to suit themselves.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964