NRO Editorial Summary on Marriage


The National Review Online does a tremendous job of saying what I’ve been trying to say in terms that are well-understood.

They laid out the case for traditional marriage above or at the exclusion of homosexual marriage. They continue to defend that case noting that no one has attempted a counter-argument. (link)

The core of the argument is simply this. Children are best with their biological parents, and the ideal situation is one where the parents love each other and their children. We have an interest as a society and as a government to see that children are put into this ideal situation wherever possible. Since the benefit of the child at stake, the wills of the parents are irrelevant. Their rights end where the children’s rights begin.

Of those two facts, and they are facts recorded by scientific observation and practical experience, homosexual marriage can only attempt to provide only one piece at the exclusion of the other. That piece is provided very weakly, given how committed homosexual couples behave in real life. Even granting them the second fact, there remains the first.

Homosexual marriage advocates can only argue that allowing homosexual marriage won’t hurt marriage as an institution. What evidence they have for this is weak. However, this is a weak argument. They need to establish truth that homosexual marriage will benefit children more than they are being helped today with a system that encourages only traditional marriage. This cannot be shown, and so the children are never mentioned as part of their arguments.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: