SCOTUS has refused to rule on California’s Proposition 8, so the lower courts’ ruling that banned gay marriage has been struck down. Never you mind that the citizenry of California underwent long and expensive constitutional processes to overrule a handful of activist judges who, in a gross abuse of power, chose to legislate from the bench and summarily grant gay marriage in the first place. In the wake of this tyranny, many have posited that “the definition of marriage has changed several times throughout history.” Contrarian contributors on this blog have asserted that marriage once meant men “selling their daughters,” “owning women,” or “marrying several women.” While that may be true in some more primitive cultures, it has never been the accepted practice in this country.
Have a look-see at this Timeline of Civil Marriage in the history of America. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
While you will find decisions allowing wives to own property, use contraceptives, be granted citizenship rights, etc, there are no significant changes to the definition of marriage prior to the introduction of same-sex marriage. Because of our country’s Judeo-Christian foundation, the understanding of marriage throughout our history has been one man and one woman.
Along the timeline you do see a series of decisions that fully outlaw polygamy, which was practiced primarily by Mormon groups. In 1856 the Republicans weren’t mincing words when they determined polygamy to be one of the “twin relics of barbarism” alongside slavery. An aside, I know your world view might crumble, but if you are beginning to question my credentials as a Bigot, you might possibly be wrong about Republicans as well. I digress.
If you did what you were told and looked at the link (go ahead, I’ll wait again) you see the lifting of the ban on interracial marriage in 1967. This is the L A Z Y apples to oranges example most often cited in support for gay marriage. But, as explained in my post about discrimination, Loving v. Virginia did not change any of the fundamental principles of marriage: one man, one woman, exclusivity, not too young, not too closely related, life-long commitment, and everyone involved had to be human. Everyone knew that marriage was about children (produced by a man and a woman). And in the case of “whites and coloreds,” miscegenation laws were there to prevent them.
The prohibition on interracial marriage helps us to see the real issue very clearly. What is marriage? Most will agree that historically marriage involves three elements which set it apart from other human relationships: (1) a comprehensive union; (2) a unique link to children; (3) norms of permanence and exclusivity. Before you exhaust yourself by kicking long-dead horses please avail yourself to a summary of Robert George’s unemotional paper “What is Marriage” for a comprehensive explanation of the above three criteria. In summary, gender is relevant to marriage because sex is relevant to the marriage. Race is not a factor in natural marriage. Two people of different races can and do procreate.
Natural marriage is an institution so fundamental to the human experience that, seeing the obvious benefits that marriage brings to children and society, every major religion has endorsed it. Same sex marriage is not just one evolutionary link in the marriage chain, as some have espoused. It is a complete departure from the basic premise of what the institution of marriage has meant since the inception of our great nation.
But, no worries. I’m sure our pop culture knows what it’s doing.
Also see, “The Future of No-Longer-Marriage“
30 thoughts on “The “Ever (NEVER) Changing” Definition of Marriage”
Oh, we’ll if every major religion has endorsed it, it must be a good thing (biggest eye roll ever). You’ll see, Askme, everything will be ok when same sex marriage is the norm. What literature do you have from other countries where it has been legal showing that children’s welfare there went in the trash? So are you for just calling these things same sex unions or domestic partnerships? Will that make you happy if it’s not called marriage? That doesn’t stop the raising of children by gay couples which is what you seem to be all about. Maybe getting a dog would help you see the light 🐶
Sarah, the five major religions of the world disagree about the nature of God, the nature of man, the problem with this world, what the afterlife is, and how to get there, among other items. And yet they all have something that resembles natural marriage. Is it because they are all operating out of phobia or animus? Or is it because there is something foundational to the human experience that despite these significant differences in worldview, the major religions recognize heterosexual marriage as the natural family unit?
I agree that the US should permit consensual adult relationships. But I reject that we should enshrine into law a family structure that necessitates loss for children.
I will “be happy” when our national narrative stops minimizing the importance of fathers and mothers, monogamy, and permanence of the marriage relationship, and acknowledges that children’s rights and well being trump adult emotional fulfullment.
And while my children think that getting a Sheba Inu will solve all our problems, I have told them that if I have to focus on keeping a dog alive (because they are not self-managers like cats) then I will have less energy to keep my children alive. And that just doesn’t seem moral to me. 🙂
You know Askme, you are awfully funny for a Bigot. .
I’m at my best when I have a little polishing from a certain spit-fire, red-headed Aaron-type editor.
You talk about other countries who have gone before. Here’s a snapshot of how marriage overall has been effected among eastern European countries from a Brit’s perspective:
Look at what has happened in those countries that have already made same-sex marriage legal. In not one case has there been any indication of a wider revival in marriage. Indeed, in most countries its decline has merely accelerated.
In Scandinavia, where hostility to the two-parent family is central to the ruling political orthodoxy, the widening of the legal definition of marriage has done nothing to stop the institution decaying.
The same applies in Spain, where the Catholic Church still retains significant social influence and state policy has not been so antagonistic to traditional family life. Gay marriage was first sanctioned in 2005, and since then the decline in heterosexual marriage rates has been precipitous.
Likewise in Holland, where the traditional Protestant culture has fought against the increasingly predominant tolerant anarchy so beloved of liberal campaigners.
Since the Dutch legalised same-sex marriage in 2001, the concept of long-term commitment among heterosexuals has been evaporating — not least because of the parallel introduction of ‘registered partnership’ or ‘cohabitation agreements’ for heterosexuals.
Forty per cent of first babies are now born to unmarried mothers in Holland, a doubling of the rate since 2000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2329294/The-evidence-blows-apart-Mr-Camerons-claim-gay-marriage-strengthen-families.html#ixzz2Y36bSQ00
Less marriage= higher out-of-wedlock births, more cohabitation and single parenting, more poverty and elevated risk factors for kids in terms of physical, emotional, and mental health.
Not just every religion, but the vast majority of societies have endorsed marriage. As far as literature goes, same sex marriage has not been a “norm”, as you call it, long enough for large scale studies conducted over time to provide results. Most studies conducted, at least that I’m aware of, are very small samples covering shorter time periods.
It’s not about Askme, or anybody’s, “happiness” with a term. Nobody is trying to make someone else “unhappy”…..it’s about what she honestly believes is best for society. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t make it a good thing.
Tisha, can we be best friends?
Shoot, yeah, Askme. We can be best friends anytime! 😉
From your post above, Askme: “Same sex marriage is not just one evolutionary link in the marriage chain, as some have espoused.” True, but let’s play the devil’s advocate. Suppose for a moment SSM is just a leap forward in social evolution. If that is the argument, then NO union of any kind can be denied legal sanction. After all, if we define terms along an evolutionary trajectory, then the next big leap in social evolution is polygamy, then incest, then pedophilia, then bestiality, then who knows what. I think you’ve already read it, but this was my point here http://davidspaugh.com/2013/03/25/sodom-redivivus-ii-or-what-will-you-do-if-jerry-sandusky-wants-to-marry-your-12-year-old-son/. As I argue in that blog post, people around the world are already arguing for polygamy, incest, etc., on the grounds that, if SSM is OK, why should I not be allowed to marry whom I wish?
I know you get this, and I think everyone else does, too. But it’s easier to call someone a bigot, and cavalierly reject your/my arguments with sarcastic and worn out talking points than to actually admit the logic of the case.
Keep fighting the good fight, sister. May the Lord bless you.
The argument is the equivalent of someone in 1920 saying: “We can’t give women the right to vote because that trajectory could lead to monkeys voting too.”
All kinds of potential marriage unions can — and absolutely should — be denied legal sanction. But whatever set of rules government applies to marriage, our constitution (and basic morality) say that they must be applied equally without regard to an individual’s race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
That’s all that’s being asked for: basic equality for every consenting adult. (Human adult).
But you oppose polygamy?
So, a brother and sister should be allowed to marry? Assuming of course, that they agree to use contraception and build their family through adoption? You are okay with your spouse deciding s/he would like to add another partner to the relationship? If you disagree, is that denying your spouse their “equal rights”, given that they are a consenting adult?
The problem with your argument regarding monkey’s voting is (among others) monkey’s aren’t demanding the right to vote. Polygamists, and those practicing bestiality and incest ARE demanding the right to marry, using the same arguments homosexuals use. Read my blog post above and tell those discussed they have no right to marry, and listen to their responses. No doubt, they’d sound very familiar.
On the other hand, with the downplaying of human specialness, and leftist environmentalists saying trees and animals have “rights,” referring to elephants killing rhinos as “murder” (adding a moral element to the action), claims that whales are just as intelligent as humans, etc., I can see how some loon would demand animals having a right to vote. All we’d have to do is what has happened in the SSM debate: change the definition of vote, then allow someone else to cast it on the animal’s behalf by a Sierra Club or PETA member who “knows” what is in the best interest of the animal, and voila! Animals can vote. Change the definition or criteria regarding anything, and we can do anything we want.
Furthermore your quote: “That’s all that’s being asked for: basic equality for every consenting adult. (Human adult).”
Homosexuals are not denied anything anyone else isn’t denied, and have the same rights I do. I married someone of the opposite sex, and so can anyone else. I was denied marrying someone else of the same sex (not that I wanted to) just like everyone else. Where’s the inequality? Furthermore, your quote validates polygamy and incest. And I can assure you (my essay again above) there are those asking “Why should this be limited to those consenting? To adults? To humans?”
Thanks for your comments here, David. In fact, polygamy (while not necessarily endorsed) has been practiced in some of the major world religions at times in history (and sometimes in the present). In fact, if you look at the three criteria for marriage, polygamy fits that definition much better than same-sex marriage (except maybe the stipulation about exclusivity). But they share in the “unique link to children” and arguably the “comprehensive union” more than same-sex couples. Now that we have stepped away from the biological standard (1 man + 1 woman = child) for restricting marriage, there is no legal or rational reason for excluding other consensual adult relationships- except if we are going to “impose our morality” on polygamists. Which of course is what gay marriage objectors have been decrying throughout this debate.
Askme: In regards to “imposing our morality:” Exactly. Those advocating SSM must say “Christians have no right imposing their moral views on others.” Then turn around and argue that polygamists, and those practicing bestiality (“zoophiles”), and incest should be denied the “right” to marry. Who’s imposing morality now? From another angle, why should marriage be limited to “consenting, human, adults?” Who says they should be consenting, human, or adult? All three of those provisos assume a moral compass, which if demanded, are in imposition of one’s moral standards over another.
On the other hand, we can merely change the definition of marriage to included non-consenting, non-adults, and non-humans, and we’ve fixed the problem. If we can change the definition to accommodate homosexuals, then why not for others?
So, arguments for SSM must stand on the assumption that homosexuality is a normal sexual preference, no different than heterosexual preference. But that is just the issue. If homosexual behavior is wrong, and if homosexual desires are themselves an aberration, then there is no reason the state should support or sanction them. And If homosexuals claim they are moral and polygamists and zoophiles are not, they must answer how it is they have the right to impose that moral judgment, and figure out why we shouldn’t change the definition of marriage to accommodate them.
I’m reminded of a quote I read years ago. “All law is the imposition of someone’s morality over others. The question isn’t ‘should we impose our morality,’ but ‘whose morality will we impose.’ ” I would further add, we’d better make sure the morality we impose is from a fixed standard, not just fiat or subjective preference. If not, chaos will surely ensue.
David, thank for your comments and arguments here.
David, thank you for sharing your link here and for your comments. Excellent points in your post. A recommended read for all who doubt the “slippery slope” that we are daily moving toward.
You wrote: “The problem with your argument regarding monkey’s voting is (among others) monkey’s aren’t demanding the right to vote. ”
So if they were, would you have then opposed the 19th amendment for that reason? Or would you have said “I support women voting because that’s the right thing to do and I’ll just deal with the monkey thing when it comes up.”
Seems to me that gay marriage is either right or wrong. It can be debated and decided on its own merits. If some one wants to use the legality or illegality (it cuts both ways) of gay marriage to make an argument on another topic then that’s their right. That topic can then be decided on its own merits too.
“Homosexuals are not denied anything anyone else isn’t denied, and have the same rights I do. I married someone of the opposite sex, and so can anyone else. ”
If you know a gay family, or even send some time trying to look at it from the point of view of a gay person, I think it is clear what they are being denied. In any case, I addressed this in another comment on this blog:
“There are those asking ‘Why should this be limited to those consenting? To adults? To humans?'”
Let them ask. Those aren’t questions to be afraid of because you can (easily!) argue for gay marriage equality and still have constitutionally-sound and logically-consistant arguments against polygamy, incest, et al.
The issue is not, as you write, that “homosexuals claim they are moral and polygamists and zoophiles are not.” Lots of things that are immoral in the views of a few/some/most citizens and yet are legal. Is homosexuality immoral? Is polygamy? Is being a Yankees fan? We can each decide those questions for ourselves. The very last thing we want is government to be the arbiter of what’s moral and not.
The issue is discrimination. That we are all equal under the law is a basic tenant of our country (and, I would argue, of Christianity too) and whatever rules we have must apply equally to all regardless of their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
“Gender is relevant to marriage because sex is relevant to the marriage. . . . Two people of different races can and do procreate.”
Fair enough. If you want to make the ability to procreate a prerequisite for marriage that’s totally valid. But look at Wikipedia’s marriage timeline you linked to again. In no other case was that standard applied. We’ve never denied people over, say, 60 the right to marry each other even though they can’t procreate. We’ve never required both people in a marriage to be fertile. The only consenting adults in this country the procreation standard has ever — EVER — been applied to have been gay. How is that not discriminatory?
(PLEASE NOTE: “The Procreation Standard” could be the title of the worst spy movie ever.)
First, Keefe, please PLEASE write a screenplay for “The Procreation Standard.” I’m sensing an instant blockbuster.
I’m going to let Robert George of “What is Marriage” to respond to your comments. (Have you read the summary? Much more comprehensive than I have been able to capture here):
“What about same-sex couples who are raising children together? Does this justify opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? No. A commitment to raise children together, by itself, does not make a relationship of the marital kind. Two brothers who commit to raising their deceased sister’s child together do not thereby acquire a marital relationship.
What about childless opposite-sex couples? Is their relationship a marital relationship? Yes. Our social and legal traditions have always recognized a couple as married prior to the birth of their first child. A childless couple is still married in virtue of their comprehensive union and mutual commitment to permanence and exclusivity. The kind of relationship and union they enjoy is naturally oriented toward procreation, and thus is a genuine marriage even if they cannot, or choose not to have children. This is analogous to a sports team. The structure of the team is such that it is naturally oriented toward winning, and yet it may fail to win any games. While the team would fail to reach its telos, it does not cease to be a team.”
“The kind of relationship and union [a heterosexual couple] enjoy[s] is naturally oriented toward procreation, and thus is a genuine marriage even if they cannot, or choose not to have children. ”
OK, you are going to have to explain that one to me.
If a couple knows they can not have children, or consciously chooses not to, then by definition their marriage is NOT naturally oriented toward procreation. The accurate analogy is more of a group of athletes that never intend to take the field, with the gender of the athletes determining whether you consider them a sports team or not.
A pair of red carpet passes to the premier of The Procreation Standard will be coming your way.
Keefe: you said “So if they were, would you have then opposed the 19th amendment for that reason? Or would you have said “I support women voting because that’s the right thing to do and I’ll just deal with the monkey thing when it comes up.” ”
It seems to me your concern with monkeys as an analogy shows you are straining to find and argument to justify your position. There is an essential difference between monkeys and women, and the fact is monkeys can’t, won’t, shouldn’t and don’t vote because it is not in their nature to do so, and never will be. The fact is, polygamists, zoophiles, those practicing incest and pedophilia ARE beginning to demand the right to MARRY, using the same arguments homosexuals use. How do you forbid them, when all they have to do is argue “it’s a fundamental question of fairness/justice/etc.” Where do you get your moral compass to forbid them the same right homosexuals want?
You say “I submit that fundamental to the right to marriage (in this country) is the right to marry a consenting adult of your choice. A law that denies a class of people that choice on the grounds of gender is discrimination, and blatantly so.”
Jonathan Turley would say the same thing about polygamy, and does so here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?_r=1&
Malcolm Brenner from the following article would say the same thing about bestiality here. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/
David Epstein and his attorney (and the Swiss government) would say the same thing about incest. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339108/David-Epstein-Homosexuals-want-INCEST-different.html.
Give these people one argument that they could not turn around to use against you, when you say (assuming you do say) they should be denied the right to marry.
You ask in one of your posts “But . . . What is marriage TODAY?” OK, I ask, “What will marriage be TOMORROW? That’s what Jonathan Turley, Malcolm Brenner, and David Epstein are asking.
Regarding my position that homosexuals are not being denied anything I’m not (i.e. we can marry whom we want as long as the person is of the opposite sex can’t marry someone of the same sex): “If you know a gay family, or even send some time trying to look at it from the point of view of a gay person, I think it is clear what they are being denied.”
