Mating and Marriage

I don't usually post about controversial issues on this blog. I save that stuff for my blog at standardof liberty.org. But twice now, some person has complained about me expressing my opinions, and the blog has been locked down. Censored! A civil, decent, intelligent blog censored from the internet which allows all manner of vulgarity and obscenity! Funny, I don't complain about anyone else's blog no matter how stridently I stand against what it says. Funny, how free speech is only allowed to some people nowadays. Funny, how people can be so intolerant of a view different from theirs in our supposedly diverse, enlightened, tolerant society. Actually, it isn't funny, it's scary.

Anyway, I am tired of waiting to be able to speak freely again, so I am posting this article on my personal blog.

Mating and Marriage

I just read a great article from The National Review called “The Case for Marriage” (you can link on this from standardofliberty.org). Of course! Government has historically taken an interest in the institution of marriage because of children; it's about what to do with the children that regularly come from mating. Traditional marriage with its natural gender roles is never perfect (because human beings are never perfect) but it is in the best interests of children. Our government and legal system must continue to take an interest in marriage with its traditional definition—as importantly linked to procreation— or we’ll find ourselves on the road to the government taking upon itself the role of parent, with dangerous and disastrous consequences. (I say again, everybody needs to read Wild Swans by Jung Chang which shows what happens to people when government gets out of hand.)

As for so-called gay marriage, try as they might, men cannot mate with other men and women cannot mate with other women. So why should government take any interest in their relationship? Of itself it doesn’t produce anything. As for the argument that government should support gay marriage because it is an adult emotional relationship, government has never gotten involved in people's emotional unions. Can you imagine the colossal intrusion and power that would lead to? Government could dictate what should happen in every human relationship imaginable! That’s why government should only have something to say about the one union that regularly creates children, that is, marriage as it has always been defined.

As for another argument about how many heterosexual couples do not procreate for various reasons (infertility, choice, age), like it or not, the principle still stands. Childless couples still mate, that is, they do the very thing people do that makes babies. Gay couples do not mate, that is, they do not do the very thing that makes babies. Whatever else people acting homosexually do, they can’t mate and never do. Therefore, they can never be married as the word marriage is defined. If we decide to call what they do marriage, we will have ruined the word as it has always stood with its foundational purpose and definition: Marriage exists and is encouraged in the hope that every child may be born into the most stable environment possible, to the basic family unit consisting of a legally united and recognized opposite-sex couple, his own biological mother and father from whom much is expected by society for the sake of its own survival and well-being.

Purposely destroying language to further a malevolent agenda is a cowardly and tyrannical thing to do. As is engraved in stone on the beautiful Jefferson Memorial we visited recently, “I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”