HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 5, 2006 Monogamy has always been part of western civilization, even going back to pre Christian times. Yet foolishly, in the name of civil rights, nations have begun to change the definition of marriage. Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Massachusetts have changed that definition. The definition is changed not because those wishing a change want more people to be married, or because they respect monogamy. Quite the contrary. They have nothing but contempt for it. It all comes down to the leftist vision. The state must reign supreme. Anything a person can hold in higher esteem must be crushed. Which is why we have seen an unrelenting assault on the family and on God. This has been going on for decades. First they told women they could have children without a husband, and they told men they needn't feel responsible for children they fathered. After all there was a welfare state to take care of that kind of thing. The result was out of wedlock births skyrocketed, broken homes became common, children without fathers are more likely to get into trouble with the law. But we have been hardwired to accept single motherhood as normal, if not heroic. Then they pushed for abortion. After all why have a child when it can be such an inconvience? Women were taught to think of the unborn as nothing more than a cluster of cells: easily made and easily gotten rid of. Men had been taught to not care, and if we did we were quickly told it was none of our business. The result? Thirty million unborn dead, about one million a year. This is accompanied by a general dehumanization of people. The unborn, the elderly, the sick are all disposable. After all the state knows best. So now that the left has gotten tired of end running around marriage they are opting for a direct assault. Change, or rather abolish it, in the name of civil rights. Marriage is more than a contract(I know leftists and libratarians don't see it that way) it is two people forming a family, rearing children(traditionally that was what marriage was primarily for)and living their lives together. If marriage is discriminatory that should not be seen as a problem or a violation of law. Most voluntary associations are discriminatory. Girls can't join the boy scouts, protestant ministers can't lead a Catholic mass. Discriminatory? Yes. But then you would have to outlaw voluntary associations and force outsiders in. Marriage, while more than a contract, is also a voluntary association. (when a man chooses one woman he is rejecting all others. Or is supposed to.) Men and women decide they will form families and have children. This excludes homosexuals, but if they are allowed to marry then marriage can mean anything, and when it means anything it really means nothing at all. Homosexual marriage destroys traditional marriage. Stanley Kurtz, writing on nationalreview.com, shows in countries with gay marriage that heterosexual marriage go into decline. They know marriage has been made a mockery of and see no need to partcipate. It also leads to the fights for other sexual unions. Those who argued for the slippery slope were dismissed as alarmists, but with gay marriage on the march pro polygamy forces are on the rise. They argue that since a man can love more than one woman he should be allowed to marry them. Never mind all the abuse and neglect that are normal in polygamist families. What next? Incest? Polyandry? Group marriage? Don't count it out. Once the definition of marriage has been erased anyone can write a new one. The President is right to push this debate, even though it will fail. Democrats can disseminate all they want, and try to walk a rhetorical tight rope about being against gay marriage when they are really for it. The truth is they want this. They will try to get it in through the courts, which is why a federalist, state by state, solution is not possible. All it would take is five leftist supreme court justices one day. And they will decree it from the bench. Once a peoples sexual norms break down then everything is follows very quickly. The western world is well beyond that point it would appear. The sad fact that we need an amendment to state the obvious, and can't get 67 senators to support it is a sad testament to that. ------------ About the author: Craig Chamberlain has written more than 100 articles for Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: craig_chamberlain@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
