Thursday, April 17, 2008

Marriage Question - Nowhere Near Settled

Our politicians may not have the guts to discuss it, but it doesn't mean that the debate over the definition of marriage is actually over. Two great articles on the issue were published today. One, exposing some of the lies told in Canada about the homosexual lifestyle, was published by Wally Moran on the No Apologies website. Another, titled The error that dare not speak its name was published by Michael Coren in the National Post.
The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.

As for polygamy, it's making something of a comeback - and here begin the objections.

Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam -- and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it.
That's exactly what the Social Conservatives were saying several years ago, when the definition marriage was debated in the Commons. Back then the response from the anti-family crowd was nothing but mockery.

Since then we had a court decision, according to which a child could have more than two "legal parents". Since then polygamous unions have become eligible for social assistance and there are calls to allow polygamous immigration as well. If love is the only criterion for marriage, as the socially perverse crowd has been telling us, then what legal grounds could there be to justify limiting marriage to just two persons?

Looking back at the marriage debate, it's easy to notice that we had little or no debate on the actual meaning and value of marriage. Instead of discussing whether or not a men-only couple (or a women-only couple) is actually capable of forming a relationship of the same unitive and procreative nature as traditional marriage, the debate question was whether or not we should "legalize something-something marriage".

The term "something-something marriage" implied that we were in fact talking about some sort of a marital relationship and the word "legalize" led many to believe that people may actually get in trouble with the law (or even go to jail) for nothing but living together. And with the media repeating the "something-something marriage" nonsense over and over (to the extent that even some Social Conservatives too started using that terminology) it was just a matter of time until most of the population was "ok" with the redefinition of marriage.

Polygamy supporters have a beaten track to follow; it's just a matter of time until they come up with their own "something-something marriage" term and until some subway preacher of a "m├ętro church of tolerance and inclusiveness" performs a mock ceremony which will be claimed as actual marriage that should be "legalized".

And they will eventually get what they want - unless there are enough people willing to dump the "something-something" prefix off the word marriage and bring the debate back to the actual question. Which is whether or not a relationship other than a unitive and procreative relationship between one man and one woman, that are over certain age and not related by blood is actually a marriage.

And the onus will be on the socially-perverse crowd to prove that it actually is.

No comments: