Saturday, May 28, 2011

Same-Sex “Marriage”, Why Not?

Many in our country ask the question, “What is so wrong with same-sex “marriage”? I do not see that it is harming me. If someone wants to marry a person of the same gender, let him do it. It really makes no difference to anyone but himself.”

These arguments do not stand the test of careful scrutiny. Following are the reasons why same sex “marriage” is not good for our people:
1. For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex “marriage”, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples.
2. Same-sex “marriage” violates what is obviously biologically abnormal.
3. Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. Under same-sex “marriage” arrangements, more children will grow up fatherless and confused about what constitutes a normal marriage.
4. The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM (same-sex “marriage”) is legalized, schools would be required to teach that SSM is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.
5. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will force government, industry, and business to financially subsidize an institution to which they have moral objections, thereby intruding on the people’s ability to make moral judgments. Business will have to raise prices in order to insure significant others.
6. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to the legalization of polygamy and other abnormal forms of “marriage.”

In his 1934 work, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist, J.D. Unwin studied 80 societies, analyzing their cultural beliefs and practices, especially as related to sex and marriage. He concluded that the more sexual opportunity a society had—that is the fewer restraints placed on sexual habits—the less energetic that society would be. In other words, the more sexually promiscuous a society is, the less it will accomplish constructive works in literature, law, inventiveness, etc. When sexual opportunity began to be extended in both pre-marital and extra-marital sexual freedom, Unwin found that such cultures began to decay.

Our society, today, is playing loose with our sexual morals, including allowing same-sex “marriage.” We can expect on the basis of Unwin’s discoveries that our society will, also, suffer cultural loss as a result of these social mistakes.

I can testify that in my personal experience, the above conclusion is true. Nancy and I have been largely occupied fighting sexual infidelity since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in America in 1973. We have spent untold hours and dollars combatting perversions of sexual practice, including abortion. Those hours and all that money might have been better used if we had not had such a blatant offence to common decency operative in America.

Would that morality would return to the shores of America once more, so that those of us involved in the Pro-Life movement could spend our time and resources on something else!

No comments:

Post a Comment