The Tradition of Marriage
The tradition of marriage has come under attack in recent years. Homosexuals have begun a campaign to destroy the sanctity of marriage by redefining what the tradition of marriage is.
It is not as if the tradition of marriage has ever been anything but between one man and one woman. Marriage is a grand narrative, a story of a man and a woman coming together to form a perfect holy union. The tradition of marriage has been present throughout all of human history and has always matched our current conception of it. This is self-evident to anyone who understands the nature of marriage. Unfortunately, while most need no other source of information than their own moral compass, others have been lead astray by sophisticated arguments.
The Truth About Marriage
Homosexual revisionist historians have tried to distort the correct view of history by proposing that other cultures, including those of the Israelites and early Christians, had traditions of marriage which differed from our current tradition of marriage. For example, they typically begin by citing the early Christian ceremony of adelphopoiia, arguably the first same-sex union, as an alternative tradition of marriage. Then, the medieval traditions of Muntehe and Friedelehe are used as further evidence of the variability of the tradition of marriage. Muntehe was a formal transfer of property (property meaning the bride) and Friedelehe was essentially a temporary marriage – the bride was loaned to the groom. By providing these examples, homosexuals hope to prove that the tradition of marriage has evolved and redefined itself over the last five thousand years.
This assault on the truth is nothing more than linguistic gymnastics. The “tradition of marriage” signifies an extra-historical and universal phenomenon that is not constructed by social, economic, or political circumstances. The tradition of marriage of King Solomon’s time is not, in fact, the tradition of marriage. The tradition of marriage refers to our modern Christian understanding of this institution, which is only between one man and one woman. Therefore, taking the example of the polygamy of King Solomon, this is not a tradition of marriage by definition, because marriage is only between one man and one woman. Just as we would not refer to a Chimpanzee smoking cigarettes as a caring and protective attitude, we should not refer to marriage as something which it is not. Marriage is a noun and thus signifies something specific. The signification of marriage, “between one man and one woman,” is forever united to the noun “marriage.” The meaning of marriage and the noun “marriage” cannot be untangled without destroying both. Unlike a pronoun, the meaning of marriage does not change merely because of context. If an institution exists that creates a union between people, and this union is not between one man and one woman, then this is not marriage, because marriage is between one man and one woman. This is clear and simple logic that anyone can understand. Even those dolts from the Palo Alto School can comprehend this.
As has been shown, the “alternate” traditions of marriage that social progressives claim exist are not marriage, but completely different social institutions. Although other cultures may mistakenly call these institutions “marriage,” this clearly isn’t the correct name. The phrase “Same-sex marriage” is an inherent contradiction because of reasons explained above. It would be like saying “un-American Republican” or some similar absurdity. If these so-called scholars were truly motivated by a search for the truth and not a political agenda, then would they engage in deceptive semantic distortions? The answer is clear: No, they would not.
There is a good reason why the tradition of marriage is forever defined as only between one man and one woman. As Dr. James Dobson says, “Gender distinctions are not merely a social construct; men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually.” The profound harmony that explodes into existence during an interaction between a man and a woman is self-evident proof that the sexes’ raison d’être is to complement each other. This ecstatic tranquility is only comparable to the natural peacefulness of the interaction of a pack of large, hungry lionesses and a bloodied, limping antelope. It is impossible to imagine the two sexes being in any less conflict. Their harmony is indisputable proof that marriage is between only one man and one woman. Thus, we can see that the definition of marriage is clearly inherent in nature itself.
Furthermore, homosexuals cannot possibly form complementary communions and monogamous relationships. Does anyone really believe that homosexuals want to form enduring relationships that are a source of personal fulfillment and happiness? It is doubtful, but even if they did, this is no reason for redefining marriage. Procreative ability is the soggy soil upon which marriage is grown. No other factors should be considered except this; especially not factors like emotional interdependence, coresidence, personal commitment, economic codependence, etc. These factors are all completely irrelevant to marriage. Nobody should be encouraging homosexuals to form healthy, monogamous relationships – especially not the government. The government has no interest in the public good; its job is to dictate the truth in the form of laws. Even if, by some bizarre happenstance, the government did have an interest in the well-being of its citizens, this would not be an argument in favor of same-sex marriages.
It is well known that homosexual intercourse is very different than heterosexual intercourse. Firstly, unlike heterosexuals, they engage in intercourse merely to satiate their enormous sexual appetite. A heterosexual would never have sex with someone they did not love. Secondly, male homosexuals often have anal intercourse, which is something that no heterosexual male has done, ever.
In their efforts to push the heavy stone of the Gay Agenda up a mountain so that it will have enough momentum to destroy the entire institution of marriage on its way back down, homosexuals have made the exceptionally ludicrous claim that, “Civil marriage is wholly a creature of the state…” (Koppelman) Obviously, these social progressives are just erecting malicious arguments with no foundation. The Bible recognizes the tradition of marriage as only between only one man and one woman. If God didn’t think this, then he would be wrong, but God is infallible, so he cannot be wrong, and therefore God must think marriage is only between one man and one woman, because marriage is only between one man and one woman. This confirms the widespread belief that marriage is wholly a Christian institution.
We thus have a perfect rebuttal against pesky progressives that argue, “…the state’s recognition of same-sex civil marriages has no bearing on the freedom of officials in churches, mosques, and synagogues to continue to sanction religious marriages as they see fit,” (Denike) as if some sort of wall of separation between church and state existed. The state is nothing more than the natural extension of the church; and the church is nothing more than the natural extension of God. The New Testament makes it very clear that Christians are supposed to use the nation-state as a means to force others to behave in accordance with their particular interpretation of God’s Word. All of this nonsense about “loving your neighbor” was probably added by closeted homosexual monks – the entire book of First Corinthians is probably nothing more than a homosexual delusion. “Through a mirror, darkly” sounds like it may be nothing more than a homosexual referencing some strange sinful homosexual act.
It may appear to the confused that this sort of authoritarian Christianity is “like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men’s bones,” but they are just confused and we can hardly let the confused be a basis for our social policy.
The arguments contained above are not necessary for most people, since the wrongfulness of same-sex marriage is clearly demonstrated by the feeling of yuckiness that results from viewing a homosexual couple. Unfortunately, there are many in our postmodern culture that have lost touch with their moral compass.
The Dangers of Homosexuality
As State Representative Sally Kern said, homosexuals are more dangerous than terrorists. It is imperative for our nation to tackle the problem of homosexuality. This is not just an alternative lifestyle or sexual preference; it is a danger to the very existence of the United States of America. A danger that is unparalleled in terms of its magnitude and impact.
