Connor’s Conundrums » Attack on the Institution of Marriage

blog

Attack on the Institution of Marriage

Posted by Connor on August 6th, 2004

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

So I read an interesting article on the attack on marriage that can be found here. It provides quite an interesting perspective on homosexual marriage, asserting that the sacred and millenia-old institution of marriage has long since been under attack, and in recent decades has deteriorated quite drastically. Many groups and social reformists (as they would call themselves, anyway) in the 60s and 70s sought for and succeeded in changing the fundamental concept and defintion of what marriage is. Rather than a self-sacrificing, God-fearing, child-rearing couple who work together in bringing up their children, we have what are called DINKs (Double Income, No Kids). Cada quien su camino. Each spouse holds a job, and puts children on the sideline. The following is one of the concluding (and my favorite) paragraph from the article:

It is in truth the cultural devaluation of marriage that explains why some homosexual activists have reacted to the recent push for homosexual marriage by asking, “Why should we scramble to get onto a sinking ship?” But most of homosexual couples now seeking to be married are doing so precisely because so much of the traditional freight of marriage—complementary gender roles, work in a real home economy, childbearing, sexual fidelity, permanence—has been thrown overboard as the marital ship has settled ever lower in the water. The strangely de-natured and deracinated thing that marriage has become now appeals to homosexuals because it now offers insurance, employment, lifestyle, and government benefits, while imposing almost none of the obligations it once did. Opponents of homosexual marriage speak the truth when they protest that America makes a mockery of wedlock if it licenses vows for couples who can never have children (without resorting to surrogate mothers or sperm donors), will not resist the temptations to extramarital affairs, and will not preserve their union for a lifetime. But the mockery of wedlock began decades ago when hundreds of thousands of heterosexual DINK couples started buying basset hounds rather than bassinettes, started indulging in extramarital affairs, and started fulfilling divorce attorneys’ dreams of avarice. It was indeed by trivializing the marital traditions of fertility, fidelity, and permanence that heterosexuals so completely changed the character of marriage that homosexuals finally wanted to claim the very odd thing it had become.

So there you have it. The homesexuals don’t want the biblical definition of marriage (see 1 Cor. 11:11 for a kick in the pants). They obviously don’t believe in the Bible otherwise they’d be instantly condemning their own actions and lifestyle. So obviously they’re looking to marriage for something else? What else is there? Well as the author of this article states, “marriage” (call it that, if you will), or the union of a couple DINKs, has shifted into a mutually beneficial business enterprise, providing tax cuts and insurance discounts. Heck, I’d be interested in saving a few bucks too. So my opinion is this: If homosexuals want to be together, fine. Let’s give them their tax breaks (though we might have to create homosexual-friendly questions on the bubble sheet, such as putting “spouse/partner/companion rather than just “spouse”) . But at the same time let us redefine marriage (see my blog entry on the Federal Marriage Amendment) and get our heads on straight. The optimal redefinition of marriage isn’t actually a new definition - it’s only reverting to the time-old standard it upheld, as described above. This isn’t something to toy with. I, for one, am quite God-fearing/believing/loving/worshipping and I know what He has declared marriage to be. That is what I shall fight and vote for.

Possibly related posts: