Archive for the ‘marriage’ Category

I do not discriminate against homosexuals

February 21, 2013

One of the most absurd charges that proponents of same-sex marriage throw around is that people like me, people who believe every child deserves a mother and father, and that there is a state interest in supporting the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, discriminate against homosexuals.

The fact of the matter is, I do not believe a homosexual man is any different, in any substantial way, from a straight man. The same goes for homosexual women and straight women. Whatever differences people claim exist are superficial and not important, in my beliefs.

That means I really don’t care if your mom or dad are homosexual. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your mom and dad are female and male. Gender is much, much more important than sexual orientation, especially when it comes to raising children. Children need role models to look up to. These role models teach children how to be men and women, and how to treat women and men. Without seeing the mother-father interaction on a day-to-day basis, they will not know how to function in society.

If you want to argue that gender is unimportant, that would be an interesting discussion.

If you want to argue that I am discriminating because I do not discriminate, I don’t think such an illogical discussion would be fruitful. It’s like calling a Republican racist because they think skin color is only skin deep. It boggles my mind how up is down in your mind, and frankly, I don’t see any point talking with a person who cannot distinguish what is and is not.

For the record, what Washington State has done is we’ve told our families, children and adults, that marriage is not important, that kids don’t deserve a mom and a dad. At some point, we’re going to have to admit our mistake and change our law back to the way it was, or continue to suffer the consequences of having broken families. Perhaps, in the process, we’ll discover why it is that sexual relations should be kept within marriage, why it is that adultery is such a serious crime against families and the people of our state, and why it is we should carefully consider what we tolerate in the public square.

If we do not, then I promise you, no amount of education spending or crime fighting or legislating or governing will give us the peace and prosperity we so desperately need. See, the purpose of life is family. Or, in other words, the purpose of life is life. Without families with a mother and a father who are devoted to each other and their children, we will never have peace or prosperity. As it was with the ancients, so it is with us. We go the way of all the earth.

The tragedy in the last days, the age we live in, promised by prophets ancient and modern, are tragedies that arise when kids do not have a mother and a father. That is all.

Advertisements

The Pro-Gay Marriage Argument

May 18, 2012

A WSJ writer details why the polls for marriage amendments and laws always favor, by a significant degree, the anti-traditional marriage degree. In short, those arguing against traditional marriage threaten the job security and safety of those who defend traditional marriage. And so when the pollster ask the question, people are likely to lie and say they oppose traditional marriage because they know publicly defending traditional marriage means you will be tarred and feathered.

I can’t disagree. I certainly don’t go about broadcasting that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, even though probably 60%+ of the people I work with agree with me. Why? Those who want to destroy traditional marriage are likely to do something intolerant towards me, whereas those who defend traditional marriage are confident and don’t need to lash out at those who oppose them.

Here’s a hint, folks. If your political position boils down to, “I want to hurt my political opponents,” you’re in the wrong.

“Get the State out of Marriage” Is a Bad Idea

April 4, 2012

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse argues why the libertarian knee-jerk reaction to privatizing marriage is not only impossible, but a bad idea altogether. Her arguments are quite persuasive, and are contained in three parts:

  1. Privatizing Marriage is Impossible
  2. Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State
  3. Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children

It’s important to approach this topic logically and objectively, and weight her arguments carefully. I doubt I do much justice to what she wrote above, but hopefully my summary will help people understand it more readily.

Part I: Privatizing Marriage is Impossible

Although she doesn’t begin with this argument, it is the first thesis that needs to be given before any other discussion can be had. Marriage is not about friendship or relationship between husband and wife. It is about building family with children. No, not every couple who decides to marry produces children, but that is not the point either. Simply put, “not every marriage has children. But every child has parents.” Hence, marriage is the beginning of family, You cannot have family without it.

The objection against public sentiment on marriage (that marriage is about love or relationship building) is evidence of how self-centered we have become. Marriage is about, and will always be about, building families to welcome children into this world. As long as society has any interest in children at all, then society necessarily must have an interest in the conditions under which those children are brought into the world. You cannot separate this simple fact unless you divorce our interest in children altogether from our societal interest.

The crux of her argument is identical to why you can never completely privatize contracts. Ultimately, every contract is subject to review by some court, because there are certain contracts that simply can’t be made. At the beginning, the natural mother and natural father share rights over their child that no one else can claim to have, by virtue of them being the physical parents of the child. This is a law that is written in nature’s code. It is obvious and self-evident. Suppose we did allow mothers and fathers to enter into contracts that detail how they would handle the responsibility of rearing the child. What would society allow them to contract, and what would we disallow? As long as you admit that certain agreements are simply invalid for one reason or another, then you must also argue that certain agreements between mother and father may also be invalid. Hence, the state will be involved in matters of parenting and family, no matter what.

In fact, she argues quite effectively that as we have approached marriage with a more laissez-faire attitude, the state has become even more involved in marriage than before. That’s because society has an interest in the welfare of the children, and in order to protect the children under the new form of marriage many states have adopted, the courts and CPS has had to move in to fill the vacuum that was previously filled by traditional marriage.

Hence, it is evident that we can never have a privatized marriage arrangement. As we approach such a thing, the state becomes even more involved in family issues. The best way to limit government’s role in family life is to define marriage as that institution which will limit the state’s involvement in family affairs and yet protect the children. That is the marriage that libertarians should support whole-heartedly.

II. Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State

Although some of this argument was hinted at in the last article, she goes into more detail as to how and why this expansion occurs in the face of privatized marriages.

Simply put, “The state will pretend to get out of the marriage business all right, but then the state inevitably will be caught up in the business of defining who counts as a parent.”

The problem we see is when we separate legal parentage from biological parentage. In a court of law, all you used to have to do is find the biological parents, and see what they want with the child. If the argument can be made that they are not fit for parenting, then the child is given new parents. Under the new legal constructs we have adopted over the last few decades, this process has become infinitely more complicated, requiring new laws and agreements and precedents just to find out who the “natural” parents are.

Think about what is happening. Now, mother and father are becoming legal constructs defined by the state. This is an enormous power and responsibility over every single person’s life. Rather than rely on natural law to determine who the parents are, we turn to the legislatures and courts to tell us. Is this the kind of society we want to live in—where the most important decisions in our lives are being made by courts and representatives? I would think this is completely opposite to what libertarians want to have, a society governed by people governing themselves, with minimal interference by the state.

Adoption is a special case that respects the right of the biological parents to parent. Here, a clear legal line from the biological parents to the legal parents is crated through a private contract. The courts only have to review whether the transfer has been done legally and whether the new parents are fit to adopt at all, and ensure that the needs of the child are satisfied, and then there is no further investigation needed.

Dr. Morse makes a good point that I think escapes many libertarians. We cannot have a free society unless certain laws are enforced universally, particularly property rights. To imagine a society where people choose whether they will respect property rights or not is to imagine chaos, or worse. Likewise, by eliminating the natural right to parentage, we are inviting chaos into our society, a chaos that is not a foundation for greater freedom but a lack of it.

Dr. Morse then goes on the attack on every so-called advance in sexual liberty, and points out in plain, terse language that the effect has been less freedom and liberty, not more. Who steps in to clean up the resulting mess? The state, of course. It’s quite clear how this kind of “liberated” behavior is not liberty at all, any more than people arbitrarily deciding what is and is not mine doesn’t create prosperity and liberty.

III: Privatizing Marriage Is Unjust to Children

The bottom line here is children are incapable of making rational decisions in their self-interest. They need someone to represent them, protect them, and even train them into adulthood.

The family is the institution that makes liberty possible. When we have families with a loving, responsible father and mother who teach their kids basic values and principle of libertarianism, then we have a free society where people leave each other alone and where people are free to do what they like in their own self-interest. You simply cannot have one without the other. Take out the family, take out the education that occurs in the home, take out the experience of living together under the same roof, learning to work together, learning the first and most important life lessons or responsibility and independence, and you have a nation full of irresponsible children who, if given freedom, would quickly sell themselves into slavery.

It is quite clear that, as a society, we have a strong interest in seeing every child grow up into mature adulthood. Since this training only occurs in the family, then we, as a society, have a strong interest in seeing families that are functional. This is why we need to have traditional marriage.

Conclusion

I hope you see where moral issues now enter into libertarianism. Libertarians, in my mind, are right on so many issues, but fail, completely, to understand the full extent of their ideas on moral liberation. Society does have an interest in morality. That’s why I consider myself a  Republican before a Libertarian. I believe that we do need moral laws, such as marriage laws. I believe it is in our self-interest, individually and as a society, to see that certain basic standards are kept universally, especially the standard of traditional marriage, and that it is in our self-interest to see the state enforce such standards.

Can The State Legislature Redefine our Language?

February 8, 2012

Governments throughout time have had the audacity to think they can do things they cannot do. This is the heart of a tyrant: a government that does not understand its role or purpose or what it can and cannot do.

A good example is the governments in times past that have dictated the mathematical constant pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, to be exactly 3. It doesn’t matter where they claim authority from, it simply isn’t true, and no amount of redefinition can change that. If government were actually capable of redefining pi to be something it is not, then people who actually relied on pi would simply call the exact ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter something else.

Here we are, in Washington State, watching the state legislature engaged in similar foolishness. They are trying to redefine the term “marriage”, changing it into something it is not nor will it ever be. Do they not realize that what will inevitably happen is that marriage will simply lose its meaning, the same way pi defined to be exactly 3 would lose its meaning?

If this law passes, and is upheld by the people, then we will live in a world where I won’t be able to call myself “married” anymore. That word will no longer describe the relationships between my wife, my children, and my ancestors and her ancestors. People like me will have to come up with a new term.

What if we persist in using the term marriage the way it has been used since the beginning of history, as a union between man and woman for the purpose of building a family? Then we’ll be forced to contradict our state. We’ll have to explain to people around us, especially our children, that what the government calls “marriage” is not what marriage really is. Is this any different than when I have to explain to my kids that even though something is legal, it is wrong?

My main concern is that I will be punished for doing exactly that. I will not only be labeled all sorts of terrible slanderous, untrue things in public, but I may suffer legal penalties. For instance, if I refuse to extend the same privileged to same-sex couples who are married according to the state, but not married according to my conscience.

