Marriage and Morality: It’s Not a Question of Inclusion

In the battle between tradition

"Here I a fiddler on the roof..."

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.

Where is the Traditional Family?

Where is the Traditional Family?

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.

—Beetle Blogger

Related Posts:

Bookmark and Share



  1. September 28, 2009 at 11:21 am

    You write, “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.” Of course, some would argue, albeit erroneously, that this is not about one side gaining ground, but rather about all sides sharing equal ground. This, however, would be an uninformed, illogical, and naive response. You go one to observe, “In looking over the globe, the obvious evidence is that there are no cultures who have successfully incorporated multiple sets of moral ideals…” The reason for this, and the reason why it is not possible to share moral ground equally, is that issues of morality are rooted in truth, and contra radical relativism and per Aristotle, there cannot be both “A” and “not A.”

    Excellent post!

  2. beetlebabee said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    As some might say: No man can serve two masters.

  3. Robert Mann said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Denigrating one ideal to push another is common practice in the culture war. Keep your eyes open for it and it’s amazing how many times you’ll see one disparaged right before a new bright shiny morality is introduced.

    Tolerance opposes same-sex marriage. The law categorizes and treats relationships in three ways: some are barred and prohibited; others are tolerated and permitted; and some others are preferred and privileged. Historically, same-sex relationships were prohibited, but in recent decades they have become tolerated and permitted in the United States and many other countries. But tolerance is quite different from preference. Conjugal marriage always has been the most preferred and privileged social relationship because it is the foundation of society. The claim for same-sex “marriage” abandons tolerance and seeks special preference; it actually removes the preferential treatment of conjugal marriage, rather than elevating same-sex couples. Where same-sex marriage is legalized, tolerance is restricted. Freedom of religion is undermined, and freedom of speech is curtailed. Children in public schools are taught not true tolerance but the moral relativism of equivalency, i.e. that different forms of human sexuality are no more than matters of personal preference. Disagreement with this “principle” is not tolerated.

  4. Choice & Accountability said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    BB, the reason the two cannot co-exist peacefully is because one lifestyle is founded upon tyranny, and the other upon liberty. Traditional marriage, time-honored, and faithfully kept, provides true liberty–the only situation in which both genders are honored, nurtured, flourish, and can pass those life-giving qualities onto the next generation, unencumbered by falsehood.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    September 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Good point C. A., I agree completely. It’s good to realize the freedom aspect of the marriage fight. It’s one of the things that the ssm proponents continually overlook, but it is at the heart of what is at stake here.

  6. Brian said,

    September 30, 2009 at 10:13 am

    “Traditional” marriage used to be a sign of passing ownership of a daughter form the father to the husband

  7. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Brian, different cultures have different values. I’m not sure that your comment has much bearing on marriage as it’s been known world wide from the dawn of time. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

  8. ivee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    The only reason anyone would think they couldn’t exist at the same time would be if they thought that gay marriages were just so appealing that they would run out and get one if they could. And that would mean they were gay, and a straight marriage involving a gay person isn’t fun for anyone.

  9. Ross said,

    September 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm


    Voting has always been for men only……..up until the 20th century.
    Marriage has always been between a man and woman…up until the 20th century where that is no longer the case in many states/countries.

    Things change over time and evolve.

    I dont see people throwing their hands up over the “neutering” of voting

  10. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    ivee, I’m not sure what you’re saying here, can you explain? How does the thought that in your opinion homosexual unions are appealing, play into the discussion here?

  11. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Change isn’t good unless the ideas behind it are good. Change simply for the sake of change is just a form of chaos. What we’re discussing here are the ideas behind the desire to redefine marriage.

  12. ivee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    I mean you’re pretending gay marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage. But the only way that would happen would be if people who were in traditional marriages all went out and got gay married instead, and they wouldn’t do that if they were straight, so you’re saying that right now there are a lot of gay people married to opposite sex people and that also means a lot of unhappy straight people married to people who don’t love them.

  13. Ross said,

    September 30, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Hmmm..So basically youre ok with the neutering of voting?

  14. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    nice try Ross.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    “I mean you’re pretending gay marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage.”

    ivee, I’m not pretending anything of the kind. Marriage means something. If you’re going to redefine it, that changes what it is. Marriage is between a man and a woman for many good reasons, none of which can be adequately addressed by any other human relationship.

  16. Ross said,

    October 1, 2009 at 4:32 am

    I just think its important to use the same words that anti-SSMers use. Anti-SSMers like to throw around nice little loaded words such as “neutering” because of the derogatory association.

    It’s merely important to note that other government controlled practices (such as voting) have been “neutered” in the past as well….and the sky didnt fall as a result

  17. beetlebabee said,

    October 1, 2009 at 7:29 am

    The word “neutering” means something. It applies to one argument but not the other, because de-genderizing marriage is well…..neutering it. There’s just no other way to say it. It’s not a metaphor.

  18. Ross said,

    October 1, 2009 at 8:36 am

    There’s no way around it, for sure. But we all know that the word “neutering” has much more derogatory tones under it than something as simple as “de-genderizing” or “removing the gender of” or “removing the gender prereqs of”….you see my point though? The same people who kick and scream because they are called “bigots” are the same people who throw around words like “neutering”. It is a terrible double standard but I guess thats just the way BOTH sides of the fight work.

    And yes Voting was de-genderized aka “neutered” because the original definition of voting included just men. Voting was neutered just the way marriage is.

  19. Nancy Ryan said,

    October 1, 2009 at 11:31 am

    Sorry Ross. I just don’t follow your analogy there. Neutering marriage is very clear, that is exactly what is happening. Dress it up any way you want, it doesn’t change the fact that marriage is about sex and procreation. If you want to neuter marriage, go ahead, but call it what it is.

  20. pinkjammies said,

    October 1, 2009 at 11:34 am

    Great article! I have noticed in several threads now that there is a propensity to drag down marriage as it is and always has been in order to prop up the logic for gay marriage. It’s kind of twisted that way.

    Good post!

  21. human about said,

    October 5, 2009 at 2:17 am

    good post. however good morality, behaviour and attitude make this world a better place to live in. i add u in my link list, would u add me in your link list too. thanx.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: