Saturday, August 7, 2010

What marriage really is.

There's a lot of commentaries coming from the federal ruling about California's Proposition 8. A lot of "equality under the law" and "What they do in their bedroom does no harm to me" arguments. Not once have I read anything about what marriage really suppose to be and how all this legal wrangling got started in the first place. As I learn in higher education, without a proper definition, one can't even begin to progress as we can't have a common standard to which base the subject at hand, thus can't progress.

If you're to ask a 100 people on the street what the definition of marriage is, I'm sure you'll get 100 different answers. Seem everyone has an OPINION what marriage is, but what is the legal definition? After all this is the heart of the debate. I go the oldest source, the Bible. In the 2nd chapter of Genesis, the first human couple were married by God himself and were told to be fruitful and multiply. So if one was to use this source, marriage and procreating seem to be completely intertwined. Over the next 5000 years this general definition of marriage, a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation seemed to suit the societies that evolved just fine. Then came the 20th century.

However, this also demonstrated something else that has been lost in the argument: that marriage is a SCARED promise. Now a days, it's just another promise human beings make to each hardly worth the air that spoken nor the paper it's written on. What the question should start to focus on is how did the promise that was spiritual and religious become a sacrament to the states as human history if filled that societies and their government have laws and regulations when it came to marriage, most them carry much of the same ideals.

The state got involved over the years because they realized those couples in such family units were the most fruitful and procreated the most. They allowed their populations to grow and prosper. It is in the state interest to have people contracted to a commitment to provide, nurturer and grow a family as it preserve the culture and keeps the society alive. The best definition of marriage is laws, rules and regulations that creates a union between a man and a woman to protect, nurturer and grow families as so the human race can maintain itself and grow.

However things changed in the 20th century. An evil was implanted in the minds of man that has grown like a cancer and creating the death and destruction of societies and cultures most all over the planet: moral relativism. We now have the brilliant idea now that if anything feels good, we should do it. That there are no absolutes, no black and white, and everything is shades of grey. So follow a death cult that believes in death to infidel is on the same moral grounds as those that follow the Savior that says forgive them for they know not what they do. Where parasite are on equal grounds with the productive, where death of innocents is equal to the advancement of women rights, and those that have a lifestyle that promote no procreation to that lifestyle that embraces procreation. In logic, moral equivalency equate P with Not P and make them equal in value. We call this in logic a contradiction, but we have been promoting this thinking for nearly a century now. Heck, today we view procreation as something evil and destructive now.

Since gay couples can't procreate by their own devices, why on God's green earth do they even want to marry in the first place? The laws, contracts, and regulations are for the most part meaningless since their are no families to be created. Their claim is equal protection under the law, but what protections are they talking about since they can't have no family of their own unless by artificial means?

They claim they want the right to benefits and legal addresses that married people have. With civil union they were getting them. In fact, short of the family laws, and there are other laws in place for adoption so they don't need marriage for that, it all comes down to two things really: money and making God accept them. They want the financial convenience that married people have. Heck, just change the laws in regards to these benefits, which many state were doing anyways. Why gain them through marriage? No, the biggest reason why is this moral relative crap. They want to equal under the eyes of God and want to force the churches (but not mosques for some reason) to hire, promote and accept them as normal and equal under God's eyes. This is concept that gains the most conservancy and emotions. To make their "marriage" equal to those of heterosexuals and just as right by the laws of God as man. The only thing is, what is equal about it. One doesn't procreate, doesn't keep the species, culture, growth going, the other does. Frankly, God makes his own rules, our rules don't mean much to Him. By forcing his subjects to accept what he doesn't won't change Him and it sure isn't going to change the final judgement. If you don't believe me, just look at history and all societies that openly accepted homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. They were gone within 2 centuries and the rate we're going, we're not even going to last half that long.

1 comment:

Opus #6 said...

You are not kidding. People look at me oddly and with disapproval for my 6 kids. When I was pregnant with #5 and #6 people rolled their eyes rather than congratulate me. My kids are well supported, never gotten assistance from the state.

Mother Teresa said that saying there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers. But the culture of death teaches that abortion is preferable to a large family. I pray for our nation.