No one issue is more symbolic of the cultural decline of Western civilization than the prospect of homosexual marriage.
Have we all completely lost our minds?
Are we seriously on the precipice of allowing a man to marry another man? Are we genuinely about to permit a woman wedding another woman?
Is our chronological bigotry so severe we intend to junk a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries? Has family, logic and morality entirely escaped us?
Yes, it appears so.
And to all of the homosexual marriage advocates out there: Sorry, who are you again? Better question: Who do you think you are?
Here’s the crash course, folks:
Marriage is the fundamental building block of human civilization. It’s definition is unalterable. No-one is entitled to redefine a foundational institutional of civil society. It is the foundation of cultural stability and economic prosperity. It connects men and women to one another and their children. Marriage recognizes what social science confirms: children fare best when raised by their mother and father. And, yes, once you change the definition, it is a slippery slope.
And you want the capper?
Here it is: There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex “marriage. Yes, that’s right.
As to your campaign and spin, let me provide you with some reality here:
You can couch it any way you wish. And you do. Unbelievably cleverly, too, I might add. In fact your performance has been flat-cold good. Persuasive to those less anchored in family and faith, and captive to the awareness and cause wristband culture spawned by the media-academic complex and political correctness. But you haven’t got me fooled.
This is not a civil rights issue. You have deliberately framed it that way, but that dog don’t hunt.
This is not about progress or love or rights or equality or tolerance or fairness. Heck, I can damn near sell tyranny making it about those things and branding the cause that way.
Our culture might suggest that marriage is merely the state sanctioning of romantic love but it isn’t so. The sole reason for the institution in principle was the social regulation for the obligations associated with procreation. This is not to say marriages of a man and a woman unable to conceive due to age or fertility are irrelevant: they, in principle, by definition, are included. But marriage of two of the same sex is, in principle, impossible, redefining the institution to the point of removing the need.
For some, this is a religious thing. For some, this is a Christian thing. And it is true that we owe much of our Western civilization to Christianity. But since many of you have discarded faith and this is irrelevant to you, let me tell you that the arguments against homosexual marriage are not only religious. This is a family thing. This is a cultural thing. This is a moral thing. This is a social science thing. The secular arguments against same-sex marriage are just as persuasive.
And to all the libertarian types out there courting the younger constituency that is tacking hard to the left on this issue, wake up. When will you understand that the great ideal of limited government can only occur if we stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage.
And no, you do not have to be intolerant or narrow-minded or any other pejorative term to support the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman. This might surprise but considerate, empathetic, kind-hearted people also oppose gay marriage.
I love gay people the same way I love straight people. But that doesn’t change my opinion. People are free to choose who they love and how they live. But nobody has the right to mess with a fundamental building block of all human civilization.