The Fiction of Homosexual "Marriage"

[LogikAndReazon]

How tragic is this modern age in which ancient verities are routinely rejected. Karl Marx would be delighted, for in his perfervid dreams of creating a new human race in a socialist paradise, the main pillars of western civilization -- faith in God, private property, and the family -- all were targeted for extinction.

Each American is free to love whomsoever he or she loves; every mentally competent adult is free to live with whomsoever he or she chooses. Whatever consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors, and whatever voluntary contracts or property-sharing arrangements they make, is their choice. None of this is public (therefore, the state's) business.

However, the gay rights movement itself has made these private matters public business by its insistence on demanding public approbation and official sanction for homosexual rights and gay marriage. They want the rest of us accommodate their demands. The problem here is that both homosexual rights and gay marriage belong in the realm of make-believe. They are, in essence, fictions.

Fiction #1: "Homosexual rights." It isn't politically correct to say this, but there is no such thing as "homosexual rights." Nor, I hasten to add, are there "heterosexual rights." Genuine rights are the traditional American individual rights -- specifically, those "unalienable" rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") and in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, where "property" supplants "pursuit of happiness." Thus, as stated two paragraphs earlier, gay and hetero Americans are free to make voluntary, consensual lifestyle decisions. Neither, however, has the right or power to alter the natural order. No court on earth can confer the "right" to procreate a child upon a homosexual couple. That leads to:

Fiction #2: "Gay marriage." Pretending that there a homosexual couple is no different from a heterosexual couple constitutes a willful blindness to reality.The basic family unit of a man and a woman procreating and raising children has been at the center of the human experience for as long as we know. This reality is dictated by the biological imperative of reproduction upon which the continuity of the human race depends. It is physically impossible for even the most exemplary gay couple to procreate a child. A same-sex couple cannot be a family in the same biological and (sorry) natural sense that a man and a woman can. It just isn't the way nature is set up. If it enrages you to hear that, I'm sorry, but don't blame me; God or evolution or both made it that way, not I........

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...013/03/gay_marriage_and_legal_surrealism.html

Indeed..............

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The marriage debate is not a matter of rights.
It is a matter of definitions.


It is also brings us to the Achilles heel of the anti-marriage side. They attack traditionalists with the notion that the time-honored definition of marriage is exclusive and discriminatory, but then defend themselves by saying that their agitation for faux marriage won't lead to polygamy and other conceptions of "marriage" being legalized. But what is implicit in these claims is contradictory. For if they're putting forth an alternative definition -- such as marriage being the union of any two adults -- they're also being exclusive and discriminatory, as any definition excludes what does not meet it. Yet if they don't put forth an alternative definition and exclude something, they are including everything. And everything means polygamy and any other conception of "marriage" imaginable. It also contributes to the destruction of the institution because the closer marriage gets to meaning anything, the closer it gets to meaning nothing.

This brings us to traditionalists' great mistake: falsely accusing the other side of redefining marriage. They've done no such thing because they haven't, in fact, consistently propounded any alternative definition. To do this would be, once again, to relinquish their illusory high ground of inclusivity and the bigotry hammer they use against traditionalists. So if the anti-marriage side isn't redefining the institution, what are they actually doing?


They are "undefining" it.


This is, again, a process by which marriage is rendered meaningless and is ultimately destroyed. This definitional problem is why the left has very smartly framed this issue as a matter of rights. And, tragically, traditionalists have fallen into the trap of arguing it on this basis, of letting the left define the debate.
So the questions we should ask here are obvious. If the left cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn't? If they cannot put forth what they're sure is the right definition of it, how can they say with credibility that the time-honored one is wrong?