Posted on 02/23/2004 8:44:39 PM PST by X-Servative
Disrespect of Marriage Nothing New In Modern America
Why is anyone surprised that the city of San Francisco has decided to offer wedded bliss to the gay community in California, and elsewhere for that matter? For decades now, the once grand institution of marriage has been systematically chopped down by a vocal minority, hell bent on implementing its agenda, no matter what the cost.
The feminist movement has told women that they do not need to live under the oppressive rule of a man. Now, over the years, many men did become tyrants in their own homes (a “master of my domain” syndrome if you will), creating the catalyst for such a revolt. But the pendulum has swung much too far in the opposite direction. What both of these sides miss is the amazing connection a man and woman share in life’s ultimate journey.
In the book of Genesis, each successive thing God creates is better than its predecessor, culminating in the creation of Eve. She is not Adam’s equal; but rather, his balance. She’s everything he is not, and visa versa. Only together can they truly experience all the joy life has to offer. You simply cannot have two shortstops on a team (unless you’re the New York Yankees) if you want to succeed in marriage. It is the ultimate partnership, creating a balance between what one person has and the other person needs, a yin and yang symbiosis. But the true crux of marriage delves even deeper with the creation of life.
Nowhere in our lives does the power of creation have more meaning then when two people who love each other embark on the ultimate selfless act of bringing a life into the world. I’d venture to guess that 99% of people who decide to get married do so with the intention of having children. This is why marriage is so important. It provides a stable, supportive environment for a child to grow and develop into a responsible member of society.
Because parenthood is the ultimate sacrifice of putting the needs of your child ahead of your own, it is no wonder that today’s society has such a problem with staying married (more than 50% of marriages end in divorce). Everywhere you look, self-help gurus and psychologists are telling people that their own happiness must come first. If you’re not happy, then no one will be happy, right? Fulfill your needs first, and all will be right in your world. Tell that to the child whose father ran off with his secretary, or the little girl whose mother works 14 hours a day to assert her independence.
Both marriage and parenting are about selflessness. When two people come together selflessly for their child, they must also come together selflessly for each other. You see, by putting your husband or wife’s needs ahead of your own as both of you put your child’s needs first, the beautiful synergy of marriage and family is realized. A circle of care and love unmatched by anything else the world has or ever will produce.
Gay marriage is not about selflessness, but selfishness. Its ultimate goal is to take what others have without regard to the consequences. The gay community says, “So what if marriage is a primary building block for a moral and decent society. We have rights. So what if polygamists use our argument to justify multiple wives. At least we can say we’re married and get our benefits.”
But this should not surprise us, as society has continued to disrespect the institution of marriage. From no fault divorce to radical feminism to the “king of my domain” syndrome, we all shoulder culpability for the demise of marriage, be it by turning a blind eye or being an active participant in societal selfishness. But the tide is about to turn.
For those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage and all of the stability it establishes for families and society, the final straw has been thrown on the camel’s back. The days of appeasing a vocal minority on this subject are over. No longer shall we look the other way as this pillar of society is desecrated. San Francisco has awoken a sleeping giant, and the future of our children is at stake.
It has long been accepted that every child must have a mother, father, maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, paternal grandfather, and paternal grandfather, all of who must be distinct from each other and distinct from any of the child's great-grandparents (most children will have eight great-grandparents, but that is not required in all states).
How does the notion of 'gay marriage' fit into the proper notion of a family? To be sure, gays could create unions, form households, and raise children, but none of those things fully qualifies as having a real family. To be sure, sometimes even among straight people things don't really work out for families and people have to make do as best they can. But to start up a union under such circumstances is far different from trying to hold one together.
Wow! How long has this been going on?
Ouch!!! How many great-grandparents are required in those other states?
Well, in states that allow first-cousins who are of child-bearing years to marry, a child born to such people would in most cases have six great-grandparents (since the cousins would typically share one pair of grandparents). I don't know whether the states that allow first-cousin marriages place any restrictions on cousins who share both sets of grandparents (see below). In such a marriage, if allowed, the children of such cousins would have four great-grandparents.
Example: Alex marries Brenda, and has children Charles and Danielle. Robert marries Samantha and has children Tim and Ursula. Charles and Ursula marry, yielding Ned. Robert and Danielle marry, yielding Oprah. Oprah and Ned are first-cousins, but share all four grandparents.
Would you say that to a heterosexual couple who adopted the children in their family? Biology is what makes a real family?
Well, it doesn't quite go back to the time of Seth, but could squeak through the time of Noah (a lot of cousin-inbreeding would have been needed, but that's at least marginally okay).
My late wife was adopted, but she was treated--within the family and socially--as though she were a biological daughter. Her adoptive parents are listed as "mother" and "father" on her birth certificate.
Two men or two women may make acceptable guardians for a ward, but that cannot make them parents.
Perhaps, but there are going to be stories trotted out of HIV positive babies who were given up by mothers dying of AIDS, and adopted by gay couples. The kids have been lucky enough to get the drug therapies they needed, and now lead essentially normal lives, disease-wise at least. I guess those kids will tell reporters that they have real parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.