Just because the suicide of Western Culture has weakened the institution of marriage does not mean that Americans can do nothing to stop its decline. Advocates of same sex marriage have been aggressive in promoting their goal of the legal acceptance of same sex marriage by all states. Such a view of marriage is a radical break from all previous human cultures–for good reason. Although the ideal is not often reached in real life, a marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to bring children into the world and rear them. Multiple studies by sociologists and psychologists, no friends of traditional institutions, have shown this to be the case. Only a man and a woman can make a baby through the act of sexual intercourse. Attempts by same sex couples to rear children occur either by adoption or by a woman offering an egg as a surrogate for one of the partner’s sperm (in the case of male same-sex couples; in the case of female same sex couples, one of the partners would offer her egg and donated sperm would fertilize it). Such practices go against the fundamental ends of human families and human societies to bring the next generation into the world in a way consistent with human biology. Supporters of same sex marriage ignore biology, as if human beings could be separated from their bodies, or as if maleness and femaleness is somehow not part of one’s personal identity. Even apart from same-sex marriage, homosexuality is unnatural in orientation and morally wrong in practice. To fully embrace homosexual practice in the context of marriage is a violation of natural law so severe that it can only bring irreparable harm to society. The decline of marriage in Western Culture, its separation, in the public mind, from bearing children, and later from permission for sexual intercourse, has produced a society that is promiscuous (why be married when you can enjoy sex before marriage without worrying about having children) and one in which marriage is considered to be only a legal contract instead of a sacred vow. Same sex marriage would put the nail in the coffin’s head of marriage in any meaningful sense–and with activist judges threatening state laws, defining marriage as between a man and a woman via state law alone is inadequate. Moves to pass state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman are welcome, giving the people as a whole the chance to save what is left of traditional marriage.
As part of the North Carolina Primary on May 8, the voters of North Carolina will decide whether to pass the “Marriage Protection Amendment” to the state constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. I strongly support this amendment and encourage the citizens of North Carolina to vote in its favor. If it passes and opponents go judge shopping to find a liberal federal judge to try to throw out the amendment, this would make it clear that the judge is attempting to thwart the will of the people, . It would also allow appeals up the federal court system so that eventually the sovereign right of the people of a state to define marriage might, hopefully, be affirmed. At the very least, this amendment grants the voters of North Carolina the opportunity to do their small but vital part in defending a sacred institution and in slowing America’s attempt at cultural and moral suicide.
Gratiaetnatura's Blog 
Apr 16, 2012 @ 02:42:56
“Such a view of marriage is a radical break from all previous human cultures–for good reason.”
It is a shame that some people will have to suffer for your lack of knowledge about history and culture.
Apr 16, 2012 @ 17:05:02
All people like you have are insults, and I am not intiminidated. Homosexuality has been common in some cultures, and was common among the upper classes in ancient Athens, as the Platonic dialogues attest. But the Greeks never supported homosexual marriage. Claims that friendship ceremonies of the Middle Ages were really marriage ceremonies in disguise are not well grounded and are due to ideological bias rather than good historical scholarship. Even if some exceptions could be found, they would be extremely rare and inconsistent with the practices of the vast majority of human cultures. But I think you know this, and are so hell-bent on supporting the unsupportable that you would twist any fact to support your opinion.
Apr 16, 2012 @ 17:10:25
Of course you are not intimidated, even when you have to shift the goalposts to defend your position. But neithe rof the examples above are necessary to refute your initial claim. The anthropological record is replete with alternative approaches to marriage. Which makes the claim I highlighted false. If you wih to shift to the claim that the majority view counts and others don’t, then so be it. But shifting seemlessly fom one argument to the next hardly palces you in a positionn to comment on how I am hell-bent on twisting the facts.
Apr 16, 2012 @ 16:33:02
You write:
“As part of the North Carolina Primary on May 8, the voters of North Carolina will decide whether to pass the “Marriage Protection Amendment” to the state constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. I strongly support this amendment and encourage the citizens of North Carolina to vote in its favor.”
Is it correct to say that you “strongly support” this amendment? So far as I can tell, the views of your blog have been largely consistent with political libertarianism. The marriage amendment, as you have summarized it here, defines marriage for its constituents. Such an amendment is an unwarranted abridgment of individual freedom. Because individual freedom is paramount to libertarians and you are a libertarian, I would expect that you wouldn’t support any amendment that forces constituents to believe one thing or the other.
I don’t believe an adequate defense here would be that religiously-based moral convictions trump politically motivated preferences. What was that about “render unto Caesar?” To not permit marriage to a same-sex couple is acceptable under the rules of some religious groups. That the church forces this rule upon a whole constituency seems unwarranted. There are, after all, members of the community who do not uphold the religious or social beliefs of that church.
Apr 16, 2012 @ 17:03:59
I am not a pure libertarian–I agree with the libertarians in being anti-war and generally I prefer smaller government. I think states do have the authority to define marriage without interference from the federal government–thus, I would not want the federal government to force the states to go either way. But if the people of a state want to define marriage as between one man and one woman, more power to them.
Marriage is partly a biological, social, and (sometimes) religious institution that historically has been connected with the biological functions of men and women in bearing and rearing children. Human nature is not as malleable as liberals (both classical libertarians and social democratic liberals) suggest. If same-sex marriage is legalized, it, along with other societal changes from 1964 onward, will inevitably lead to the breakdown of any recognizable human society–if I am right. Consider it an empirical test of natural law theory. In any case, even if my view were divine command based, which it is not, government must take sides one way or the other–either for secularism and the religions who accept secularization or with more traditional religious views. There is no neutral ground; John Locke was wrong, and so was Thomas Jefferson (although there is much Aristotelianism in Jefferson–he should have read his Aristotle more and his Locke less).
Apr 16, 2012 @ 23:40:47
Thanks for the response. I’m curious to know why it is that states have the power to define marriage, but the federal government does not. Assumably, the only difference between the two is the scope of jurisdiction. All else is equal between the two.
There may be subtle (and not so subtle) cultural differences between the peoples of the numerous states. Think here of the differences of people’s social views in California and Mississippi or Utah. California is largely a socially liberal state, while Mississippi or Utah is composed of people who are socially conservative. Do we accept that the people of these states form moral beliefs differently? Perhaps the people of one of these states is just wrong. Their moral beliefs are informed by principles, which, on reflection, turn out to be prejudiced or biased by emotion or religious affiliation. Perhaps we need a stronger centralized government to impose moral views because one segment of the population is just wrong.
(That last sentence will likely not sit well with a few people — including yourself. But it seems like we should impose some form of control to prevent states from adopting laws that are potentially damaging to its own constituents.)
Finally, I’m not sure how we define marriage if its a function of our “biology.” Some men and women are sterile. Do we say that they can have a relationship but they cannot marry because they’re unable to bear children? Bearing and rearing children is an important part of marriage, but it shouldn’t be how we judge whether a marriage is legitimate. Sterility aside, what about elderly men and women who marry too late in life to have children of their own. Do we say that they cannot marry? Or, if they do marry, it’s illegitimate.
Marriage is a thorny issue. I have tried here not to base my views on the “malleability” of human nature — as you call it; rather, I am trying to point out a few counterexamples that should have us worried when it comes to defining marriage as that had between a man and a woman.
Apr 16, 2012 @ 23:47:21
I have problems with federal authority over the states because even if that power was used for good in the past, it can also be used for great evil. At least if a state is wrong then a particular evil is limited to that state. I suppose it’s a judgment call on which would be the greater threat–one state supporting something morally evil or the federal government having the potential power to impose evil practices on society as a whole.
The normal ends of marriage are not frustrated by particular failures due to no fault of the partners if the matter of marriage is correct (the matter being a man and a woman). Males and males or females and females are intrinsically infertile. If marriage is considered to be a mere contractual arrangment, as it tends to be in the post-Enlightenment world, especially in the U. S., I’ll float this idea by you–how about the state only sanctioning civil unions and leave marriage up to religious bodies? I’m not in favor of that option, but I’d prefer that over same-sex marriage, and it would fit better what marriage de facto has become in a post-enlightnment world.
Apr 17, 2012 @ 00:01:34
Well put. Let me respond to the latter claim first. I am more than happy with leaving marriage in the hands of religious bodies, especially if we see marriage as a sacrament and not a contractual obligation. I believe that thinking of marriage as a contractual obligation is gravely mistaken. I also attribute our lack of respect for marriage as deriving from the belief that marriage is solely a contractual obligation — i.e., it’s no different than buying and selling a car. That’s a big mistake! So leaving marriage in the hands of the Church is something with which I agree.
As far as your first claim about the differences between individual states and the federal government, I have to agree that the federal government can impose rules that are morally unjustified. So too can states, though. Even if states, like North Carolina in the example from your original post, permit the constituency to vote for or against some amendment to the state’s constitution or laws, I don’t believe that makes what the majority rules correct. I think our disagreement on the point has to do with whether what the majority (in the several states or by the federal government) rules is what is morally correct. I don’t believe that leaving it up to the people of the states is always a good thing to do. We’re bound to make mistakes.
Apr 17, 2012 @ 18:23:06
I’m not saying that the majority rule is necessarily morally correct, but that in order to avoid tyranny, it may be necessary to put up with local evils for a time. No state is completely moral, but it is easier to correct an immoral practice at the state level than to give the federal government too much authority over the states–the feds may enforce a just law, but they may also enforce an unjust federal law–and then the states have no recourse.
Apr 19, 2012 @ 01:08:16
We have on the one hand the religion of science and the older religions like Christianity and Buddhism. Over a considerable period of time I have found the insights of the older religions more reliable. Science makes what are apparently statements of fact–and then later on has to retract them. For example, at one time it was said that the brain could not repair or regenerate itself, but now we are told differently.
Some years ago a friend from college years revealed to me that the man she had been living with for a long time had agreed to supply sperm for a friend’s wife to have a child. The man had had a visectomy. (Something I sense is a bad idea.) He agreed without consulting his partner, my friend. Since they were always going to get married I viewed them that way–as married. I was not very diplomatic. I told that now the man in her life had a closer link to this woman who would bear his child than to her. That also he would be the father.
Being scientific of mind of course she denied all this. Since science regarded the sperm as just stuff what difference where it came from. I even went a step further and said that I thought the child had a right to be the result of two people making love and not just a syringe stuck in a vagina. I think it makes a difference. I believe that our feeling penetrates even inanimate things and clearly the feeling of a couple making love and starting a child is important. But I can not back this up yet with hard science. Still I have noticed over time that science does eventually catch up. Recently I have seen that many children are looking for their sperm donor fathers. Personally I would not donate sperm. I think a man has a real duty to the child he helps come into the world.
I do have this faith in science that it will eventually catch up . . . but in many areas the old religions have known things for thousands of years. High quality science does not necessarily need advanced mathematics and expensive equipment. Observation is of the greatest importance and acts of high intelligence.
In researching the topic I came across this in Hinduism. Sometimes a brother will supply the sperm when the other one is sterile–but it has been noted that this weakens the marriages and often ends them. So in this way studies have been done. Just this bit of biological stuff nonetheless has the power to disrupt relationships.
Perhaps needless to say I have not heard from the friend for a long time.
My personal feeling is that gays should settle for something like a legal union that conveys the legal rights. I think it is a mistake to start changing words. We could of course do a lot of that until we no longer know what we are talking about. Apparently natural born citizen now means just born in the USA. Or even just popular enough to get elected.
Apr 19, 2012 @ 01:30:24
Leon Kass’ book, Toward a Mora Natural Science, makes similar points. When philosophy rejected real natures in the seventeenth century under the influence of mechanistic physics, the notion that there is no stable human nature came into vogue. Along with it came the idea that human nature was malleable by science. Now that philosophers and some scientists are open to real natures in things, I am hopeful that more people such as Kass will write from that perspective.
Apr 22, 2012 @ 00:45:54
Fristly, thanks for making your blog readable again. Secondly, and hopefully lastly at this time, I have been reflecting on homosexuality. On the one hand we have what must be seen as a naturally occurring phenomenon through out history and apparently present in prehistory. Probably a very small percentage of persons. But on the other hand, we have homosexuality as a political agenda. The recruitment of young people to become homosexual even against their will or as a way to get a job or get ahead in a profession. This is quite a different matter. The vulnerable being seduced or forced into something contrary to their best interests.
So we actually have two things going on at once. And persons who see the inherent dangers in promoting homosexuality get criticized for intolerance. Really rather clever stratagem being used here to get something dangerous going that looks like nothing short of good old Christian charity. If you don’t support homosexual education for primary school kids you are simply a bigot.
Whatever the goals, we are currently witnessing an all pervasive effort to weaken the human species: poisoning the food and water, ruining the educational facilities, destroying the state and its legal system, destroying relationship structures. What I find most surprising is just how many people are falling for this. People I know who will vote again for Obama. And these people refuse to take in any information unless it comes from a nice source like NPR or the NYT.
We know mere inklings about our government and its goals which have little to do with the people who simply do the work and supply the money. The government is its own world. It is not our government but “theirs”. And “they” have been very, very successful at achieving “their” ends.
Apr 22, 2012 @ 02:32:26
True, and the problem is that no matter which party is in power, both promote policies opposed to the human good. I will vote with a clear conscience for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. I am tempted to vote third party in November, but I find Mr. Obama to be far more dangerous than Mr. Romney, so I most likely will swallow hard (again) and vote for the Repbulican nominee–both parties are warmongering so that will not make a difference, but with possible Supreme Court appointments coming up I’d rather have a Republican in office. Either way, America is in decline–Mr. Obama getting a second term would only speed up the process.
Apr 22, 2012 @ 03:50:44
I agree. Romney might even surprise us. With five sons he might want a world for them to live in which is not totally corrupt. We are nearing the point where neither money nor power will make a good life possible. We have almost reached that point in America. I could not recommend or encourage anyone to have children here where you the parent will have only minimally say in their health, education, or what becomes of them. America is now a dangerous place for children and parents. The last refuge of safety is to be a good for nothing , , , a nobody. It will be worse than Eastern Europe under Soviet domination. Perhaps more like Russia in the years following the Revolution.
Dec 16, 2017 @ 19:10:48
Marriage is defined as an interpersonal union according to the Dictionary.
Dec 16, 2017 @ 21:09:41
Of course it’s an interpersonal union; so are friendships or other family relationships; so are business partnerships. So the issue is “What kind of interpersonal union and what are its proper ends?” That question means nothing to the modern world which believes it makes its own ends and that there are no natural restrictions on human will. If I am right, the current changes in society will have bad long-term results. We shall see….
Dec 16, 2017 @ 21:48:28
What is absurd to me is the fact that people claim that same-sex marriages are not legitimate marriages. No person has the right to dictate from a societal standpoint who someone else can marry.