Archive for January, 2015

Marriage: It’s Child’s Play
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
In our rapacious crusade to equalize all under government, I wonder if we have stopped to think about the endgame of this philosophy? Plainly, where will this notion take us that fairness and equality is our highest value and must be both believed and enforced? The most obvious litmus test of equality today is in the institution of marriage. Tampering with the millenia-old tradition of marriage has resulted in some bizarre offspring. It started with the seemingly innocuous notion of a fair-minded approach to marriage: one responsible adult with another responsible willing adult. Now we have occasional stories of age-difference marriage. For example, a 52-year old man “marrying” a 26-year old man. No one is raising their eyebrows over this. Looks like father-son to me.
When Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie seemed okay with their daughter identifying her gender as male, it seemed okay with them and consequently created no great stir among their sycophantic adorers. Now it is becoming common for children to choose their own gender, and to most of us it seems fair and in line with their rights.
Well, if children can choose their own gender and act on that life choice, why then can they not make other fundamental choices about their lives?
Why can’t they choose their own parents, or no parents? Why can’t they choose their own life partner? Well, you say, they are minors – under 18. Well, that magic number does not stop them from choosing their own gender or the bathroom they want.
My proposition is this: Given that having children, or the potential for having children, is no longer a prerequisite for forming a family and as the direct result of traditional marriage; and given that two people of the same gender are now allowed to “marry,” ruling out the need for procreation to create family or define a marriage; then what would prevent two people – of whatever age – to “marry” for “love.”
What am I saying?
I’m saying that, since the walls have fallen down around the meaning of marriage, nothing can stop anyone from getting “married.” Nothing will be able to stop a “bisexual” from marrying one person of each gender, as long a “love,” which is the bottom line, is claimed. Nothing will be able to stop groups from marrying. I’ve seen eighth grade girls making posters: Amy + Karen + Jessica, so this thinking has already crept over into young minds. Am I crazy? Well, if male/female gender is no longer a factor, why would the number two put a limit on marriage? And if biological gender differences is no longer a factor and the number two can be brought into question, why would the age of 18 be a factor either.
As I said before, if our generation doesn’t protect marriage, then the next generation will not be able to protect family.
It will also seem reasonable for government or society at large to make equal, claims on the loyalty of a child that the parents make. This will look perfectly just, reasonable, and even good. If “family” can mean anything, can’t it mean the “family of man” i.e., society or government?
The answer is a solemn “yes.”

Read Full Post »