I heard a liberal somewhere recently proclaim that the most important issue in America today is the right to Gay Marriage. Liberals also fight with a sort of religious zeal the "right" to abortion. President Obama himself often extolls his belief that every citizen has the "right" to healthcare.
Throughout the entire history of mankind, nearly every civilization has supported the institution of marriage. And until the second millenium after Jesus Christ, there has never been a historical account of a single civilization creating a new definition of marriage other than the one we've all understood. One man, one woman, make babies, have a family, raise your family to carry on your civil society.
OK, there have been civilizations where powerful and wealthy men maintained multiple wives. Solomon sounds like he just might have been the most prolific husband in recorded history, with too many wives to count. But even the Romans, who were reputed by their own historians to dally with young boys often, never proposed laws to recognize "marriage" with the boys.
So the homosexual activists of today are rather touchy about the fact that Christianity frowns on their activities. They want to force people to accept their behavior as perfectly normal, or perhaps even laudable. Homosexuals are no different from pedophiles or bisexuals or polyamorists or bigamists. They are just as able to rein in their desires as the others, they just want special treatment that they don't necessarily advocate for them. It's not about your desires, it's about whether you choose to act on them.
Just from personal observation, I have been noticing that homosexual males cultivate their look to approximate a 12 year old boy. Strangely enough, it seems that many lesbian women seem to be going for the same look. Hmm. It would seem that it is very dangerous out there these days for 12 year old boys.
Anyway, they don't want to get married. I just saw a speech online given by a lesbian activist who openly admitted that fact. She doesn't care about marriage, she cares about the destruction of the religious institution called "marriage". Getting the state to recognize same-sex marriage cheapens the institution to the point where nobody will want to get married. It's already happening.
The irrefutable fact is that we do permanant damage to children when we destroy the insitution of marriage. And we can't lay all the blame on the homosexuals. Epidemic levels of divorce has done plenty to destroy the institution without their help. Men and women, some of whom I've known over the years, treat their solemn and holy marital vows as irrelevant to their own feelings and pursuit of happiness.
When people get bored with their partner, they throw out that vow that promised "till death do us part" and found somebody else. Divorce is so common it resembles high school kids "breaking up" with their girlfriend/boyfriend in order to move onto a new flame. The only problem is that the spouse he's broken up with is the mother of his two or three children. While he's messing around with his exciting new squeeze, the ex-wife is raising children who (rightly) believe their Dad has abandoned them.
If I'm in charge, all talk of gay marriage ends. If homosexuals want to go out in the woods and make promises to each other in front of some Pagan priestess and call themselves married, that's none of my business. Just don't make me pay taxes to provide them with health insurance or survivor benefits or spousal social security.
Divorce becomes much more difficult. "No-Fault" divorces come to an abrupt end. If one or the other spouse wants a divorce so he or she can hook up with somebody new, fine - take the clothes on your back, maybe your car so you can get to work, and start over from scratch. The innocent spouse gets everything, including custody of the children.
If both spouses want to divorce for other reasons, then an equal division of property is appropriate. If the spouse filing for divorce is doing so because they caught the other partner in adultery, the cuckolded spouse gets to decide how much property the court may grant to the other.
Non-custodial spouses never are free of their financial responsibilities to their children. Child Support must be imposed on every non-custodial spouse, but must be tailored to the paying spouse's level of income. It seems reasonable to me that child support payments should have a cap of no more than half of the non-custodial spouse's income. Details could be worked out, but the basic principle stands.
Abortion should never have become the law of the land and should be illegal. Just to head off the common arguments focusing on a tiny percentage of abortions, those exceptions are open to discussion. Rape, pregnancies that endanger the life and/or health of the mother, and other such arguments can be resolved. If we could somehow move beyond the abortion-on-demand reality of today, I'd be more than happy to engage in negotiations over the rare exceptions.
What if we had a country (or world) where most people got married and stayed married? What if they had children and raised them with actual moral values and a sense of responsibility and a sound work ethic? What if we rewarded responsible behavior and discouraged irresponsible behavior? Just imagine how safe and prosperous we would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment