Ten Non-Religious Reasons to Keep Marriage Traditional

15 January 2013

The American Thinker 13 Jan 2013
For  the purposes of this article, a revisionist seeks to redefine or revise  marriage. A traditionalist would like to keep it as one man and one  woman.

1.  To reproduce, nature favors heterosexuality, not  homosexuality. Recognizing  the way of nature, a wise society fosters the one relationship that optimally  helps society to thrive and live to see another generation: a man and woman who  are able to consummate their relationship with their unique sex act and produce  a child. A  functioning society is under no obligation to recognize other nonconformist  relationships by conferring a special status on them. However, society should  protect them from harassment, just as it does for other  groups.

2.  Nature teaches us to build the family unit and honor gender  differences. Nature  is merciless, but she can be wise too. She made humans male and female, so our  body parts have a natural coordination that reproduces children. The offspring  of this sexual union are also male and female.

3.  The essence of marriage is intelligible — it makes the most  sense.

Succinctly  stated, the essence of marriage is the permanent and exclusive covenant and  union of one male and one female who consummate their monogamous commitment by  their unique sex act, which is capable (or potentially capable) of producing a  child. Nature  has made two opposite sexes. Therefore, two parents, one of each sex, raising  their own biological son or daughter, are optimal for a healthy  society. But,  revisionists ask, “Isn’t committed love the essence of marriage?” In reply, love  is strong, powerful, and beautiful, particularly when it’s expressed in a  commitment. However, this is not enough, either. Two best friends who have been  roommates for many years can have a deep (nonphysical) committed love. So can  two or more siblings — maybe they enjoy a deeper (nonphysical) committed love  than a married couple does. But they’re not marriages.

4.  Childless heterosexual married couples reinforce marriage, not redefine  it. These  heterosexual childless married couples don’t redefine marriage beyond  recognizable parameters. Their heterosexuality — based on male and female  anatomy and attraction — is the link to the essence of marriage and reinforces it, not overturns it.  They can still consummate it by the unique sex act.

5.  Traditional marriage is strong, as is. …But  hypothetically, even if marriage were broken, say, at an 80% divorce rate, then  marriage still needs to be protected with a special status. This brokenness  would not be a reason to redefine it, but to fix it. And if it ain’t broke,  don’t fix it by adding other “marriages.”

6.  Some certainties should not be rejected or fundamentally  transformed.

7.  History and democracy matter. Given  this muddled state of affairs, the political elites should no longer determine  this issue. I’m willing to trust the people to make the right decision in  referenda; I’ll live with the results.

8.  Preserving traditional marriage is a virtue, not “homophobia” or  bigotry. Discrimination  is harmful, in most cases. However, it’s not widely acknowledged that sometimes  discrimination benefits or at least doesn’t harm society. To cite only three  examples, the Constitution says a foreign-born person who later becomes an  American citizen cannot become president: immigrant “discrimination.” The  Constitution says only a person who’s thirty-five or older can become president:  “ageism.” In the Olympics, men and women compete separately:  “sexism.”

9.  Upholding standards against other redefinitions is  necessary. Just  a short time ago, homosexuals, who make up about 3.5% to  4.4% of the population, wanted just to be accepted. Fair  enough. But now they’re demanding marriage. Then they’re going further. Some  gays  say that while they have their primary partnership, they  allow hook ups with others. “It’s a redefinition of marriage,” says  one. Polygamists,  who are less than 1% of the U.S. population, are also pushing for marriage. If polygamists win their lawsuit, will polyamorists, who also make up less than 1% of the population, be far behind? So,  if you redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships, how can you  logically exclude other nonconformists? You can’t.

10.  Unmarried civil union is a fair and reasonable  compromise. “I  have gay friends and family, and denying them marriage hurts their feelings,”  we’re told. Then  let’s compromise. After the give-and-take, no one is a hundred percent happy,  but no reasonable person is a hundred percent unhappy, either. An unmarried  civil union for gays and lesbians is a good compromise. They can have the legal  benefits that heterosexual married couples have, like inheriting and hospital  visits. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ten_non-religious_reasons_to_keep_marriage_traditional.html

Share

Enter your email address:

Follow Family First on Twitter