It’s for the children …

Four underlying false assumptions are defined as fundamental to the open marriage idea. Blom and Bell says a real marriage is built for the children and lists these false assumptions.

The first false assumption is that the institution of marriage is designed for the benefit of adults rather than children and society. The second is that forcing the government to legally recognize same-sex marriage as a public good whose partners are entitled to benefits constitutes an exercise in liberty rather than a claim of entitlement. The third is that the government has the theological expertise necessary to certify who loves each other and who does not. The fourth is that government recognition of same-sex marriage would end the dispute.

Much of the ‘gay rights’ thing is narcissistic and the efforts to have society accept and even condone the behavior is a matter of relieving guilt. Using it as a means of gaining entitlements is seeking reward and reinforcement for questionable choices as well. There is really only one reason why government should get involved in marriage issues and that is for its own health and welfare.

The legal recognition of conjugal or traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) seeks to protect the likelihood that a child will be raised by his or her biological parents. In other words, conjugal marriage is designed for the benefit of children, not the benefit of adults.

Certainly, single parents make heroic efforts to raise their children and should be commended for their work. Many children lose their parents because of tragedies and end up being adopted by others. Other conjugal marriage partners for reasons of choice or for medical reasons never have children. All of this is inevitable in a free society. But none of it justifies the state creation of a same-sex-marriage institution that can never under any circumstances give children the intended benefit of being raised by a mother and a father.

This can be seen in the social security debate where the demographics becomes a problem. In the more established Western Culture countries, the birth rate has declined to where caring for the elderly is a burden shared by fewer and fewer of the next generation. That shows in taxation where the tax base is diminished. It shows in health care where the efforts needed to care for the elderly require a larger share of society’s resources.

This is one issue where “it’s for the children” is really at the core and not just a ‘feel-good’ talking point.

Comments are closed.