Jennifer Roback Morse of The Ruth Institute has put together a list of 77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage. While 77 reasons may be a bit of overkill on the subject of traditional marriage, these reasons do indicate that there is a good case to be made for keeping marriage traditional.
Dr. Morse has a host of articles on the Ruth Institute website which demonstrate the wisdom of traditional marriage. No other structure compares with traditional marriage for protecting and fostering human growth. As I have noted before, traditional marriage is nothing less than a reflection of the reality of human existence.
Some of Dr. Morse’s reasons are offered on the basis of biology, while others are given on the basis of sexuality and benefits to the children. A few of the more interesting arguments are given below:
2 “Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.”
17 “Same-sex marriage changes marriage from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution.”
29 “Same sex marriage makes an implicit statement that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrelevant to parenting. The burden of proof should be on those who make this strong, non-intuitive claim.”
30 “Even same sex couples believe sex is relevant: the sex of their partners. A gay man insists on a male sex partner. He is not satisfied with a female sex partner, no matter how masculine she may be. A lesbian insists on a female sex partner. Even a very feminine man will not do.”
And, finally, one which mirrors the argument I have made here before,
70 “Same sex marriage is a creation of the state. Man/woman marriage is an organic institution arising spontaneously from society.”
If that last one seems unimportant, read my post. It is the difference between freedom and tyranny. (Feel free to offer your own responses).
- Chicago’s Cardinal: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Like Repealing Law of Gravity (cnsnews.com)
- The Government has no mandate to redefine the meaning of marriage (telegraph.co.uk)
- Cardinal George Rallies the Faithful to Protect Marriage in Illinois (catholicvote.org)
This always baffles me. Do you, or the Ruth Institute, think that denying homosexuals the right to marry that they will, therefore, become heterosexual? Do you think that allowing homosexuals to marry will turn heterosexuals into homosexuals?
I’m curious, because otherwise the government allowing homosexuals to marry has ZERO IMPACT on anyone other than them.
Thanks for your reply. I must admit, I am a little baffled by your question. I don’t think the issue is about forcing a homosexual to be straight. Your question would be like my asking you, Do you think forcing heterosexuals to accept gay marriage is going to turn heterosexuals gay? I am sure you don’t think that and, honestly, it makes little sense for me to ask such a thing.
It seems to me the issue is whether the institution of marriage–long recognized by society after society as the building block of the family and, thus, the community–should be re-defined. What is the compelling reason to redefine the institution? If the institution should be redefined because it excludes some, then should it not also be redefined to make sure it doesn’t exclude others, such as daughters wanting to marry their brothers or their fathers? Or, what about bi-sexuals who want to marry two partners? What about men who wish to have a harem of wives? Why discriminate against them?
My contention is that the issue is being forced by political tyranny. You can read my entire explanation here:
“should be re-defined.”
Not re-defined. Mildly broadened in the context of its governmental definition.
” then should it not also be redefined to make sure it doesn’t exclude others”
If you can demonstrate that no harm is caused by those others, then sure.
“Why discriminate against them? ”
Provided everyone is an adult and operating of their own free will, I see no reason.
“My contention is that the issue is being forced by political tyranny.”
I see no force. Unless someone is making you marry a man, there is no force going on.
As I explained in the post I linked to in the last comment, the re-definition does hurt everyone. Your argument, of course, cuts both ways. No one is forced into heterosexual marriage either. So, why change?
I appreciate your willingness to admit that changing the definition for one group is only consistent if one is willing to change the definition for every group. The end result is to gut marriage of any particular meaning at all (and that again hurts everyone).
The Natural Family and 77 Non-religious Reasons:
“…One of the loudest advocates of same-sex marriage claims discrimination based on, so he says, 10,000 specific benefits that man-woman marriages get. Usually unspoken is the fact that those are *government-granted* “benefits. Why should *any* of us think government should give us permission to get married or to warp the land of marriage culture with it?….”
Homosexual practices carry their own punishments. But some people want to use the issue to take state control over the children. Malthus never even foresaw this angle for getting the population to even *demand!* to cut off its own progeny. The Malthusians (motto: “Don’t help the poor, let them die!”) have new tactics: Trick the poor into demanding its own sterility, demanding collective ownership of their property, their children, their lives.