First, you assume I don’t know any homosexuals, which is a big mistake. Secondly, again, this argument could be used against you by a zoophile demanding their “right” to marry: “If you know a zoophile family, or even send some time trying to look at it from the point of view of a zoophile person, I think it is clear what they are being denied.”
The question is “is homosexuality right or wrong, good or evil?” If it is sin/wrong/evil, then clearly it cannot be justified. If we say “morals change, and we should judge on what marriage means today” based on a shifting, relative, amorphous view of law where right and wrong is what we say it is, then logically we can’t deny “marriage” to anyone. We can only do so by fiat.
Reblogged this on God Over Night… and commented:
I do oppose polygamy. That’s logically consistent with support of gay marriage rights because a rule against polygamy is not discriminatory — it applies equally to every individual, as explained on another of your posts:
That said, if, theoretically, polygamy were allowed between one man and two women, and the supreme court issued a ruling saying that it had to be allowed between any three people regardless of gender, I would support that ruling. I would still oppose polygamy as a whole. I would still not choose to be in a polygamous marriage myself. But I would support the non-discriminatory nature of the ruling.
(Did it just get weird in here?)
Forgive if I am saying something that has been said and someone here deserves credit for having said it (I confess to a bit of skimming), but much of the discourse on this topic depends on the assumption that marriage is a creation of the state, and that assumption is false. Marriage, as it seems to my memory some old common law case once said, is the parent, not the child, of civil society. The state’s statutory definitions and laws concerning marriage have been designed to manage a natural state of human relations that has existed, as the essay above discusses, for a very long time. It isn’t marriage because the law defines it a certain way so much as the law defines it a certain way in order to manage what already exists legally with precision, and those laws have been designed precisely for the union of one man and one woman that normally and naturally produces children.
Law also has to account for its own economy. It would be absurd for the law to require heterosexual couples to prove their fertility or to affirm their intention to procreate before permitting them to fall within the statutory boundaries of marriage–that is, to issue marriage licenses, to confer the legal status, and to grant and impose all of the benefits and duties the state associates with marriage. Such a regime would be ridiculously unwieldy and would also inevitably involve some considerable and unwarranted invasion into private lives (medical status, family planning, and so on), and to what end? Most marriages produce children: why should the state overextend itself for the few that, for whatever reason, do not? Most people don’t drive drunk. Some do, and sometimes to horrible consequences: should every car be equipped with a device to measure blood-alcohol-content before the car will start?
Lasseter, welcome to asktheBigot. Thank you for stating in a fresh way, the argument for this pre-government institution. I hope you join in the conversation of future threads as well. Never a dull moment on this blog. 😉
“. . . much of the discourse on this topic depends on the assumption that marriage is a creation of the state, and that assumption is false. ”
Agreed! Which is why I think government should get out and marriage should be purely a church-run institution.
” It would be absurd for the law to require heterosexual couples to prove their fertility or to affirm their intention to procreate before permitting them to fall within the statutory boundaries of marriage . . . Such a regime would be ridiculously unwieldy and would also inevitably involve some considerable and unwarranted invasion into private lives.”
But that isn’t true. You could easily and unwiedily (<—- cool new made-up word) put an upper age limit on people applying for marriage licenses. You could require newlyweds-to-be to sign a simple legal affidavit stating that they intend to, and to their knowledge are medically able to, procreate. Further, when I got married the government required me to undergo a blood test, so that level of intrusion is already accepted.
To be clear, I absolutely oppose such policies. But that's because I think everyone should have the right to marry the non-related, consenting adult of their choice. Those who think marriage should only be exclusively about procreation, should, logically, support some sort of procreation standard. But they don't. They apply their stated belief unequally such that it affects every gay person and no heterosexual one.
"Most marriages produce children"
I'm not sure this is true either. I couldn't find an official stat in a quick Google search (maybe you can or have). I did find a Mayo Clinic study that found 10 to 15% of couples are infertile. Plus, lots of people get married two (and 3 and 4 . . .) times and only have kids in one of those marriages. Add it all up and my educated guess (and it is only that) is that around 55% of marriages produce children.
"Most people don’t drive drunk. Some do, and sometimes to horrible consequences: should every car be equipped with a device to measure blood-alcohol-content before the car will start?"
In my option: NO! But such a policy wouldn't be discriminatory. It would be discriminatory to say that every car owned by a male should have a breathalyzer installed.
Any time I hear this, I wonder, what do we propose to do with the thousands times thousands of laws that are specifically about marriage? Shall our society, in the interests of “getting out of marriage” then get into the enormous labor of rewriting massive volumes of law in countless jurisdictions in order to assure the protections (such as of the welfare of children or abused spouses or surviving spouses of decedents and the list goes on) do not disappear? Or do the “get out of the marriage business” commentators also propose that government get out of the protect children born to natural parents business as well? The surviving spouses business, and so on. The state has an interest in marriage.
By the way, in your comment you said something about people who believe that marriage should be exclusively about procreation. I certainly don’t believe that, and, frankly, I don’t know any normal human being who does. Even those who believe that procreation is the principal end of marriage tend to believe that there are a host of other goods that are definitional to marriage.
But let’s just think about these proposals (related to the assumed primacy of procreation) of setting an upper age limit to marriage or of requiring couples to sign an “affidavit” affirming or swearing to the intention to have children in order to get marriage licenses. Simple solution? Does the age limit apply only to women (since it is women go through menopause)? Who sets it? What if a couple beyond the age limit intends to adopt? Would your affidavits then solve the problem? What then would be the penalty for failing to make good on this promise to the government to conceive (or to adopt) children? A fine? A forced annulment? How long should the state give a couple before it says, “Well, you got no children yet, and therefore you are in violation of law! Procreate or suffer the consequences!”
And allow me a few remarks from my experience as a domestic relations litigator (although I surely don’t expect anyone to take my word on this, and I understand that arguments “from authority” can be questionable). People defy court orders. And what is the state supposed to do about it in domestic relations? I see parents do what they will, contrary to court order, with their children and with respect to their spouses and former spouses all the time, even in flagrant defiance of contempt citations, and, unless there is outright abuse involved, our domestic relations courts are often impotent in the face of defiant litigants. When courts do act to punish or impose consequences, things get very complicated, and greater misery ensues. People don’t like being told what to do with their children or any aspect of their private lives–as in, sign this document, have children shortly after you are married, or suffer some penalty that will probably be impossible for the court to enforce or egregious in its implementation and intrusion into your life.
Oh, but as much as we hate it when the government tells us our business, do we not love to tell the government the business it owes to us? As in, I love this person, and i love to have sex with him, and therefore I am entitled to death benefits.
And on the subject of the blood test some states require for a marriage license: that is a public health issue. The state surely has an interest in the prevention of the transmission of loathsome diseases. There’s probably a pretty good argument to be made against that, mind you, and I don’t have much concern about that one, but it’s not the same as requiring someone to prove fertility. You have an infectious disease or you don’t. As for fertility: what sperm count will the government deem too low, for instance.
Yeah, requiring couples to be fertile or to promise under pain of civil or criminal punishment to have children would not be simple.
The definition of marriage has not changed in the 10,000+ years of human history (something tells me that cavemen reproduced in the old fashion as well); it’s only been in the 21st century that a few countries have taken that stance. Some people talk about a “Judeo-Christian hijacking” of the definition of marriage, which is completely false, as heterosexual marriage predates by a long stretch Judaism and Christianity. Furthermore, even societies who turned a blind eye towards homosexual behavior, or wholeheartedly endorsed it, never dared move the boundary of marriage from the union of a man and a woman (Greece and Rome are prime examples and they were not Judeo-Christian civilizations, quite the contrary); what is happening right now is that there is an activist bench, fueled on one hand by pressure groups and activists, and on the other by a “one-trick pony” sympathetic media that has bombarded the undecided with their perception of the best course of action to follow and voila! The fact that the media and SCOTUS endorses it does not make it normal. To use euclidean language, the self-evident truth is that humans are born male and female, much like any other animal, and that the simplest purpose of these sexual parts is reproduction. A few animal groups use monogamy as well, but there are no same-sex couples there. The State and the Supreme Court should have stayed away from this.
“even societies who turned a blind eye towards homosexual behavior, or wholeheartedly endorsed it, never dared move the boundary of marriage from the union of a man and a woman (Greece and Rome are prime examples and they were not Judeo-Christian civilizations, quite the contrary)”
Same-sex attracted individuals have likely been a part of every culture since time began, but you are right about those same cultures holding to a heterosexual view of marriage. Your comments prompted me to reblog this post from stasisonline.
(Well, I think I reblogged it. Though I’m not seeing it… I’ll have to check into that.)
Comments are closed.