Home >> Politics >> Dissecting the Argument for Traditional Marriage

Dissecting the Argument for Traditional Marriage

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Dissecting the Argument for Traditional Marriage”.

READ:  A Country Without Liberals? If Only

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Liz Harrison (twitter: @GoldwaterGal)

Liz is a mostly-retired veteran political campaign worker, wife, mom, opinionated gal, fiscal conservative, anti-social-conservative, atheist, and foreign affairs/Mid-East politics junkie.

One comment

  1. While I appreciate the comments, haven’t we strayed from the point?

    We still haven’t heard a carefully reasoned argument about marriage. We have not come to grips with this issue. The homosexual movement is seeking societal approval for their sexual behavior, equating the deference shown “marriage” to be that societal approval.

    Those in defense of “one man-one woman” marriage, accept the sexual behavior argument, and then argue whose sexual behavior is “good” or “best”. Using whatever sexual/fertility based arguments they can find, they defend in those same terms. At the end, we hear only that their preferred sexual context is best.

    Isn’t the essence of this discussion the value of “marriage” to the society as a whole? A society, like any organism, that doesn’t grow is dead.

    Now we must ask, “How does a society grow?” If we want to tie ourselves to simple numbers, then we can rejoice with the multitude of single parent/unwed/unfathered (distinct from “unbred”)births. Social scientists show us that these new members of the society are disproporionate consumers of all social services from welfare to criminal justice, with very light contributions. Births are not the touchstone.

    I submit that we are only tangentially concerned with the sexual behavior of married persons. We are concerned with their dedication not to their own pleasure or self justification, but to the passing of values to the next generation. It is a body of concepts that leads to behavior that is beneficial to the society. Traditional marriage for thousands of years has proven itself as the incubator of healthy society.

    Homosexual behavior, by definition, is not the incubator of anything. Cries of “they can adopt” fill the air. Before you start to argue with me, take some time to look in the eyes of married parents. Can homosexuals reach that level? Probably. Do they do so reliably? Unlikely.

    Are all marriages perfect? Of course not. Is aspiring to a perfect marriage beneficial, even as a sporadically achieved goal? Yes. Yes, it is. If success did not occur as frequently as it does, we would not sorrow over the failures that do occur.

    I have no argument with homosexual couples and their relationships any more than I do with promiscuous heterosexuals or anyone else that wants to be defined and driven by sexual behavior. I got it. You have lusts you want to indulge. You may even find a more or less regular “co-luster”. You may make that choice in today’s world without thousands of years of disapproval. Be a social union or whatever you want to be.

    Nevertheless, what you are doing is not marriage. To call it marriage is to simply label those who commit and sacrifice to the development of the next generation a gang of fools.

    We should be careful about such insults. We may convince them.