Tuesday, December 2, 2008
While I've posted before how I think the political controversy regarding Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) is really insignificant when you actually look at the biggest threat to the institution of marriage (i.e. no fault divorce and the feminist cultural paradigm), that does not mean I believe marriage should be "re-defined."
I believe that no matter how well meaning, loving, nurturing or nice a single parent, or two same-sex parents can be, or that same-sex or single parents CAN AND DO the best job they possibly can given their respective situations...
...they simply CANNOT provide the primary function of child-rearing that a man and a woman married couple CAN - which is role modeling the behavior of interacting, living and co-existing with a member of the opposite sex for the basic purposes of genetic reproduction and nurturing of the next generation so that they too can mature and reproduce and nurture the genetic line, ensuring genetic survival.
These intrinsic traits of a traditional marriage- based family are in many respects the subconscious programming of the children to give them the tools to form their own lasting lifetime bonds with members of the opposite gender so they can continue to perpetuate the cycle of propagating the species.
No amount of conscious action, behavior or teaching can overcome what is lost in this subconscious programming of intrinsic, human relational behavior between the symmetrical and complementary elements of the human experience - the male and the female psyche.
Here is the ugly truths of reality on this matter...and no amount of beautiful lies or politically correct dogma can change:
Two women simply cannot provide the proper example for a young boy on how to be an adult man.
Two women cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young girl to learn how to successfully live with a male mate as a man and woman can.
Two men cannot provide a comparable role modeling for a young boy to learn how to successfully live with a female mate as a man and woman can.
And no matter how much self-regard, or how much recognition we heap upon single-parents as the ultimate martyr worthy of self-respect in today's society, I say to you all that while single parents can try to do the best they can, you cannot "replace" or "substitute" a person's father or mother.
If they are not there for your child, they are missing out on having that masculine or feminine influence combined with the natural genetic bond of paternal or maternal relations that are key in their psychological and behavioral development.
Tell yourself all the pretty lies you need to to justify the choices you've made in your life, but in the end, YOU do not pay the price for YOUR choices...it is your children that pay it.
Pair-bonding of opposite genders is based on the biological necessity of creating an environment for the human species to thrive and survive.
From a completely dispassionate, scientific perspective, is not a fact that homosexuality is a biological dead-end?
Somehow, this FACT has become politically incorrect, hateful and bigoted to point out.
And this is why I don't view this movement to re-define "marriage" as an issue of "civil rights."
Marriage is an institution designed to create families to raise the next generation of offspring who in turn perpetuate that cycle by entering the institution themselves when they reach maturity.
Saying a Same Sex couple is 'married' is like saying the Blue Sky is Yellow.
No amount of calling me a bigot, or hateful or whatever is going to change the facts of the matter.
Call it yellow all you want, it's still Blue.
Getting the State to recognize that the sky is Yellow doesn't change the fact that it is still Blue.
Marriage was NEVER about "two loving people sharing their lives."
It was always about what's best for THE CHILDREN.
Somehow, this has been forgotten. Thanks to feminism, birth control, abortion, and a societal "revolution" in attitudes and morays, sex has been detached from procreation, and the very "definition" of marriage has been altered.
Pointing out that the definition has been altered is not in my mind adequate justification for further altering that definition.