Marriage is the union of two people for the purposes of procreation – end of story

marriage-main_FullThe only legitimate definition of marriage

Dave Cole is a fine upstanding chap from the other side, so to speak and he ran a youtube, the gist which was that an 86 year old WW2 vet was asked a question by a woman at the polling place he voted last year: “Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people?” The old chap said he was pretty surprised to be asked that question.

I left a comment:

“I was pretty surprised to be asked that question.”

Actually, it was an unbelievable question and shows how far we’ve taken leave of our senses these days – even to it becoming official policy.

What gays and lesbians do themselves is their business – it’s called classic liberalism, now called libertarianism. No problem with that.

But a question like that from that woman is intrusive and outrageous. This mania for forcing powerful lobbies’ constructs onto the ordinary person is precisely what they would claim they’re against. I’m going to post on this, Dave, Sunday morning.

The first objection is this – not only was the question wrong for anyone in a polling place to ask because it presupposed that the wrong answer would impact on the person’s right to vote, something not provided for by the constitution but if it did not prevent the man from voting, then why was the question there in the first place?

The second objection is that it is a false question.  You and I know full well that to just drop in the word “equality” and ask people to say whether they favour it or not will always produce a majority opinion in favour.  That, however, is not what was really being asked.  What was being asked was whether the person was in favour of gay marriage or not.

This is most certainly so because that’s how a yes answer would be construed and written down for statistical purposes.  This is shoddy and dishonest in the extreme and for a public body, a polling place, to indulge in this sleight of hand is beneath contempt.

This is a blurring of two separate issues:

1.  Do you believe that adult gays and lesbians should be able to pursue their lifestyle, insofar as they conform to the law, without fear or prejudice being shown towards them?

Most would say yes to that.

2.  Do you agree that gays and lesbians have an equal right to marry as much as any heterosexual?

Here’s the logical fallacy.  Same sex cannot marry, by definition.  Here is the Merriam-Webster definition [until 2003, when the PCists got in and forced it to be changed]:

Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: ‘mar-ij also ‘mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Not only that but polls such as this one show that the majority do not accept that what gays have is a marriage – it’s a civil partnership.  Even if they did achieve a majority that way, it is still pointless because it is like changing a science text to say that the sun rises in the west, just because a concerted propaganda campaign has convinced people of it.

The third objection is that not only are they blurring the question and presenting a false construct as a valid alternative but they are also lying about history.  On the Meriam-Webster page, a commentator said that the only reason for that definition of marriage was that the man who wrote it was a fundamentalist Christian.

Sorry but marriage goes back way before Christianity.  Another site said that homosexuality in the ancient world approved of gay relations with boys but that this altered when he reached manhood.

This ignores the status of marriage itself which was not the issue in the last paragraph.  In the Magnus Hirshfeld “History of Marriage in Western Civilization” it says:

In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance. A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses.

The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval.

While the Romans tolerated prostitution and concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships, their marriage laws were remarkably fair to women and thus greatly contributed to their emancipation.

Ancient Egypt is the other society which could be said to predate and influence our own:

The institution of sister-marriage spread among the people, and as late as the second century after Christ two-thirds of the citizens of Arsinoe were found to be practising the custom.  The words brother and sister, in Egyptian poetry, have the same significance as lover and beloved among ourselves.

For the most part the common people, like persons of moderate income everywhere, contented themselves with monogamy.  Family life was apparently as well ordered, as wholesome in moral tone and influence, as in the highest civilizations of our time.  Divorce was rare until the decadent dynasties.

It’s absolute bilge to suggest that somehow gay relationships were in any way of equal status to monogamous marriage although they were obviously tolerated and even encouraged in some sectors of society.  Fair enough – so be it.

The issue has always been not whether gays could marry equally but how women were treated within the marriage. The Pauline model was seen as giving carte blanche to the man dominating the woman and it has to be admitted that Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1Peter3 do use words very close to “obey”.  However, Ephesians 5 also has:

28: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33: Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

There’s no point getting tied up in scriptural arguments – it’s pretty clear that the first passages mentioned were used by the Church [capital C] to keep women in their place and the verses just quoted were never taken in isolation as the basis of the contract.

Look at the picture at the top.  She clearly wants certain things from him, he sees his role to protect and provide and gets a quota of steady nooky for his trouble.  When children arrive, parents fall even more into natural roles which don’t require any scripture to explain – it’s as clear as day what each needs to do.

Today

Who are these people like that woman who asked that question at the polling station trying to kid?  How would she explain the expurgation of old histories and their consigning to the bonfire?  How is this any better than, as Wiki put it:

… the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China’s Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Mayan codices by Spanish conquistadors and priests, and in more recent times, Nazi book burnings and the destruction of the Sarajevo National Library ?

The only difference appears to be the clandestine, nicey-nicey way in which it was done, under the guise of tolerance, equality and fair play.  Classic totalitarianism.

