LET'S RESTRICT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FOR STRAIGHTS
by anonymous author
The debate du jour across the country is whether to legitimatize homosexual unions with the title of “marriage.” The primary argument against this move is that doing so dilutes the meaning of marriage and diminishes the family, which is one of the cornerstones of civilization. I happen to agree with this perspective. However, there are heterosexual couplings that also fit that template. Perhaps we should also restrict the definition of “marriage” for heterosexuals as well.
The most visible – and applauded – “marriage” illustrating this was the seven-hour liaison between Britney Spears and her fifteen-minutes-of-fame significant other. Legally, this was a marriage, but what went into it? About fifty bucks and a lot of alcohol. Even the most hardline conservative can’t say that this “marriage” did anything to enhance the strength of the family.
A second illustration is Britney’s current pairing. Minutes after the annulment of her first folly, dear Britney hooked up with a guy whose claim to fame is fathering two out-of-wedlock children with a shack-up honey. These children now look forward to the joyful experience of being knapsack kids, shuttling back and forth between households on a regular basis, hoping that bio-mom, bio-dad or stepmother Britney is willing to pull the plug temporarily on their all-important “career” and pay attention to them. Boy, this marriage really did a lot to promote family values, didn’t it?
The debate about marriage needs an injection of intellectual honesty. To be sure, homosexuality isn’t “normal” in either the psychological or biological sense, and attempting to normalize this behavior by calling sex between same-sex adults a “marriage” is disingenuous. However, calling what Britney Spears and her current appendage did a “marriage” is just as degrading to the institution, and the damage that has been done to the fragile fabric of the children’s world is real, current and immense.
In order to protect marriage, we need to define it as a sanctified union between grownups who have a clue what they’re doing and are willing to assume the responsibility for their choice. Anything less than this – whether it be a union of gays or straights – is a business deal.
About the Author
The author is a freelance writer and farmer with a lot of opinions. She lives in the stubbornly red state of Indiana. Get Free Content at ContentMart.com
|
JEFF SWENSON'S RESPONSE
I like to try to post opposing viewpoints to mine since if everyone agreed on this site it would be pretty damn boring. This woman author who didn't have the guts to sign her name to the article is obviously one of the "let's protect the definition of marriage" crowd who at least could see the hypocrisy among straights.
But her argument makes my point. If heterosexual behavior in marriage is no better or no worse than homosexual marriage then why are we concerned with the definition of marriage evolving to include gays? I say "evolve" because the definition of marriage has always evolved as far as gender roles are concerned; by adding homosexuals to the equation we are just adding another set of questions as to the roles in marriage, not destroying the definition of marriage itself. Gays shouldn't be kept from marrying, but how gay marriage should be defined--that certainly could be a public discussion.
I believe that's the conclusion this woman author should have come to instead of falling back on the tired-old conservative party line. I don't think homophobic conservatives are stupid. I think they see that many of their arguments about traditional gender roles within marriage fail when they see what straights are doing and what they themselves are doing (wives daring to have their own careers and take the womb away from God by using birth control? Shocking!). They are struggling more and more on how to justify banning gay marriage, because ultimately it comes down to few scriptures in the Bible and not a rational argument.
This author also doesn't give any real solutions for any definition of marriage. How are you going to protect marriage by defining it based on responsiblity? You can't make her suggestion into law; one that basically says that only qualified grown-ups may enter into a union. Who is going to set up the criteria? In America we have to allow the freedom for stupid, irresponsible people to couple--gay or straight. If there were laws against stupidity then most likely that would mean stupid people were in charge.
|
