The fashionable invention of so-called “same-sex marriage” is merely a pathetic imitation of the venerable, age-old institution of real marriage.
It aspires to a parity that, due to its own very twisted nature, it can never achieve. It resembles the sad play of some poor little children, “let’s pretend”.
Unfortunately, this pretend game has real-world consequences—especially for real children, who are forced to replace their own mothers and fathers and are artificially reallocated to two mothers or two fathers.
This de-mothering and de-fathering of children is the most serious consequence that will flow from the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act, which passed the Senate this week.
A foolish delusion
Legalizing radical distortions to accommodate deviations from the natural institution of marriage is not only unacceptable—it’s just plain stupid. It is the result of a delusional new ideology that will wreak havoc on families before it falls into disrepute like all fake startups.
“Same-sex marriage” is an absurdity. Logical coherence and legal coherence require that marriage as an institution maintain an inherent and irrevocable respect for gender and sexuality of man and woman.
Few congressmen understand that legalizing the fanciful novelty of “same-sex marriage” violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, solemnly ratified by the United States in 1992.
No democracy can justify changes in marriage law that are inconsistent with specific universal human rights requirements such as state protection of the family: “The family is the natural … group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state” ( ICCPR, Article 23-1 ).
The right “to marry and to found a family” is one right, not two, and is based solely on the biological complementarity of male and female (not male and male and not female and female).
Limiting this right to marry and found a family to “men and women of marriageable age” was recognized as essential in the federal negotiation.
“Same-sex marriage” lobbyists yell “discrimination!”
Naïve politicians, embracing the shrill, false rhetoric of “same-sex marriage” have fabricated a law that logically is inconsistent with fundamental provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Take for example Article 16-3 of the UDHR, where all governments agreed: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection of society and the state. “
Procreation has always been the agreed justification for the state’s obligation to protect the natural right to marry and found a family.
Professor Leon Kass, a leading authority on the natural and sociological anthropology of sexual reproduction, says that human societies virtually everywhere have structured child-rearing responsibilities and identity and relational systems grounded in the deep natural facts of procreation.
“The mysterious yet ubiquitous self-love is culturally exploited everywhere to ensure that children are not just produced but cared for, and to create clear bonds of meaning, belonging and obligation for all.” He says it is wrong, such of course Treating entrenched social practices as mere cultural constructs that we can change at little human cost.
Indeed, it is ridiculous to suggest now that marriage laws originally enacted to protect the family should be viewed as discriminatory against same-sex mating, which by their very nature is unprocreative.
Certainly, the generic non-discrimination clause of human rights justice was never intended to override legitimate limitations and distinctions of protection, either express or implied.
Article 16 of the UDHR requires that men and women (not men and men or women and women), in exercising the right to marry and to found a family, do so in accordance with the definition of family in Article 16 as “the natural group unit society” that they are “of legal age” (not considered age discrimination) and that they will only marry “with free and full consent”.
It is immensely significant what Article 16 deliberately omits: “gender or other status”. The non-discrimination clause extends only to “race, nationality or religion”.
The concept of “special care and support” for maternity, childhood and family (UDHR Article 25) means just that – it is special. It is illogical to extend the particular to absolutely all homogeneous. The net effect of such an artificial reinterpretation is that these specific human rights obligations are undermined. You become meaningless.
Dishonest grasp of marriage rights – an element of fraud
Socially prudent human rights defenders successfully argue that all human beings (regardless of homosexual or lesbian inclinations) are entitled to all basic human rights. But these rights, it is agreed, do not accrue to them because of their “sexual orientation,” but rather because of the fact that they are human.
You have the same right to protection from violence, libel and unjust imprisonment. They have equal rights to all common social goods such as basic education and health care. But they may or may not be entitled to other social goods called qualified human rights. For example, they must have reached a certain age to be entitled to old-age pensions.
The problem is that, under their strident banner of “same-sex marriage,” these men and women are now reaching out for a set of special human rights that exist to protect motherhood and childhood and the integrity of the natural family.
It is a dishonest grasp – a greed for benefits that the nature of their lifestyle excludes them from. It has the same fraudulent element as altering a birth certificate to get a retirement pension or faking a bad back to apply for a disability pension.
It is rational thought and rigorous logic, not homophobia, that compels us to recognize that “same-sex marriage” must remain a hollow concept, an elaborate claim to equality belied by nature itself.
longing to change the good
Marriage remains a natural good, based primarily on a duty of care to all children of that marriage, designed to secure the children’s natural right to life, survival and development.
It was never an arbitrary or arbitrary distinction that two women or two men were not entitled to enter into marriage. In the natural order it was simply not necessary where the possibility of reproduction was not given in principle.
Acceptance of the natural law principles of marriage and procreation is as impartial as acceptance of the natural laws of science. The assumption of an inconsequential plasticity in the artificial deconstruction of families is not justified.
We are not naive children engaged in children’s games, remodeling ourselves and our families in plasticine. Deliberately tampering with natural family formation is an unwise rejection of what is real and true.
The reconstruction of the self involves the contempt of the given—an echo of Eve’s arrogant revisionism of God’s original creation—to despise, despise, despise the truth.
Reversing good and evil is the oldest mistake in the world.
Unfortunately, in every age the old longing remains – the longing to change the given. In vain do we try to transform the forbidden fruits of the tree of knowledge to satisfy our base appetites, and then foolishly declare them good.
Joseph: Don’t Fall for the Same-Sex Marriage Scam first appeared in Western Journal.
https://www.westernjournal.com/joseph-dont-fall-sex-marriage-scam/ Joseph: Don't Fall for the 'Same-Sex Marriage' Scam