Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
One Man - One Woman - Marriage the Foundation of our Culture
Over the last couple of weeks our readers have been going on about same-sex marriage and a few things have surfaced on RocklandNews and on JMO-Sound Off that, although not surprising to me, is upsetting.
First of all the total rejection of allowing the people to vote on a social/cultural issue that can and will affect all of us.
Second the complete, ostrich like reaction of the pro-same-sex marriage group in dealing with reasoning against allowing same-sex marriage, usually using the “homophobe” and “religious fanatic” arguments.
I ran across this on JMO-Sound Off on several occasions where I was providing historical, and anthropological based arguments against altering the institution of marriage. Never once did I mention religion and seeing as my best friend is gay, the homophobe argument didn’t work either - but some kept bringing up the “bigotry” and “religious” argument never once responding to the points I brought up based on sociological information. In fact only one person truly debated with me the points of the argument.
The same-sex marriage push, although possibly not intentionally, is one of many attacks on our American Culture. It is being presented to us under the cloak of “lifestyle Choice” and “tolerance. What we are seeing is not just a “modern and expanded view” of marriage, but an attempt to change the concept of its initial meaning.
What the advocates for same-sex marriage are effectively saying is that marriage has nothing to do with childbearing, procreation, or family. It is an attempt to make marriage merely a “personal” concept completely lacking in social relevance. These expanded or alternative marital unions are filled with unrecognized difficulties. Without the biological bond of procreation these relationships become nothing more than mutually agreeable sexual unions.
Now there are some at this point in my argument that are saying to themselves, or possibly yelling at this page that homosexual relationships do have an emotional and mental aspect to it just as in a heterosexual relationship. It is true that some homosexual couples have profound affection and devotion for one another, that is undeniable and I am not saying that is not true. However due to the absence of any relation to mutual reproduction, the “marital” relation is reduced to a mere sensory experience.
Now I have been berated for bringing up the reproduction thing on a couple of levels.
One I was told that it is no longer important to procreate because we are over populated as it is. That is an unfortunate attitude because procreation, the siring of children, and unity of the family will ALWAYS be important in society, any society, large or small.
The other level was the mention that a homosexual couple can adopt (which was tied into the overpopulation argument) or via artificial insemination. However ONLY in a heterosexual relationship is there a true biological potential for procreaction.
Few people realize that having children in some ways plays an important part in ones psychological view of life and death. It is a means of “immortality” if you will. It is a part of carrying forward something of your self. When two people of opposite sex are involved in the procreation of a child it is part of them, and an additional bond between the two – something a homosexual couple can never have. The compelling reasons for us to defend and preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is the potential reproductive power of that union.
Again I need to return to the fact that same-sex unions although they can be emotionally and physically involved, they will never reach the capacity to experience more than mere sensory stimulation.
We should also recognize and continue to make a distinction between non-reproductive and reproductive sex. If we should abandon these principles and reduce “marriage” to a mere personal sensory experience than we are opening up arguments to accept ANY consensual sexual practice.
Our current laws regarding sexual behavior, i.e. age, incest, and polygamy are based on the principles of the current marriage definition. Once that definition has been altered to become purely a “sensory experience” than all forms of sexual partnership, no matter how unacceptable or repugnant will be allowable. There will no longer be any principled ground upon which to determine and deny ANY form of sexual union - even with children.
Abandoning the definition of marriage and altering it to an expanded state will eventually have repercussions that we can only estimate, but if historical evidence is to be believed than this “open minded” attitude toward relationships such as that of Rome at its height will result in the same end as Rome.
First of all the total rejection of allowing the people to vote on a social/cultural issue that can and will affect all of us.
Second the complete, ostrich like reaction of the pro-same-sex marriage group in dealing with reasoning against allowing same-sex marriage, usually using the “homophobe” and “religious fanatic” arguments.
I ran across this on JMO-Sound Off on several occasions where I was providing historical, and anthropological based arguments against altering the institution of marriage. Never once did I mention religion and seeing as my best friend is gay, the homophobe argument didn’t work either - but some kept bringing up the “bigotry” and “religious” argument never once responding to the points I brought up based on sociological information. In fact only one person truly debated with me the points of the argument.
The same-sex marriage push, although possibly not intentionally, is one of many attacks on our American Culture. It is being presented to us under the cloak of “lifestyle Choice” and “tolerance. What we are seeing is not just a “modern and expanded view” of marriage, but an attempt to change the concept of its initial meaning.
What the advocates for same-sex marriage are effectively saying is that marriage has nothing to do with childbearing, procreation, or family. It is an attempt to make marriage merely a “personal” concept completely lacking in social relevance. These expanded or alternative marital unions are filled with unrecognized difficulties. Without the biological bond of procreation these relationships become nothing more than mutually agreeable sexual unions.
Now there are some at this point in my argument that are saying to themselves, or possibly yelling at this page that homosexual relationships do have an emotional and mental aspect to it just as in a heterosexual relationship. It is true that some homosexual couples have profound affection and devotion for one another, that is undeniable and I am not saying that is not true. However due to the absence of any relation to mutual reproduction, the “marital” relation is reduced to a mere sensory experience.
Now I have been berated for bringing up the reproduction thing on a couple of levels.
One I was told that it is no longer important to procreate because we are over populated as it is. That is an unfortunate attitude because procreation, the siring of children, and unity of the family will ALWAYS be important in society, any society, large or small.
The other level was the mention that a homosexual couple can adopt (which was tied into the overpopulation argument) or via artificial insemination. However ONLY in a heterosexual relationship is there a true biological potential for procreaction.
Few people realize that having children in some ways plays an important part in ones psychological view of life and death. It is a means of “immortality” if you will. It is a part of carrying forward something of your self. When two people of opposite sex are involved in the procreation of a child it is part of them, and an additional bond between the two – something a homosexual couple can never have. The compelling reasons for us to defend and preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is the potential reproductive power of that union.
Again I need to return to the fact that same-sex unions although they can be emotionally and physically involved, they will never reach the capacity to experience more than mere sensory stimulation.
We should also recognize and continue to make a distinction between non-reproductive and reproductive sex. If we should abandon these principles and reduce “marriage” to a mere personal sensory experience than we are opening up arguments to accept ANY consensual sexual practice.
Our current laws regarding sexual behavior, i.e. age, incest, and polygamy are based on the principles of the current marriage definition. Once that definition has been altered to become purely a “sensory experience” than all forms of sexual partnership, no matter how unacceptable or repugnant will be allowable. There will no longer be any principled ground upon which to determine and deny ANY form of sexual union - even with children.
Abandoning the definition of marriage and altering it to an expanded state will eventually have repercussions that we can only estimate, but if historical evidence is to be believed than this “open minded” attitude toward relationships such as that of Rome at its height will result in the same end as Rome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