Let it be clear: I do not care what someone’s sexual proclivities are. It is wholly irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant whether someone is a potential alcoholic. What matters is how people choose to use their liberty. I might have tendencies that do not lead to the best results for myself, my family, and my community. I do not excuse my behavior because of them. I identify them, and take extra caution to avoid behaving according to them. I do this because I genuinely care for myself, my family, and the people around me. Everyone is like this. We are all imperfect, and we all have to spend extra effort to ensure that we do the best with what we have, and learn to control our desires and actions. If you happen to have homosexual tendencies, then I welcome you as a fellow human being and an equal. I refuse to treat you differently because of your proclivities.

I know that our #1 duty in this life is to procreate, and build a generation of humanity better than our own. If you believe that life is good, then you will agree that there is no higher goal for any person, group of people, society or nation. The only way this is possible is through marriage and responsible child rearing. It doesn’t matter how my state decides to define terms, I will always insist that the highest goal for any person is to find someone of the opposite sex, commit their entire life to them, practice sexual purity by engaging in sexual activity with that one person, and then rearing the children of such a union with love. Whatever we call that, that is what I will preach, privately and publicly, as the best and most honorable thing for anyone to do, no matter what their proclivities are.

One of the worst lines of reasoning I have heard is that we shouldn’t care what people do with their sexual organs. I think this is a terrible, terrible idea. I certainly care. Why? What if your offspring could find the cure for cancer, or be a political leader that unites our people, or simply work in a low-end yet critical job in our economy? What if your offspring could end up marrying one of my sons or daughters, and would bring into my family future grandchildren? What if your offspring end up being friends and neighbors to myself and my children? One day, I might need help, and I’d reach out to your potential children. When you choose not to take responsibility for your sexual organs, and not live up to your duty to procreate and raise the next generation of humanity, you are injuring me, because that means I and the people I love will never know the children you could have raised. We will not be blessed with them in our community.

It’s like the man that has the expertise and the know-how to raise healthy food at an affordable price for the people around him, but decides instead to waste his life in alcohol and crime. What a waste! He could’ve fed thousands or millions, and helped them be more healthy than they otherwise would be. Or the investor who sits on millions of dollars and is too afraid to invest it in a potentially successful business. Or the smart kid who decides he doesn’t want to pursue education but is satisfied working in McDonalds. What a waste! What a waste! How much better we all would be if these people simply decided to do the best with what they had.

The vast majority of us have the power within us to create more human life and raise our offspring to be responsible, loving adults. When we forego this for whatever reason, we are hurting the people around us.

No, I don’t believe the state should compel people to get married unwillingly. I do believe that the state should hold marriage as the highest ideal with the highest honor and regard, just like we honor and recognize people who create jobs or achieve new discoveries in science and medicine. I do believe there is a compelling state interest in keeping the definition of marriage as it is. I do believe that we all benefit when we keep society focused on our #1 goal: raising the next generation to be better than ours.

Does the State Care about the Children?

February 7, 2012

We agree that states shouldn’t write laws that don’t benefit the state as a whole. What I mean by benefit is maximize the freedom and liberty, wealth and prosperity, security and peace of the people. These are all things that we need to be truly happy, and they are things we seek to maximize in our daily lives, no matter what we have decided to do to maximize them.

Could such laws include laws dictating how children should be raised? I believe it does, and many states include such laws which, at the very least, define minimum behavior standards of parents. If parents don’t meet these standards, then the state has the power to compel the parents to conform, or to take the children away and put them among parents who will meet the minimum standards, and exceed them.

Could such laws include what types of families are preferred living arrangements for children? I believe the answer here is “yes” as well. For instance, a state could say that families which have regular income, a secure and warm home, with modern conveniences such as running water, electricity, and natural gas, would be the bare minimum.

Given the above, would it be wise to say what kinds of people are allowed to be the parents of the family? Certainly, we could write laws that certain kinds of felonies would mean that the individual could not act as a parent in their family, at least until they have restored what they have damaged and paid whatever penalties have been proscribed. I know states tend not to do this, but I think and argument can be made along those lines. We certainly might agree that parents who have a criminal history of committing a felony can be disbarred from adopting or taking in children as foster parents, except in extreme circumstances (such as the parents are close relatives, have shown signs of complete reform for many years after paying their penalty, etc…)

What about the genders of the parents? Should we say things like, “There should be one woman and one man in the household who act as the parents?” I think this is reasonable, in particular because there is a wealth of research showing the positive benefits of having children raised in a home with a mother and a father. Is such an arrangement superior to homosexual unions? I believe so.

So we are left with a predicament. If the state decides to believe the research and public opinion showing that heterosexual couples make superior parents to homosexual ones, then how can it legislate that without discriminating against people based on their sexual preference? It is rather simple: define marriage as between a man and a woman, and then proscribe a preference for married couples over all other relationships.

This is why we can’t redefine marriage. We are left with the seemingly opposite of what homosexual marriage advocates would have us believe.

