Marriage: Nothing More Important

by

I’ve found that people who tend to ignore the homosexual marriage debate or who side with the idea that homosexual marriages are equivalent to heterosexual ones fail to understand the eternal significance of marriage.

I don’t know how to put this, but let me help people understand.

Of all the things you do in life, nothing is more important than building your life. You can’t put anything above yourself, because, after all, if you don’t take care of yourself, who will?

When you’ve got your life in order, the natural tendency of decent people is to extend what they have to others who need it. This may take the form of public or private charity, but it likely extends to sharing everything you have with another individual.

From that relationship, if it is nurtured properly, a wonderful thing can develop. That thing is a family.

Families are not just collections of people who live under the same roof or share the same name. A family isn’t just people who are related by blood or title. A family is our society’s incubator. Families bring life into this world, and raise that life until adulthood.

All of society’s problems trace back to one common source: The failure of people to build strong families that raise children into adulthood with a proper set of morals and standards. Had children been raised in a loving family devoted to teaching the children right from wrong, and encouraging the children to healthy behaviors and responsible activity, almost all of our ills would have disappeared. The statistics bear this out. Broken homes produce people who don’t adapt well to society and often end up in jail. Strong homes tend to do much, much better.

What can possibly be more important than family?

Indeed, family is the entire reason why we exist, if you look at things from an evolutionary standpoint. If you intend your genetic code to continue, you must not only procreate with the right spouse, but ensure that your children are raised to be strong and capable.

If you imagine a God in heaven who calls Himself “Heavenly Father”, then you understand, at least in part, that in His mind, there is nothing more important than building His own family, where we are the children He intends to raise into adulthood. This is, of course, the view that I take.

Family is about much more than religion. Wars are fought over families. Economies rise and falls for the family. Governments exist to protect the family. Everything in our life revolves around family. Indeed, everything our society invents was originally invented to make the process of family building and child raising better.

Now, we are debating today whether two people who love each other very much should be allowed to form a family if they are of the same sex. Apart from the obvious problem of creating life, is this the most ideal situation for children to be raised into adulthood? Obviously not.

We all know, and agree, that the ideal situation is for the child’s natural father and natural mother to love each other and support each other whole-heartedly, and focus deeply with sincere and patient love in raising their children.

Our laws should be written to provide as many children as possible with that ideal environment. Allowing homosexual couples to form a family that the law declares is equivalent to the ideal is obviously not going to help.

Of course, other things need to be done. We need to restore the laws that make procreation within marriage the only legal form of procreation. We need to punish those who refuse to support the family they build and provide remedies that restore broken families to as close of an ideal as possible. We need to teach everyone in our society, regardless of religion, that the ideal is what they should devote their entire lives to, that nothing in this life will give them any degree of satisfaction compared to settling down and raising children with their beloved. We should also strongly discourage those who would pollute or pervert this ideal, perhaps using law to punish those who encourage lawbreaking.

I don’t know what you can argue with here. I have listened to a tremendous amount of opinion, professional and casual, on both sides of the issue. I feel like my arguments are airtight. If you disagree with me, I suppose you must be ignoring my arguments and pretending I believe something else. But if I am wrong, then let me know.

If I am right, admit to yourself that I am right and adopt your thinking to the right way of thinking.

Our state and nation must admit that nothing is more important than family, and we must do it soon or risk losing it all.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Marriage: Nothing More Important”

  1. demo kid Says:

    Now, we are debating today whether two people who love each other very much should be allowed to form a family if they are of the same sex. Apart from the obvious problem of creating life, is this the most ideal situation for children to be raised into adulthood? Obviously not.

    Hardly obvious. I’ve known gay couples that are far better at raising a child than straight ones.

    We all know, and agree, that the ideal situation is for the child’s natural father and natural mother to love each other and support each other whole-heartedly, and focus deeply with sincere and patient love in raising their children.

    I think everyone can agree that a supportive household is the best for children. But even if you “know and agree” that a two-parent household is ideal, is the law always about preserving the perfect above the rights of the individual?

    Our laws should be written to provide as many children as possible with that ideal environment. Allowing homosexual couples to form a family that the law declares is equivalent to the ideal is obviously not going to help.

    If you assume that the sole purpose of marriage is child-rearing, neither is allowing couples that plan to stay childless to marry. Neither is allowing single parents to retain custody of their children. Neither is allowing parents that may not have the right skills and training to raise their children.

    If you really are serious about children being raised by two-parent heterosexual couples at the exclusion of all else, why not grant power to the state to take away children from all of those households that you personally deem unworthy? Heck, I’m sure that under that scheme, atheists and agnostics could look forward to having their children removed as well.

    The truth of the matter is that the government is responsible for civil contracts, including marriage. To believe that they should intentionally limit gay couples from exercising their rights under contract law is completely discriminatory, just as with anti-miscegenation laws.

    And I do enjoy the whole concept that you want to use the power of the state to punish those that have sex before marriage. I’ve been talking a lot with a friend of mine from Iran, and from everything that she’s said, I’m sure as hell glad that you don’t have that same kind of authoritarian power to enforce your own religious dogma in our society.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Now, we are debating today whether two people who love each other very much should be allowed to form a family if they are of the same sex. Apart from the obvious problem of creating life, is this the most ideal situation for children to be raised into adulthood? Obviously not.

      Hardly obvious. I’ve known gay couples that are far better at raising a child than straight ones.

      I didn’t ask which was better—I asked which was ideal.

      I think everyone can agree that a supportive household is the best for children. But even if you “know and agree” that a two-parent household is ideal, is the law always about preserving the perfect above the rights of the individual?

      Of course you have to balance the individual rights of the children with the individual rights of the parents. But we have, as a society, decided that the children’s rights to life beat the parent’s rights to liberty. In other words, if you neglect your children, we take them away from you and give them to someone who can raise them responsibly.

      If you assume that the sole purpose of marriage is child-rearing, neither is allowing couples that plan to stay childless to marry.

      Whether they decide to have children now doesn’t mean they won’t decide to have children in the future.

      Why not grant power to the state to take away children from all of those households that you personally deem unworthy?

      We already do.

      Of course, there’s the matter of when it is proper to interfere or not. When the state has no reason to doubt the capacity of someone to make good decisions for themselves and their children, we do not interfere because nothing the state could do could be better than what the parents choose to do.

      In the case of widowed or divorced people, we allow and encourage them to remarry. Some societies do not.

      In the case where people are incapable of taking care of themselves or their children, we allow adoption and we have guardianships where relatives can take custody of a child. We have legal procedures and courts to handle these issues as they are brought up by concerned people.

      I don’t know that we disagree on any of this. We both agree that having the state interfere in the family is a good thing when it is appropriate.,

      I’m sure that under that scheme, atheists and agnostics could look forward to having their children removed as well.

      My religion teaches me not to discriminate against people based on their beliefs. “Let them worship how, where, or what they may.” Besides, there is more than one atheist or agnostic who found God in the eyes of their children. Let nature and God run their course.

      As long as the parents are teaching right from wrong, and encouraging responsible behavior, what can I object to?

      To believe that they should intentionally limit gay couples from exercising their rights under contract law is completely discriminatory, just as with anti-miscegenation laws.

      Marriage is not just a contract. I’m sure you’d like to boil it down to something like that, but marriage and families are much more than just an agreement between two adults. Our society depends on families more than anything else. Everyone, no matter what their background or beliefs, suffers when families suffer, and benefits when families are strong. Everyone has a vested interest in seeing the next generation raised in as ideal a condition as possible.

      And I do enjoy the whole concept that you want to use the power of the state to punish those that have sex before marriage. I’ve been talking a lot with a friend of mine from Iran, and from everything that she’s said, I’m sure as hell glad that you don’t have that same kind of authoritarian power to enforce your own religious dogma in our society.

      You’re confusing two things. One is authoritarianism, which is wrong and I would never support. Two is laws that set the limits of sexual relationships within marriage, which I do support and would like to see enforced.

      How would they be enforced? The same way every other law is enforced. If you do things secretly and privately, no one can possibly identify you and bring your before a court to be judged of your crimes. If you do things openly, then there are plenty of witnesses and a case can be made easily.

      In effect, in our society (and any society), such a law would have the effect of burying the behavior underground. It would remove it from the public eye, as long as the public enforced the law. It could not and is never intended to completely eradicate the behavior, just like anti-murder laws and anti-theft laws cannot eliminate murder and theft, but do ensure that when it occurs openly, there can be a punishment, and criminals of those sorts are buried deep beneath the public eye.

      I don’t like the fact that extra-marital relationships are celebrated and advocated in our society. This does no one any good. Remove that, and I will be happy. The only way I see how is to enforce laws that maintain sexual relationships for married couples only.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: