The authors of "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense" --Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson and Robert P. George-- take to the pages of the Wall Street Journal:
"...As we argue in our book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense," marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. Hence marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, permanent and exclusive.
In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.
... weakening marital norms will hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest. Rewriting the parenting ideal will also undermine in our mores and practice the special value of biological mothers and fathers. By marking support for the conjugal view as bigotry, it will curb freedoms of religion and conscience. Redefinition will do all this in the name of a basic error about what marriage is.
Some bonds remain unrecognized, and some people unmarried, under any marriage policy. If simply sharing a home creates certain needs, we can and should meet them outside civil marriage.
Moreover, if we reject the revisionist's bare equation of marriage with companionship—and the equation of marriage licenses with all-purpose personal approval—we'll see that conjugal marriage laws deprive no one of companionship or its joys, and mark no one as less worthy of fulfillment. (Indeed, using marriage law to express social inclusion might further marginalize whoever remains single.)
8 Comments
Only a man and a woman can create human life. That's a really big deal; such a big deal that we created an institution around it called "marriage."
We celebrate the union of the procreative sexes because it defines our humanity, our ability to perpetuate our species, and our dedication to making sure our children are united with the people who created them.
Marriage is the hallmark of civilized society. It's the institution that unites children with their mother and father and provides protection to all. It's the institution that allows people to trace their lineage through public records. This is the public interest in marriage.
If your father's name is "anonymous donor" or your mother's name is "easy-bake oven," it becomes next to impossible for a child to find out anything about their heritage or medical histories. There's nothing to prevent that child from unknowingly marrying their own brother or sister.
Redefining marriage creates a host of problems that pseudo-marriage advocates intentionally ignore.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/250318mmnh7k1054/
New study... Largest sample size ever. finds children are more likely not be held back in school when they have a mother and father. The lack of stability in some gay and lesbian households is a key factor, as well as sample size.
So the key issue is do we care that gays and lesbians are less stable or not?
To NOM and Other Organizations that are fighting to keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it should be:
I've never understood why you do not make the obvious argument against legally recognizing gay marriage, which everyone can relate to. Same-sex behavior is profoundly unhealthy, whether it occurs in a committed relationship or not. Moreover, even when it does, such relationships are almost always non-monogamous for men and far more likely to end in divorce for both sexes in comparison to heterosexual marriages.
Consequently, legally recognizing same-sex marriage would not add to the institution. Rather, it would profoundly diminish it. Further, together with the media and the educational curricula in some states, gay marriage would only add to an already powerful cultural influence, which mischaracterizes same-sex behavior as "normal" and "healthy," when it's neither. As a result, people or children, who would not otherwise become homosexual will be more likely to do so because of influences like these.
This is possible due to the origin of homosexuality. It's a behavioral urge that results from a complex mix of genetic, biologic, and cultural factors. Unlike race and gender, these factors do not guarantee and homosexual outcome. Rather, they increase one's tendency to become homosexual or to engage in same-sex behavior. In so doing, the person who succumbs to this influence exposes himself/herself to the litany of diseases to which homosexuals are far more prone than heterosexuals on a per person basis.
Substantiating the likelihood of such an outcome is research performed by Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, a Professor of Clinical Psychology at Cornell University. Writing in his book, "The New Gay Teenager," Dr. Savin-Williams remarks how same-sex behavior is on the upswing, most likely because of the media and our educational system.
In conclusion, the science concerning homosexuality and same-sex behavior is very much in our favor, when it comes to convincing others that marriage needs to remain between one man and one woman. For this reason, it's been quite frustrating to me that defenders of real marriage, including NOM and counsel defending Proposition 8, haven't used it. They absolutely must, if we're to prevail in keeping marriage between one man and one woman because it provides a strong and compelling reason for doing so and (in my opinion) one that easily meets the rational and intermediate levels of scrutiny that some courts have required to rule on cases involving same-sex marriage.
An essay summarizing this information in greater detail and listing the peer-reviewed references on which the essay is based is linked here:
http:\\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
I strongly urge NOM or readers of this blog to read the essay and use it or the references listed at the end to build a strong argument (either their own or the linked essay), based on science, showing the harm of legally recognizing same-sex marriage. It then needs to be broadcast throughout the country, using whatever venues are available. For if we present this issue as the risk to health as it truly is, we can prevail in this argument in much the same way that critics of smoking did against tobacco companies.
All societies deteriorate after a time because they neglect the standards that made them so.
As we move away from our founding roots such as the Constitution, as we continue to throw biblical standards out the window, we continue to deteriorate.
The way to stop it is to return to our original values. Surely there needed to be changes. That is why we have amendments to the Constitution.
Sin is still sin and that is what homosexuality is.
Marriage is designed to be a committed relationship between one man and one woman.
Marriage must be protected.
The ideal of having a father and mother in the household must be promoted and single parent households be discouraged.
The authors make an interesting point in this article:
"Moreover, if we reject the revisionist's bare equation of marriage with companionship—and the equation of marriage licenses with all-purpose personal approval—we'll see that conjugal marriage laws deprive no one of companionship or its joys, and mark no one as less worthy of fulfillment. (Indeed, using marriage law to express social inclusion might further marginalize whoever remains single.)"
Actually, some of the pro-ssm activists in academia (i.e. “revisionists”) see ssm as more of a stepping stone to abolishing legal marriage, and despise the way LGBTs are praising marriage in their discussions. SSM is not the end goal for these activists, as having marriage even between a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman would still exclude and stigmatize those who avoid marriage for whatever reason, and those whose caregiving networks don't fit the two-person marriage structure.
So, George, Girgis, and Anderson essentially agree with some of the revisionists in academia when noting that the use of marriage as a tool for social inclusion of LGs harms those who don't marry and conform. But unlike the three authors, the way the revisionists seek to remedy this harm is to dethrone marriage as a privileged institution and extend state support to all family types.
Re: "the way the revisionists seek to remedy this harm is to dethrone marriage as a privileged institution and extend state support to all family types."
So could a college women's soccer team get that support, if they all lived in the same dorm and claimed to love one another?
"So could a college women's soccer team get that support, if they all lived in the same dorm and claimed to love one another?"
I would think so.