“Extending” Marriage = Destroying Marriage


Photo by pinguino

So? How Does It Hurt YOUR Marriage?

I often hear people in discussions saying things like “How is extending marriage to include same sex coupling going to hurt your marriage?”

There are several answers but let’s just look at the harm to the institution of marriage itself.  I’ve been reading “The Future of Marriage” by David Blankenhorn which is pretty insightful in places.  In particular the following quote caught my eye:

“What purports to be a definition – marriage is not connected to children – is in fact a redefinition that ends up negating the very thing being defined.”

He goes on to explain himself by showing that the Justices in the Massachusetts supreme court argued that separating civil unions and marriage for same sex couples causes them to be “excluded from the full range of human experience.” [Opinion of the Justices, No. SJC-08860, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health p. 7]

Paradoxically in a 2004 follow-up the justices note that one “rational and permissible” method for resolving the controversy surrounding same sex marriage would be to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.” [Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, No. SJC-09163, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, p.9]

Let’s outline this for those still unclear:

  1. Without marriage people are “excluded from the full range of human experience.”
  2. One way to make everyone equal under the law is to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.”

Either marriage is essential or unnecessary.  It can’t be both.  You can’t say it’s so integral that it must be redefined to such a meaninglessly slim definition that you can get rid of it altogether.  It’s circular reasoning.  What is lost is the essential nature of marriage, the thing that makes it invaluable to society.

Procreation, children and families cannot be separated from marriage without rendering the whole useless.

I’m reminded forcefully of Solomon in the Bible who was presented with two mothers who both claimed parenthood of a baby.  His suggestion was to “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.”  The mother who’s baby had died and was lying exclaimed, “Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.” [1 Kings 3:25,26]

How does extending marriage hurt my marriage?  Marriage is ABOUT children and family.  Without family, it means nothing and a “rational and permissible” methods of achieving equality under the law is to “jettison the term ‘marriage’ altogether.”  “[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” [Betrand Russell in “The incongruous Spy p. 77 by John le Carre]

Taking the essence of marriage out of marriage DESTROYS marriage, that’s how it hurts my marriage.

It’s historical fact – justices in the Massachusetts already said it.

—Beetle Blogger



  1. Urabus said,

    June 9, 2009 at 10:52 am

    I’m going to have to think twice before reading these articles while eating on my lunch break. That pic of a man that does not know how to be a man, dressed as a woman, almost made me loose my club sandwich. There should be some sort of vommit alert warning posted before having to view freakish images like that.

    But also on topic is the more important root of the entire problem that is not being dealt with nearly enough. All the discussion about what marriage is supposed to be, what it is centered on, or who has the right to “experience” it, will continue forever unless the root of the problem is dealt a blow of finality. The root is of the entire agenda and all its ugly manifestations is that homosexual conduct is wrong and is an act of violence on another human being.

    The APA recently soft-served their originaly solid “gay gene” theory. More attention needs to be given to proove that homosexual behavior is deviant and behavior that harms the person and society as a whole. The question now is not how homosexuals getting “married” is going to hurt marriage, because it already has. Marriage was made a mockery of the day the first two confused and preverted homosexuals were sanctioned. From that day on, sick, unnatural, perverted and demonic behavior was viewed as qualification for marriage, effectively ruining the institution as a cornerstone of society. This has laid a new foundation cornerstone for others that love sex with children and animals to act upon. Hollywood is already softening the conscience of movie goers world wide to advance this next “equal right”.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    June 9, 2009 at 10:55 am

    I picked the tamest one I could find….you should have seen the others……….

  3. Ken said,

    June 9, 2009 at 11:56 am

    Great installment.

    The burden of convincing falls on those who want to enshrine such a radical redefinition of marriage into national law. It is up to them to demonstrate that benefits from such a change would outweigh any negatives FOR SOCIETY. We need not demonstrate that there will be harm, though doing so makes our case even stronger.

    I like to turn this one around. How would it hurt other GSAs for high schoolers with traditional values to form a GSA that promotes the materials of NARTH?

    Also, how does it hurt McDonald’s if I am selling a “Big Mac” to informed customers? I think it is obvious that counterfeits devalue the authentic.

  4. Chairm said,

    June 9, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Beetlebabee, SSM argumentation is about replacing societal recognition of marriage with recognition of some other thing. Whatever does not fit SSM is jettisoned. Hence how easy it is for the pro-SSM view to accomodate the abandonment of marriage itself.

    The new thing means less than marriage. It is sadly ironic that SSMers insist that anything less than marriage is not good enough.

    SSM is not a foundational social institution; but marriage is the foundational basis for civil society. That is to say, sex-segretion is not essential to civlizaton, but sex-integration combined with responsible procreation is essential. And contrary to SSM argumentation, civil society creates and owns Government, not the other way around.

    All married people would be ushered into this new thing — a Government created and owned institution. It is a fragile thing and, as with any other form of imposed sectarianism, Government supervision will be a 24×7 because the purpose of the SSM merger is to innoculate gay identity politics against open dissent and pluralistic opposition.

    It would be like a mass eviction to a government re-education holding facility. And you won’t be able to carry all that marriage entails. You will have to abandon the core meaning of marriage as you relocate from the foundational institution to the Government tenements.

    Held captive, future generations would know less and less about marriage. They would come to know nothing better than the SSM idea. Society would be greatly hampered in reaffirming and strengthening marriage and securing the social goods that the social institution provides. Enclaves might persist for awhile, but the goal of the SSM campaign is to impose a cultural change and to entrench that change in family law, in constitutional jurisprudence, and in social policy (governmental and nongovernmental).

    The SSM idea itself lacks coherency for it dismantles the meaning of marriage into bits and pieces; but the SSM campaign has coherency which depends on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. That is what they mean by “marriage equality”: equal denial of access to the foundational social institution that does not fit the limitatons of ths version of identity politics.

    If we were to regard SSM itself as a new attempt to make certain behavior normative among homosexual adults — such as this idea of commitment and stability — well, if SSM were to fail, as it probably would if forced on society, there will be very little lost. Indeed, the homosexual segment of the population would just shrug and carry on as before. Participation rates are low now and SSMers don’t really concern themsleves with a big effort to encoruage all homosexual adults to conform to the newly idealized version of homosexual domesticity. Indeed, they abhor conformity and say that SSM is redefinable by each and every individual. So the gain is expected to be very small and if SSM fails the loss would be even smaller.

    However, when marriage fails in a society, everyone is adversely affected both within and outside of the social institution. Sex integration is foundational; responsible procreation is foundational; government’s role is to facilitate not to mandate. This would be inverted if the SSM campaign forces its supremacy on society.

  5. Euripides said,

    June 9, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    The whole same sex marriage debate has ground down into an issue over semantics. The problem, as I see it, is that marriage cannot be redefined since the word represents a social union of a man and a woman and their potential to produce children. As same sex marriage advocates try to get around this social foundation, they play games with the word “marriage” itself, trying to twist it into something it is not. Therefore, a judge can conclude that a rational solution is to get rid of the word itself, perhaps in the hope than getting rid of the semantic problem will also get rid of the social institution. This cannot be since marriage by any name, or lack of it, is and will remain between men and women.

  6. Billy Allen said,

    June 9, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    It has been proven by another study just recently that there are no ‘genes’ found that would back the idea that homosexuality is ‘inborn’ into a human. Therefore, it is simply a bad choice made by those with psychological problems; a disorder of the mind.

    Why is it a ‘bad’ choice? Due to the recent studies, it has also been found that up to 82% of AIDS/HIV diseases are caused by homosexual males and their perverted lifestyles.
    Do we need more discussion on whether or not this is an acceptable lifestyle? No, I am sure we do NOT! : )

  7. June 10, 2009 at 2:47 am

    82% is a lot. I knew that homosexual behavior was dangerous and a burden on health care services but didn’t realize to what extent.

    Your right when you say that homosexual lifestyle choices are bad choices stemming from those with psychological problems.

    I keep saying on other posts around the net that these people need help dealing with same sex attraction not encouragement to pursue the disordered lifestyle.

  8. January 17, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    […] 18, 2010 by thisismarriage Beetleblogger has articulately answered the same-sex marriage activist’s strongest argument — […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: