What Marriage Stands to Lose

Sunday, July 19, 2009

I believe that emissary over at Support the Traditional Family has written an article that very well describes some of the great significance of redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

The Nuts and Bolts of Redefining Marriage

We all know there's a push to redefine marriage by expanding it to include homosexual couples. But is this a small redefinition or a large one? Is the end result a minor difference or a major one?

In 2000, every state in the union (and the federal government) considered marriage as a single relationship: the husband-wife relationship. There was no way to enter into marriage without forming the husband-wife relationship. And no other relationships were included within the term "marriage". Thus, in 2000 in the U.S., "marriage" and "husband-wife relationship" were synonymous.

Now let's take a look at Massachusetts in 2009. What does "marriage" mean in 2009? Well, it's obviously no longer synonymous with "husband-wife relationship". Instead, it has become a generic term for a set of other relationships. A similar example would be the word "parent". I hope the following list will make it more understandable.

father-son relationship
mother-son relationship
mother-daughter relationship

husband-wife relationship
wife-wife relationship

Now let's look at what marriage gives to society.

What positives does marriage as the husband-wife relationship give to society? (Note that this is the relationship itself, not necessarily every instance of it)

1. Integration of the sexes
2. Responsible procreation
3. Male and female parental role-models for their children

And what positives does "marriage" in Massachusetts now provide for society?

1. Decrease in homosexual promiscuity by allowing people to commit legally
2. Rearing of children by two people
3. Love and commitment enshrined as the basis of marriage

There are probably others, but it's a lot harder to think of them. Either way, the difference between marriage categories is huge. "Marriage" becomes no longer about integrating the sexes. No longer about procreation (after all, 2 of the 3 marriage relationships are barren by design). And no longer about providing both a mother and father to the children. In fact, the new definition seems to me a lot less valuable to society. Why? Because it effectively removes the having and rearing of a couple's biological children by their father and mother from the equation. To me, that seems the main reason for society to promote marriage; it provided the bedrock of society by ensuring that children would be born into a stable home and reared by their father and mother. In some cases that hasn't been possible, of course, but that was the ideal.

One final note. Remember that children will be growing up learning a completely different definition of marriage than we have. It won't be "the husband-wife relationship" in many places. It won't even be based on that relationship. They will grow up being taught that marriage is not one relationship, but three. And I firmly believe that, in the minds of the growing generation who come to believe this, marriage will lose the implications that made it so valuable to society in the first place.


Post a Comment


Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.

Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).