Sunday, October 26, 2008

For The Children, For The Future (Repost)

I am saddened to see so much argument in favor of so-called same sex marriage based on the assumption that "marriage" is personal affair between two people. Marriage is not and never has been a personal affair between two people. Marriage, throughout the thousands of years of human civilizations, has often varied with regards to the specific rights and obligations of the people involved. One thing, however, has remained constant: marriage is the socially endorsed union of a man and woman for the continuation of their family and lineage, and of the greater social structure, through the bearing and rearing of children. It is not surprising that we find marriage being radically redefined by "Generation Me". I know, I belong to this generation. I see the evidence all around me. Self-fulfillment, self-expression, and self-absorption are paramount. I should be able to marry whomever I want. And if that relationship ceases to meet my needs, I should be able to discard the marriage like an old pair of shoes whose color no longer pleases me. Oh, and society should give me a pat on the back for being so honest with myself in my search for personal fulfillment. I hate to break it to you, folks, but this is not what life is about. And this kind of attitude is most certainly not going to lead to a happy, healthy, productive society. Marriage and families are not about self-actualization. They are about building our future. They are about bringing children into the world within the security of a family including a father and mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, and the social support and endorsement that facilitate the children's future. We lament the state of the family in our country. We are faced with an epidemic of children born to unwed mothers, children of divorce, and the rampant breakdown of marriages and families. Can we not see that the past forty years or so have seen a weakening of the fundamental institution of marriage that has facilitated the current state of affairs? We introduced no-fault divorce to allow marriage partners to "get out" of a union that was no longer meeting their needs--did we look ahead to see that we were making marriage less binding than a common business contract? We liberated ourselves from moral restrictions that would limit sexual relations to marriage--did we stop to consider that we were stripping from the act that creates human life the soil and foundation upon which that life must take root? We legalized unrestricted abortion--did we recognize that we were undermining the value of human life itself as we bow to personal Choice? In every one of these cases it is the smallest, the weakest among us--those who are and will be our future--who bear the consequences for our choices. Whatever happened to accountability? Freedom of choice was never meant to be freedom from consequence, nor can it be. The consequences must be born. In our society, it is our children, born and unborn, who bear those consequences. Our nation was founded on principles of freedom, virtue and self-sacrifice. We who hold its destiny in our hands today. We, who will determine the world our children will grow up in and inherit, need to embrace all three of those values. Sometimes what I want must be set aside in favor of what my society needs. And right now our society does not need for the meaning of marriage to be further diluted. Marriage, as the life-long union of a man and a woman who will bear and raise the next generation of children, must be preserved. We cannot afford the loss of meaning that will occur if we re-define marriage to include same-sex (and inherently infertile) relationships. We as individuals make choices. We as a society also have a choice to make. We must choose the future. Support America's families. Support America's future. Please vote yes to protect traditional marriage in California, Florida and Arizona.
YES on California Proposition 8 http://protectmarriage.com/
YES on Arizona Proposition 102 http://yesformarriage.com/
YES on Florida Proposition 2 http://www.yes2marriage.org/

12 comments:

John said...

Hi, Paula. Couldn't agree more. The evil strategy on both Proposition 8 and abortion is the same. The great majority oppose abortion. But the real issue has been hidden and confused behind the false premise that the abortion debate is about "womens' rights." Because proponents of abortion know they would lose if the issue were presented clearly, they present it as being about "womens' rights." Of course no one wants to deny women their rights. But what does killing fetuses have to do with womens' rights? Similarly almost everyone is in favor of strengthening marriage and homes. Proponents of homosexuality know they would lose on that clearly stated issue, so they present it as one of "tolerance" and "equal rights for alternate life styles." No one wants to oppose tolerance and equal rights. But what does equal rights have to do with providing the same legal status of "marriage" to sterile relationships that is intended to foster child-bearing and rearing?

Proponents of Proposition 8 are doing the right thing by stating clearly just what the real issues are, labeling them correctly, and then letting people choose.

Karene said...

I love this. Very well thought out and very well stated.

Lady Rachel said...

Hello there Mrs. Paula -
Yes, I am still doing the Challenge. I just need to post about it. :) Sorry for not!

Where are you? I just started Joshua this morning. I am going to write a post about it.

Love and blessings!
Love,
Rachel
PS. I see you changed your blog style, neat. :)

Miss Rachel said...

I am not sure if my other comment posted or not, but I am still doing the Challenge. I just need to post about it. I am sorry I haven't.

Where are you at? I just started Joshua this morning.

love and blessings!
Love,
Rachel

Lady Rachel said...

Hello there again, Mrs. Paula -
You're welcome for the comment. I try to answer comments quickly, otherwise I forget about them! LOL (Thinking I already answered them.)

I’m glad you’re still doing the Bible reading challenge too. Oh, you're in Leviticus. I must say, the last four books of Moses weren't too interesting, but I did read all the way through them.

You know what, I didn't expect everyone to stay on schedule. It's ok really. As long as we are reading the Bible and learning from it, that is the point!

Yes, please do post your thoughts on your chapters! I would love to read them! like I said in my previous comment, I am hoping to post about my own Bible reading. :)

please don't feel bad. :) It's no biggie.

love and blessings!
Love,
Lady Rachel

NonCharon said...

Prop 8 makes the same mistake as the laws allowing for 'gay marriage'. It attempts to institutionalize a religious definition of a word. It is jumping from the frying pan (our current laws on same sex marriage, which are problematic) to the fire (interjecting religiously derived definitions of terms into the state constitution).

Both the current laws and the proposition intended to remedy the laws make impositions upon religious freedom. Both are attempts for one group to impose their standard of what marriage should be defined as upon a different group. Both are coercive attempts to make other people live up to someone else's beliefs on sexual morality. Both are wrong.

A better solution would be to separate the concepts of marriage (religious) and civil union (governmental) and leave religious groups to define marriage (which they already do) and have the government define civil union. Both could be facilitated by the same officiant at the same event. Both could be withheld by the granting institution.

If a religious group wanted to prohibit same sex marriage, so let it be. If another religious group wanted to allow it, so let it be. If government wanted to validated a heterosexual union as a civil union, so let it be. If they wanted to deny civil union status to a marriage between an adult and a 16 year old, it may be a "marriage" in the eyes of the given religious group, so let it be. It won't be validated as a civil union and may well be illegal regardless of the religious validation.

That puts the definition of marriage back in the hands of the parents, which should be educating the children on morality anyway. The availability of civil unions in such an instance will not validate any given moral status any more than their current availability already does.

But then again, I imagine this is issue is probably more about people wanting to impose their religious views on the term "marriage" than about real issues of justice and strengthening our culture.

Making such an imposition will give some people the impression that they've done something right without having to change much. They can still relate to their spouse, their children, and their neighbors in the same way. Many (not all) will still live with a disparity between the rampant individuality in their personal life and their stated pro-family values. It will allow some to say they've strengthened the family while they continue to work 60 hour weeks and don't spend quality time with their children or spouse. It won't stem the tide of un-wed mothers or couples that only cohabitate long enough to produce a dysfunctional child. It won't even begin to touch the causes of the problem it pretends to help cure.

NonCharon said...

Thanks for your response to my response.

God bless. :)

Paula said...

Noncharon, your argument rests on the assumption that the interests of the church and of the state are different. I believe the long-term interests of both should be the same: strong, stable family units. I continue to believe and affirm that this is best accomplished by upholding the standard of traditional marriage as a life-long commitment between a man and a woman.

Mrs. Thoughtskoto said...

I have to make post regarding this issue too and I have to quote some from your post. hope that's ok.

Kathy in WA said...

Excellent post, Paula!! Thanks for sharing.

NonCharon said...

Paula, first off, which "church" and the state? The conservative Evangelical church, which you might agree with on this issue, but will disagree with on a few others. The Unitarian Universalists, which accept same sex couples?

And, is it only religious groups that refer to themselves as "church" that get to sit at the decision making table? Mosques? Synagogues? Are groups labeled by some as "cults" excluded? I hope not.

In fact, many conservative groups would exclude you from their concept of what "church" even is. I would think that you and I both agree that particular religious definition should never be made law.

You're setting up a standard of government that, if adopted, would probably come back to bite you in very unpleasant ways.

Additionally, you are using a point that is not a given, which is that committed monogamous homosexual relationships are some how damaging to society. Yeah, I'm sure you can come up with a few studies, and I'm just as sure I can rally at least a few. :-)

What it comes down to is your statement isn't an established fact. It does however seem to be a logical necessity for your position. Unfortunately, something being a necessary logical precursor for a conclusion one is arguing for does not make that precursor true.

BTW, I'm a big burly fellow that is about as hetero as they come. :-)

Mrs. Thoughtskoto said...

yes you are trully worth quoting!