Natural Marriage Vs. “Change”
It’s not a Question of Inclusion. Is it About Replacement?
As voters discuss the nature of marriage and morality with Question 1 on the ballot in Maine, the question has to be asked: What’s really at stake?
Most people just want to get along, but for some, getting along is not enough. One of the deceptive ideas in the culture wars is “So what if you’re apples and we’re oranges, can’t we all share the fruit bowl together?” In the battle of ideas, two diametrically opposing views of society cannot co-exist peacefully side by side…. Or can they? In my mind I picture Tevye, the Jewish dairyman from the play “Fiddler on the Roof”, standing in the middle of the road, cow in hand, pondering these diverging moral paths.
On the one hand, we have traditionally proven societal models, based on the basic principles of the ten commandments. Don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your father and mother, don’t lie…do unto others, and so on….basic Judeo-Christian values, handed down from Heaven for the stability of man.
On the other hand is the belief that morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience. Society determines it’s own morality, subject to change.
I’ve been considering the idea put forth by some that the apples and oranges should just get along. There’s room in the bowl for all. Physically, that is true. All different races and kinds of people live together and get along, even different religions can get along, because at heart, they have common morals and ideals. They ultimately strive for the same goals. What if there is no common moral ground? Is morality different than race? Is morality a zero sum game? or is there really room for all?
At first, there may appear to be room for all, but over time, the reality shows that there is not. For one side to gain ground morally, the other has to lose.
In looking over the globe, the obvious evidence is that there are no cultures who have successfully incorporated multiple sets of moral ideals, especially when it comes to marriage. Surely in all those independently evolving societies, there must be some reason for this. Perhaps it is because it is human nature for some fringe elements to constantly push against the barriers of society. Civilized society is called “civil” because we control our impulsive natures in order to be better people. There are always some who believe it is an imposition on them to require civil behavior in a civil society. The boundaries of civility can move, but only at the loss to the greater civility of the whole. Zero sum game. I believe that is happening here.
To illustrate this point, I point to Massachusetts and the curriculum changes being made there since same sex marriage was introduced. I just got a good look at the book, “King and King“, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, that was read by a second grade school teacher to her entire class in a segment teaching about marriage. This book’s inclusion in the Massachusetts elementary school curriculum is shocking not just for the obviously inflammatory ending where the prince marries another prince instead of the princess, but in the way that it tears down and denigrates traditional marriage and women.
“By the time I was your age, I’d been married TWICE!” a horrible looking, overweight, crooked toothed figure tells her son.
How is this portraying marriage to our little ones? Dirty, Cheap? Meaningless? One by one, the princesses are brought in, “No!” the prince says and goes on to comment about how one princess is too fat, one has crooked teeth, one is black and her arms are too long….and the prince ends up marrying another prince. The book sends a message that replaces traditional marriage, it’s not just including, it’s tearing down and replacing.
“Who’s in a Family?” by Robert Skutch is another book used by Massachusetts schools to teach about the family. Not only does it deal with gay families, but it does NOT include traditional, nuclear families on it’s cover. A quick glance illustrates the main point of the book. There are no pictures of what most of us would consider a family. As I look at the arguments of the opposition I have to ask, why the exclusion if there is no anti-traditional agenda?
In the battle of ideas can two opposing views of society co-exist peacefully side by side? No. Not when the views of society are based on completely diametrically opposite moral views, because for some, and there are ALWAYS some…inclusion is not enough. By spreading their version of the core societal values, they reject and replace the time proven, traditional values that made our nation free.
Marriage is the basic element of society. Destroy it or change it, the end is the same. Marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined. Which version of society do you believe? Is marriage pre-defined? or open to definition? Is morality pre-defined, or open to definition? Which do you want? Both versions can’t live together. One version must dominate. This November, citizens of Maine are being asked to choose.
There are those who say it’s all the same, fire won’t rain from Heaven, the birds will still sing in the morning. No need to worry! Yet all we need to do is take a look at the fight in Canada or Massachusetts to peek into our future. The tables are turning in those societies.
We are at a crossroads, we are the frontlines in the culture war right now. If we allow the definition of natural marriage to fail, our kids and families will be affected for generations.
- Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, Yet Another Gay Activist On Tape—Homosexual “Sensitivity” Training Must Be Taught in Kindergarten
- The Mask is Off—Enlightening Conversation on the Gay Agenda in our Schools
- Stand for Marriage Maine—Safe Schools
- Voice of the Nation—Standing for Marriage in Maine
- Preserve Traditional Marriage for Benefit of Future Generations
- Marriage and Morality: It’s Not a Question of Inclusion
- Proponents of Gay Marriage Hide School Agenda From Voters in Maine