Marriage between one man and one woman requires no discrimination against sexual preference whatsoever. What a married spouse’s sexual preference is of NO interest to the state or community.

Marriage between one man and one woman, or between two women, or between two men, requires we discriminate based on sexual preference and gender, if it turns out heterosexual couples are the ideal parental relationship.

In a strange turn, the change that homosexual marriage advocates would have us make would make us all discriminate against people based on their sexual preference, while leaving things alone allows us to ignore people’s sexual preferences altogether.

Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage

February 7, 2012

Gay marriage advocates (I prefer the term homosexual marriage) often compare their issue with interracial marriage. Let’s get down and understand why they would do this, and see if it stands up to scrutiny.

Interracial marriage laws existed because people thought that racial purity was a good thing to such an extent that having a state enforce laws barring marriage (and at the time, sexual relations) among interracial couples was a good idea. Obviously, we don’t agree with that idea. Nowadays, most people agree that the differences between the races of men are mostly trivial, and racial purity is not a preference significant enough to demand state laws enforcing it.

Heterosexual marriage, AKA marriage, is between one man and one woman. Those who support this definition of marriage believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two sexes of humankind, namely male and female. Obviously, they believe that when it comes to reproduction, which is associated with marriage, these differences are important to the extent that it makes sense to mandate through laws that other forms of marriage are prohibited. This goes further into saying that not only for reproduction purposes, but for child-rearing purposes, the differences between the sexes is significant enough that there should be a law that dictates that marriages must contain one of each sex.

Homosexual marriage advocates disagree with this. Obviously, they can’t argue that it takes a man and a woman to create new life. This is inarguable. Perhaps one day technology will exist to allow eggs to be fertilized with the material that comes from another woman, or for a man to produce an egg; this is speculation. Beyond that, homosexual marriage advocates believe that the differences between the sexes are not significant enough that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that families based on man-man relationships or woman-woman relationships are not only equal, but in some cases, preferable.

This is the core of the argument, and this is why the link between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is not as simple as homosexual marriage advocates wish it was.

Unfortunately for homosexual marriage advocates, there is the scholarly idea that the differences between the sexes are not only significant, but have a dramatic impact on the married people and their children. Children who are raised in homes with a father and a mother tend to do far better than their peers (save for cases where a spouse is lost to death.) It seems even scientific literature is contradicting the beliefs of those who would wish to redefine marriage.

Religiously, it is clear that the differences between the races is not significant. We know this because in the Bible, those who were born into the family of Israel have no superior ranking or rights than those who are proselytes. In fact, Jesus himself chose to be born through the lineage of a woman who was not originally Israelite, but later adopted into the family through marriage and through adoption of their religious practices. So the ban on interracial marriages never made sense.

Religiously, we know that God created man and woman for the sole purpose of being married, bearing and raising children. A consistent theme throughout the Bible is the lesson that sexual purity is a very important thing, and that those who chose to violate God’s law of chastity find heartbreak and hardship as the natural consequence of their behavior.

What homosexual marriage advocates are really doing is shaking their fist at the Natural Law that governs all things. They live a lifestyle in direct contradiction to the plainest understanding of the Natural Law, and they wish to punish those who choose to obey the Natural Law, or at least force them to acknowledge their transgressions as equivalent to obedience.

They may persist in this fallacy, and the result of their persistence will be death, death to all things good, happy, and alive. We will see in a matter of a few years what progeny the homosexual generation leaves behind. How many children do homosexuals bear and raise, versus Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage and are committed to fulfilling God’s commandment to multiple and replenish the earth? With no new generation to replace the dying old, their political ideas will die as well. Good riddance.

Homosexual Marriage in Washington State

February 3, 2012

Remember a few years back, when the people voted to give domestic partnerships the same rights and privileges as married couples, save for the right to call themselves “married”? We were told that this is the compromise between homosexual activists representing a fraction of a percent of our people that believe they have the power to redefine marriage, and the vast majority of the people of Washington State who believe that marriage is not only something the state should participate in, but something that we shouldn’t redefine.

We were told that that would satisfy the minority of minorities among us. After all, they have all the same privileges and are respected under the law equally as a married couple if they choose to join themselves under a domestic partnership.

But apparently that’s not enough. Now, they want to take the word “marriage” from us as well.

Let me help people understand why they want to do this. It is not about equal rights; they are and have always been equal under the law. There is no law anywhere in our books that discriminate between homosexual or heterosexual and marriage. We do not care what the sexual preference of our married couples are; it is completely irrelevant. The institution they want to take upon themselves is not the institution that describes their relationship. It’s like a corporation who wants to file as a limited liability partnership. It simply does not apply. Yet that seems wholly irrelevant to them.

What they want is they want to change our minds. They want us to treat homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones. That is, they want us to pretend that when a man and a man love each other, and decide to live together, that we should give them the same honor and respect that we give to a man and a woman who decide to live together. We all know why those two relationships are different, except, perhaps, the very young among us who do not know where babies come from.

They want to change our religion. They want to make it a crime to say, “God does not proscribe homosexual relations; God instead blesses heterosexual marriage.”

What happens if this law is passed is we will see a lot of people punished simply for their belief.

Now, when a flower arranger, a wedding planner, a wedding cake baker refuses to provide their services to homosexual unions, they will be sued for discriminating against someone because of their sexual preference. Except they’re not; they don’t care what they do with their sexual organs. They believe that heterosexual unions, man and wife, is a very special and honorable relationship, because it builds families and continues the chain of family relations that gave rise to our lives in the first place.

Now, when a church or counselors say they will offer services to married couples that are man and wife only (because the other form of relationship is a perversion and not to be supported), they will find themselves sued and perhaps paying fines, forced to offer counseling to people they believe are living in sin, or even that they cannot teach that one form of “marriage” is a perversion of the true form of marriage.

Imagine what would happen in my church, if a couple, man and man, join the church but are told they cannot receive a temple recommend because they are committing sins of a sexual nature, and will never receive a temple recommend until they divorce and cease from their sexual sin. What will happen? Why, our church could be sued, because we are discriminating against people based on their sexual preference. Perhaps one of the punishments will be that we have to issue temple recommends to these couples, and perform the wedding ceremony in our holy temple in front of God, angels, and the witnesses surrounding the altar. Of course, rather than commit such a blasphemy an desecration of God’s holy temple, our church would likely abandon marriage altogether, saying that the higher marriage reserved for those who obey God’s plan of happiness cannot be had because of violations of our religious rights. Perhaps our couples will have to fly to foreign countries or flee to other states to perform these sacred ordinances.

This is the heart of homosexual marriage. It is not, and has never been, about obtaining for themselves the same legal rights and privileges. It is about forcing others to accept their point of view as normal. It is about making us feel bad for believing that those who control their natural sexual urges, and who restrain themselves for the sake of their family, society, and their religion and God, are wrong and instead, we should all allow our sexual proclivities to dictate to us our identity and behavior. Ask any homosexual marriage activist what they think about churches that teach marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether they believe, in their heart of hearts, that this teaching should be allowed, and you’ll see their true colors.

This is not the same as allowing interracial marriages. States have exerted their rights to limit who is allowed to marry who, and that only because they thought they were doing a service for society. If you believe that racial purity is a good thing, then you would naturally conclude that a law which prohibits a mixing of the races to also be a good thing. Those who proposed interracial marriage did so because they did not believe that race mattered even a little. As people adopted this attitude towards race, interracial marriage bans were lifted.

What is it that the homosexual marriage activist disagrees with us on? They believe that a family with two dads who have homosexual relations with each other is morally equivalent to a family of a married man and a woman. They believe there is no difference between these two relationships, anymore than a black man is different than a white man. If you agree with him, that it really doesn’t matter what you do in the bedroom, and no behavior is superior or preferable to another, then you likely think the same as the homosexual marriage activist.What is morality, and why does it matter? Who cares what we do, as long as we “live and let live” and harm no one but ourselves and consenting adults?

If you believe, instead, that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God, not only to propagate life but provide for the children of such a union with the ideal atmosphere to grow into adulthood, then you stand opposed to homosexual marriage. If you believe we need to exercise self-control in our daily lives, not just in mundane things but sexual things as well, then you don’t believe that homosexual marriage is good.

Do you know what they think of you, who have natural sexual relations with your spouse in the bonds of marriage, for the purpose of raising another generation with a loving father and mother? They hold you with ultimate contempt. I cannot describe to you what they feel about you. You need only listen to them talk to each other to know. They hate you with a hatred you cannot imagine, just as you cannot imagine why someone would abandon their family and engage in all sorts of gross perversions of the sickest kind. Their hatred is the hatred of good by those who embrace evil; that is what this war is about. They intend to destroy you and your society, and replace it with their immorality and perversions of the same. They think they know better than God, and our ancestors, and all that is or was good in this world.

Ask yourself: Is a family built on love between man and woman preferable to all others?

I’ll be opening my pocketbook, and vocally and publicly campaigning for the initiative to overturn what the Washington State legislature is doing today. I’ll also vow to fight against any candidate who would support such a thing. We used to think such a thing could not happen in our state, but what fools were we! Now this will be the issue in 2012, and it will be an all-out political war between those with no sexual morality and those who hold it sacred, just as they intended.

Those who intend to hurt me will need to know that I take the pain with joy and celebration. I’m glad I can be counted worthy to be persecuted as Jesus was.

Latest Thinking on Homosexual Marriage

December 16, 2011

The debate about homosexual marriage is really a debate about religion. The question is: should religious ideals guide our society at all?

The arguments in favor of homosexual marriage tend to center around discrimination. That is, those who support homosexual marriage tend to believe that either marriage is worth nothing at all (and thus we are free to redefine it at will), or marriage is worth something, but it is discriminatory and so should be modified.

To argue with the first point, I believe I can convince even a libertarian that marriage is critical to our society, and that government should play a role in it.  My reasoning is as follows.

  1. Society with government-endorsed traditional marriage does not harm anyone.
  2. Society without government-endorsed traditional marriage does harm people.
  3. Therefore, if we desire not to harm others, we will endorse government-endorsed marriage.

All I have to do is show harm, or lack thereof, and my point will be made. This is done by showing how, when government chooses to issue marriage licenses, it doesn’t hurt anyone who chooses not to get one. It doesn’t hurt anyone who chooses to get one either. It is an option that people are free to either participate in or not. It is up to them. There is no government force involved in issuing licenses.

What about the religious discrimination, that is, the endorsement of government for a particular religious point of view? Doesn’t this harm those who do not hold that religious point of view? There are two ways to attack this. One is by showing that it is not religious, per se, and the other is to find a religion that does not believe in marriage and see if such endorsement harms them. I think you don’t have to look very hard to find people who marry without religion at all. And I can’t imagine a religion that teaches against marriage that is offended by the practice. The closest are perhaps those churches which believe celibacy is the superior way of life. However, here, offering marriage licenses in no way discriminates against those who choose to remain celibate.

The same argument that homosexual marriage advocates use here works against them: If it is true that homosexual marriage does not affect traditional marriage, then it is also true that traditional marriage does not hurt homosexual marriage. You cannot use this argument and remain intellectually honest.

If there was government sanction against people who choose not to get married, then we can discuss that because that is obviously wrong. But that is not the case, and if it were, it is a different topic.

I think I have satisfied most people with my arguments, and my point holds: government endorsed religion hurts no one.

But just because it hurts no one is not good enough reason to do something. There must be a compelling argument to be made that by NOT doing something, injury is had. For instance, some libertarians argue that by not providing a military, or courts, or whatever government program they agree with, harm is done, and so it is in everyone’s mutual best interests to have government provide these things.

So I need to demonstrate that by not providing government-endorsed traditional marriage, we all would be injured.

Let’s start with the repercussions of marriage, and imagine what our life would be like without it. In discussing this, we cannot argue about sexual practices inside or out of marriage. Although I believe great harm is done to society and individuals when sexual relations are had outside of marriage, this is not the topic we are discussing. Instead, I focus on the issues of families and the law.

Government recognizing and endorsing traditional marriage has provided a common idea that is spread throughout our entire land. Despite the facts that different sects of religions teach different things about marriage, there is one unifying norm that is common. Without this, there would be great confusion and inconsistencies.

One of the ideas of marriage is that when you marry someone, you become their unique and only spouse. If government did not provide a registry of who married whom, it would be impossible to tell who is already married and who is not. This is a convenience, no different than requiring people to declare what legal structures they have setup. If you did not believe that government should require people to declare their legal structures, then you might not buy into this argument; if you do, then you must agree.

Marriage provides a default legal structure that is almost identical to what people’s assumptions are about marriage. Some states have slight differences, but largely it is consistent. If you marry someone, you intend to share your property with them, for instance. If you marry someone, you intend to leave your wealth to them if you die; you intend to give them joint-custody of the children that you conceive, etc, and etc…

Because of this legal framework, ignoramuses can get married and not require the expense to higher a lawyer to make sure all of their expectations are met. Surely the harm of requiring everyone who wants to get married to draw up a legal contract that outlines all of their expectations is enough that this requires government endorse marriage.

There is a lot of debate about what the ideal family structure is for our children. I think the majority of Americans admit that the best bet is a family of a loving father and mother, who have devoted themselves entirely to each other and the raising of the kids. Although not every family lives up to this ideal, many come close. By government providing the structure by which families are formed, and by government endorsing the highest ideal (and providing a legal framework to handle the worst cases), are we not better served as a society?

Consider the costs, then, of removing marriage as an institution from our society. Young people would be more reluctant to pay the cost to draw up a legal contract between their spouse, and would thus probably avoid the institution altogether, or rely on a set of pre-made documents that do not reflect the general sentiment of all people. If you wanted to see if someone was already married, you wouldn’t have a central database to check. The influence of government would not be used to create any sort of family, and also, we would lose the protections that we have for when people do not behave appropriately in a marriage and family.

I think you can imagine ways around all of the above problems, but it is evident that the costs of these workarounds is far greater than the efficiency and benefit of having government administer in the affair of marriage.

Now that I have defined traditional marriage as valuable, and shown that government should have a role in it, I will move on to the next argument I encounter. That is, that marriage is discriminatory and we should modify it to include homosexual relationships.

I cannot imagine why people think marriage is discriminatory. The common argument that, “Marriage discriminates because I love someone who I can’t marry” has never entirely made sense to me. Sure, there is an emotional appeal (who wants to stand between two people who love each other?) but it is based on the fiction that marriage is about love.

Marriage is not about love. It is about an agreement between two people, male and female, that they will work together to build a family. We know from history that many marriages were not about love at all. In fact, many lovers could not be married to each other, due to one reason or another, even though they were of the opposite sex. In this day and age, where the people with whom government allows you to have sexual relations with has nothing to do with marriage, why do you need marriage to proclaim your love anyway, in any form?

I think we live in an age where people have the false assumption that marriage and love are one and the same. This is simply not true, not today, not ever, and not in the future. Whom you love is completely independent of whom you choose to marry. If you only use love as your criteria for marriage, I beg you, reconsider! You are making a lifetime commitment to that person. If you base that off of fleeting passions, then you are doomed from the beginning! I guarantee you, one day you will wake up and be faced with the dilemma of you not loving your spouse that day. Is that grounds for divorce? Unfortunately, in some states, it is, which only reinforces this woefully sad understanding of marriage.

