INTRODUCTION / THESIS /OVERVIEW
The West is on the precipice of destroying an institution that has promoted social order and tempered the more aggressive impulses and behaviors of men. The assault on the traditional family that began in the late 1800s, and accelerated precipitously under Sixties feminism is culminating in the sanctioning of gay marriage. In contrast to the claims of gay marriage advocates declaring that the institution will be strengthened, the redefining of marriage to include gays will be recorded as the death of marriage. The mother-father marriage ideal is the most effective institution in raising moral and well-adjusted children and promoting social order. Acceptance of state sanctioned, gay marriage will continue to undermine the father-mother family ideal or standard and end marriage as a viable and functional institution. The net effect of gay marriage will be more children raised without fathers and all the dire consequences of that development. How so? Gay marriage declares that gender is unimportant in parenting; thus, fathers are unimportant. Socializing boys and men to become civilized, law abiding and contributing members of society is the ultimate challenge confronting all societies. Men account for almost all of the social pathologies wreaking havoc upon certain communities, from alcoholism to drugs, from rape to murder, uncivilized men (especially single men) remain the major factor in social decadence. And, yet, the modern Left feels compelled to lift one of the few remaining levers to exert pressure on men to tame their sexual impulses, to commit to one woman and to provide for the children they produce.
And for what? Why does the West insist on discarding this institution? Every single society in human history thought marriage necessary to establish such institutions; they all believed that it provided some social “good.” Never in human history has a society felt it necessary to formalize or celebrate a gay relationship. Why? What social value would be promoted? Monogamy? In the absence of children, monogamy provides little social value as well; the primary social benefit of monogamy lies in the stability it provides for children. Nearly all endorsing gay marriage resort to one rationale for redefining marriage: gays are being denied equal rights. Yet, marriage never was considered a “right,” only an institution and a standard to guide behavior in a certain direction. When a couple gets married, they do not enjoy a new set of rights. The fact that many couples choose to co-habitate instead of marry, and forego children altogether ought to reinforce the point that “rights” are not conferred upon a couple by marrying. If the “State” declared all marriages null and void, what “rights” would the government be taking away? Proponents of gay marriage will then cite “Social Security” discrimination. Social Security was not established for two working people without children to gain a benefit; it was established to take care of children and widows during a historical period when most women did not work. Moreover, gay individuals are not being denied Social Security money they paid into the system; no money is being taken from them, they are getting their benefits. Proponents will also compare the status of gays to the status of blacks. This is a glaringly specious argument. African-Americans were denied fundamental, traditional rights that prevented them from taking those actions necessary to preserve and advance their own lives. They were prevented from exercising suffrage and thus representation (political); they were denied property rights by limited educational opportunities and assaults on their safety and personal property (economic); and, they were denied the right of free association with the burning of their churches and threatened with bodily harm if they dated outside their race (social). None of these limits apply to gays....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document