A common argument for homosexual “marriage” is that since no ill effects have been observed from “gay marriage” in states where it already exists, “gay marriage” will have no long term ill effects on society.
They are wrong. Gay “marriage” will wreck whatever remains of the sanctity of marriage in society. It will just take time.
No social change ever happens overnight. People are stubborn. It takes a lot for a populace to be moved.
A society exposed to something traditionally taboo, like incest, will violently rebel. Imagine the uproar that would happen if a positive portrayal of incest were to appear on national television.
But desensitize a culture to something taboo by continual exposure, and eventually, taboo becomes normal. Show that same incestuous couple, enjoying life as if such behavior were normal, on television for years, and people will eventually accept the couple as normal.
(This process already has begun with polygamy - shows like “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” are already portraying polygamy as positive and normal.)
Homosexuality is a prime example of this phenomenon. Positive portrayals of homosexuality over the past 30 years – in television, in films, in the media, in schools – have made “gay marriage” largely acceptable in society, when it was once anathema in mainstream America. Polls have shown a gradual increase of support for civil unions and “gay marriage” over the past 30 years.
And now, the country is on the verge of having gay marriage legalized across the land.
But actions have consequences, and the redefinition of marriage will have serious and unintended (although there are many who welcome the shattering of the institution of marriage) consequences for society.
The now widespread acceptance of birth control illustrates this phenomenon perfectly. Marriage as an institution in America was severely weakened as a result of birth control.
Birth control already has badly damaged the institution of marriage. Because of birth control, the marital act has been separated from its biological purpose – reproduction.
Divorced from the propagation of children in a family setting, marriage became a way to legitimize pleasure-seeking within a respectable setting. In effect, with the widespread adoption of birth control, marriage became legalized prostitution.
“Gay marriage” further advances this process. Acceptance of birth control removed the “burden” of reproduction from marriage. “Gay marriage” is the logical extension of birth control – normalizing pleasure as a principle, without any fear of reproduction whatsoever.
And the slow process of the degradation of marriage will continue, until nothing remains of marriage but an empty shell of pleasure-hunting.
Same Anonymous here..
ReplyDeleteWhoa.. "In effect, with the widespread adoption of birth control, marriage became legalized prostitution. ... Acceptance of birth control removed the “burden” of reproduction from marriage. .. And the slow process of the degradation of marriage will continue, until nothing remains of marriage but an empty shell of pleasure-hunting."
I know you're very smart. In fact, while I was reading a couple of your homosexual and catholic sexuality posts, I realized I wanted to ask you what you were doing posting here, you should be writing a book.
But, I'm going to say that you're smart enough to know you're making sweeping generalizations here about marriages.
"Marriage became legalized prostitution." That's a very heavy assertion. Maybe it's just your tenses and not your belief that everyone "realizes" they are doing this when they're getting hitched.
Particularly the women, Lightening Rod.
You want to say all women who fall in love, become engaged to get married, do the bridal-shopping bit and walk down the aisle see themselves as prostitutes?
I realize what you mean, you're being metaphorical (I hope), but again, are you exaggerating to make a point?
Don't do it at the cost of not being charitable.
Again .. "until nothing remains of marriage " .. you're saying there will be no good marriages to be had, and therefore, even the Catholic Church should quit performing them, or even accepting the validity of the marriages performed in other churches.
:(
I take it, you're not married.
I am in no way arguing that marriage is rendered pointless because of widespread birth control usage. Marriage is a holy vocation that, God willing, I hope to enter into one day. And I would never enter a vocation that I considered to be pointless.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that birth control is the first step towards the outright destruction of marriage. In effect, the widespread practice of birth control in a society undermines the foundations of marriage in society.
Lest my readers think I am being hyperbolic, the goal to destroy marriage entirely was and still is the direct goal of many of those who advocated these reforms. They pushed these reforms to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. I will quote Margaret Sanger, the chief apostle of birth control: The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order.
Of course, most ordinary citizens do not wish to get rid of marriage in society. But because so many people use birth control, the very understanding of marriage in society is threatened. When an entire society sees pleasure as the chief goal of marriage, and not raising a family, then the entire meaning of marriage is threatened.
That was the sense I meant “legalized prostitution” – not that it is such, but that society essentially sees it as such. In retrospect, “legitimized prostitution” would have been a better term. But the point remains, I believe.
Of course, those who do use birth control in marriage do not see themselves as prostitutes. But part of the tragedy of birth control usage is that those who use birth control, in effect, prostitute themselves to get something they want (although, I freely concede, not in the same way as official prostitutes.) The best expression of this could be found in the saying that “men use love to get sex, while women use sex to get love.” In effect, women are prostituting themselves in order to get an incomplete version of a man’s love. They may not recognize it as such - but that does not make it any less true.
This is not to excuse men who seek responsibility-free gratification by encouraging their partners to use birth control, by any stretch of the imagination. In refusing to take on their responsibility as men to protect and defend the woman and her child, and instead seek risk-free pleasure, they are abrogating their responsibility as men. They too seek pleasure without the responsibility that entails.
Harsh? Perhaps. But that does not make it any less true. It is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner; it is not charity to allow the sinner to remain in his or her sin.