Now, let me try to help you understand why the limits of whom you can marry do not discriminate against the homosexual at all, let us consider a completely separate scenario. Let’s say you have a friend whom you trust and want to start a business with. The property of the business will only be owned by you and him, and you don’t plan on bringing in any other partners nor do you want to sell parts of your company in exchange for investment money. This sounds like the perfect example of a limited liability partnership, and indeed, your lawyers advise you to go with this legal structure. However, you protest! You want to form a sole proprietorship!

“But,” your lawyer responds, “a sole proprietorship is a structure designed when only one person owns the company. Since you want two owners, you want to form a partnership.”

“Well,” you shout back, “That’s discrimination! I won’t stand for it!”

“It doesn’t matter; that’s the law. You can’t have two owners in a sole proprietorship.” The lawyer coolly replies, attempting to soothe the mood.

Do you see how absurd this sounds?

The institution we call marriage is and has always been an institution between husband and wife. Asking for marriage to legally unite two males or two females is like partners trying to form a sole proprietorship. It is simply not the right institution for that relationship.

Now, many states have created the “civil union”, which is a legal institution that matches more closely what people want when they intend to “marry” a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Of course, many, if not all, of the benefits we extend to marriages extend to the civil union, so the argument cannot be made that there is any discrimination going on here. Nowhere in marriage or in civil unions is the sexual preferences of the people involved relevant.

Now, for those who want to change the institution of marriage to include homosexual relationships, let’s discuss the harm that will be done to others by doing so.

First, if you say that there is no harm to traditional marriage to offer the same institution to same-sex couples, then the converse is also true: There is no harm to you. Obviously, you don’t believe this, so this argument is absurd.

Now, let me demonstrate the actual harm that occurs.

One, religions cannot discriminate based on the sexual orientation of the people involved, but they can discriminate based on the institution involved. For instance, in adoptions, we cannot say, “Oh, we will not allow you to adopt this baby because your husband and wife are both men.” But we can say, “We will not adopt this baby to you because you are not married.” Religions that have a sincere belief that man-woman couples, united in legal marriage,are the ideal institution to raise children in, cannot act on that belief without crossing discrimination laws. So, by extending marriage to include homosexual relationships, you have prevented us from practicing our religion (which you are free to disagree with), or have forced us  to break the discrimination laws.

Two, government schools can no longer teach that marriage between man and woman is different and desirable. Instead, they are forced to teach us that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual ones. Since we believe that this teaching damages us, we believe that that damages our society in real and lasting ways.

Three, consider our church, which believes that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God. If we were to teach that doctrine, then we would, rightly so, be considered as discriminating against the other people who enjoy marriage, if such a definition were to include homosexual relationships. I don’t think you understand what grave harm this is. Think of all the legal hurdles a church that would want to teach and advertise that blacks are subhuman would face, and then consider what we would face if we continued to teach and advertise that essential doctrine. If you believe that teaching that man and woman should be married is just as bad as teaching blacks are not fully human, then you are free to believe such. But injuring others for their beliefs? That is not what I hope you intend to do, because it shows gross religious discrimination.

I have not perfected all of these arguments, so they are subject to change. However, I do want to emphasize that it is entirely reasonable to oppose redefining marriage, and that it is a sentiment that is shared by a very large number of people.

I think when I engage in discussion on this topic, people who support homosexual marriage show a complete lack of civility. To them, arguments rely on passion, not reason. They also feel that others who disagree with them are stupid, or bigots, or full of hate. I can’t expect to change the mind of people who are so passionate and who lack reason in their thought process, but I will point it out to show how unreasonable their position is. If you are one of those who rely solely on passion to drive your political opinion, know that you too are unreasonable. We know what happens when we don’t temper our passions with reason, or at least, I hope we do.

So, in addressing my points, try to use the same dispassionate reasoning to make your case I tried to use to make my points.

Once again, I remind the reader that logical fallacies or polemics (combative tone) are grounds for me to not approve a comment. They are worthless and a waste of everyone’s time. If you have a particularly notorious example, I may show the public just so they can understand what people on your side are: In other words, I don’t think it will reflect favorable on your positions to try it.

The Greatest Good

June 13, 2011

Socialists often talk about the “greater good”, but rarely do they mention the “greatest good”. That’s because they have a difficult time qualifying “good”, and thus, cannot reasonably determine whether one good is greater than another. So instead they resort to a rhetorical flourish designed to confuse the listener.

The greatest good is, of course…

If you can’t answer the previous question, it is because you are having your own struggle with good and evil in your own life. You cannot tell, for yourself, what is good and what is not.

If you have decided that the universe is meaningless, and we are random blips on the cosmological scale, then you are in agreement with the Christian: mankind is not the greatest good. In fact, it’s debatable whether there is any inherent good in mankind at all, in and of itself. Hence the people running around the world proclaiming that we should all just commit genocide on ourselves for the “good” of the planet.

But if you define good as something to do with life, then you understandable disagree with the whole “let’s commit genocide on ourselves” idea.

Let’s run with this idea: good has something to do with life. Therefore, more life means greater good. And the most life of all is the greatest good. Is this not agreeable?

Now, we have come to a conclusion: that which creates the most life is the greatest good.

So how do we create life? Through childbirth. But simply bringing a child into this world is not enough. It is agreed that to simply give birth to children and then to leave them to their own devices is not good. Children need a caregiver, someone who volunteers to sacrifice their life in the interests of the child. This is a good thing, because by sacrificing their own life, they give life to the next generation, and thus expand life at the maximum rate.

If this caregiver instills in the child a sense of duty to do the same to the following generations, then we have an even greater good.

Now, we know from biology that there are two genders: male and female. Which gender provides superior child care? The answer is both. Both are critical to the child-rearing process. Those children who are raised lacking one or the other grow up to be lacking. Scientific studies have proven this time and time again.

We arrive at the final point in our destination. Let us review. The greatest good is:

  • That which creates life
  • That which rears life under the optimal conditions, which is under the care provided by a loving male and female who have sacrificed their life for their child.
  • That which instills in the child a duty to do the same in the next generation.

If it isn’t obvious what the conclusion is, then let me spell it out for you. The Greatest Good is marriage, or the marriage that leads to childbirth and the rearing of children for the purpose of marriage.

We can argue from this point on whether rights supercede the Greatest Good, or whether the rights are simply a means to the Greatest Good. Let me explain.

We say, in our founding documents, that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why? This is not explained explicitly.

However, in that phrase, one word should stand our above the rest: “Creator”, meaning, one who creates. So, if the Creator does something, what is the purpose of the act? To create. To create what? To create men–people, you and I, us.

Why then, did the Creator give us rights? To create men, people, you and I, us.

The purpose of our rights is to prolong our lives and to establish even more life. That is, they are a means to an end. We protect our rights because by doing so, we protect life and the Greatest Good, the institution of marriage and child-rearing in families.

Why do we institute governments that execute murderers, raise armies to protect our borders, and protects the rights of the people to arm and defend themselves? To protect the institution of marriage and families.

Why do we institute governments to mandate liberty, abolish slavery, and ensure that men are free to act for themselves, for their own purposes? To protect marriage and the family.

Why do we institute governments to protect people’s properties from injustice and theft? To protect marriage and the family.

It’s really simple, really. The Greatest Good is the family and marriage and child-rearing and instilling in our children the duty to do the same. In order to maximize goodness, we have established that people have unalienable rights, so that they are free to marry and bear children and raise them in the conditions they determine to be optimal.

When we use our rights to defend anti-life behavior, we have destroyed the argument that created those very same rights in the first place. Does a man have a right to leave his family? No, he does not. Do we as a society have a right to force the father out of the family? Of course not, unless by not doing so we put members of the family in jeopardy.

I think that’s why I get so upset about the concept of homosexual marriage. It’s not because I hate gays—I don’t. I love them with the same love I try to love everyone, and ask that they repent just as I ask everyone to repent of whatever sins they have. Yes, everyone is sinful, and everyone needs to repent, even the gays.

Homosexual marriage, like no-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and the culture of promiscuity that besets us, will not lead to greater happiness for the individual or the society at large. It is, in short, a death-inducing poison, that which destroys life and the process whereby we create life. To adopt that into our society, and even to elevate until it is comparable to the Greatest Good is no different than drinking poison, poison which will lead to our own deaths.

If you can’t understand this, answer me this: If we build a society where sex is not confined to marriage, where homosexual people are encouraged to act on their perversions, and where family rearing is not the primary goal in everything we do, what will we end up like? The answer is simple: dead. Our society and all its institutions will disappear. If we don’t die from the invading hordes of people who don’t like us and want to kill us, we will die because we have no children and thus no future. When the last of our society’s members finally dies of old age, so will all of our institutions.

Compare that to a society that elevates marriage and child-rearing to the highest priority. Like a creature that is alive, it grows and reproduces and strengthens against all forms of disease and destruction. As long as it can continue down this road, it will continue to create lives and living and happiness and unending institutions.

My message is simple and clear: The greatest good is marriage and child-rearing in homes with a loving father and mother. Our rights and institutions we build from those rights all exist to protect and support and enhance this institution. To do anything less is to embrace death.

Republican Party Represents Minorities Best

May 12, 2011

When it comes to homosexual marriage, in New York of all places, only the Republican Party is standing up to represent the views of minorities in the state. I think you’ll see this pattern repeated.

Why the Democratic Party wants to associate with homosexual marriage and abortion, two issues which are not popular and never really have been, is beyond me. Both issues put individual’s rights over their children’s rights. In the case of abortion, the right of the child to live. In the case of homosexual marriage, the right of every child to be raised by a loving father and mother.

Nowadays, the Democratic Party is seen as the “scientific” party, meaning, the party that is willing to put “science” above morality, equality, and common sense. “Science” here is in quotes because it reflects the same type of “science” that brought us Global Warming, eugenics, and socialism. In other words, the type of science that big government types like because it gives them an excuse to take away our freedoms.