Is there a point to the destruction of the family?  There sure is.  There’s no other way to usher in the global governance until, and let me quote their own text on the matter, they have achieved:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments

2) Abolition of private property

3) Abolition of inheritance

4) Abolition of patriotism

5) Abolition of the family

6) Abolition of religion

7) Creation of a world government

It’s available anywhere for people to read.  Will people kindly tell me which of these, written in 1776, is not currently being worked towards by the socialists?   In the UK, go down, one by one and check each point against current happenings.  Only N2 is not currently in the spotlight and N4 is the whole point of Mark Wadsworth‘s current poll and the news that Labour may have deliberately used immigration as a political tool – it’s in the papers today.

That’s what we’re up against and my particular beef is about N5.

16 comments for “Marriage is the union of two people for the purposes of procreation – end of story

  1. October 25, 2009 at 09:24

    “written in 1776” – reference, please.

  2. October 25, 2009 at 13:51

    Given Copenhagen Dec 2009 and America now probably moving towards martial law… I’ll go with 6.5

  3. October 25, 2009 at 15:41

    Well, you may not think we can get married, but my life partner and I were legally married in Iowa in September. Dictionary definitions evolve as society evolves.

    So whether or not you accept my marriage as valid, the whole State of Iowa does.

    • October 25, 2009 at 16:28

      The State of Iowa can do as it pleases but it’s a civil union, not a marriage, by definition. A state can do many things but it can’t legislate to make white black or the sun come up in the west. This madness will pass in a couple of decades or else we’re in real trouble. The history of all societies which have gone this way is downhill as things quite apart from marriage start coming into the mix. This has nothing to do with you or your partner, Doctor but with the nature of what constitutes marriage.

  4. October 25, 2009 at 16:30

    I’ve replied over at my place.

  5. October 25, 2009 at 19:17

    Well, I just watched the video and what a wonderful man. I’m confused about who thinks marriage is for procreation but I thought it was about love.

  6. October 25, 2009 at 20:40

    You know very well, Welshcakes, that marriages have always produced children through history and that the point of it was to provide a legally binding way of holding parents together to bring up the kids. Not perfect but that’s about all a biological provision can ensure. I can’t believe that in 2009 anyone actually has to explain marriage. Three decades ago, people automatically knew.

  7. October 25, 2009 at 22:32

    I think you are being a little hard on Welshcakes. I always understood marriage to mean:

    The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (dictionary definition).

    The Christian addition to this is for the procreation of children.

    I always thought that Christians did marry for love in order to bring about the very things you stated in your post. It is other religions that pick marriage partners for reasons other than love.

    If it is important to your argument I was brought up in a Christian right wing household!

    Now I need to go and find those really OLD dictionaries of mine to see what they have to say about it…

  8. October 26, 2009 at 04:46

    The Christian addition to this is for the procreation of children.

    No, Cherie – as was shown in the material on the ancients, it is far older than Christianity. Of course it was for children, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. The notion of marrying for love is relatively modern – even in Victorian times, one married to advantage.

    The family was not nuclear either but extended. Each family was a little Empire and as Thatcher indicated, that’s from where society gains its strength – in the same way that the grasses and roots bind the soil.

    Then look at the Great Families over history – are they gay? Of course not though each family has had those who deviated from the norm. By definition, i.e. the lack of procreative capacity, they die out in time.

    What we have these days is an attempt to take someone else’s children and make a “family” this way – highly destructive for the children but no one really considers them, do they, except in terms of the couple’s own fulfilment.

    Society can’t see the forest for the trees and what it does to that society is it ultimately dooms it. There is then the disproportionate representation of these unions in the media and in film these days, combined with the assault, through indoctrination of children in schools from an early age, that such is an acceptable “alternative norm”.

    It quite clearly isn’t. “Norm” is the natural tendency, given no external influences. For example, why do we live in houses? Even primitive societies lived in huts, as your recent posts showed, Cherie. Ditto relations between humans.

    What has happened over the past decades is a tireless attempt by malcontents at the top, e.g. those behind the Lincoln School [note how they co-opt icons to give a legitimacy to it], the CFR and similar in Europe, to re-engineer society as a whole, behind the smokescreen of “tolerance”, a naturally positive word which not many would dispute in its generalized form.

    Yet the sevenfold agenda of these largely invisible [to the public] people is as stated in the post here, then modified to an extent by Marx – follow the links in my reply to Sackerson above.

    It’s no less than a battle for control of people, through many means. This is largely what the blogosphere is for – protecting our freedoms and way of life as they traditionally were and so many great sites out there are involved in this – resisting the encroachment of the State in all personal matters, such encroachment only possible if the cornerstone of society – the Family – is brittle and weakened.

    Stop and think for a moment what would weaken it. What factors would weaken the concept of the heterosexual family and therefore that of the self-regeneration of the society and logically, the culture and norms carried forward by those people?

    The technique is to separate people, as is happening, have them live in little boxes of their own, as is happening, presenting the new “orientation” to prevent strong bonds. What was always the king’s main problem in ancient times? His barons and what were they? They were dominant families in the area.

    And if you achieve this end, this having people separate, with their focus away from the natural bonds which procreation encourages, then what is substituted for it? Why, the State, of course – Hitler’s eugenics programme all over again.

    Welshcakes praised that old man in the video. That old man was promoting the very thing which he’d fought against in the war. This has zero to do with “equality”. It is to do with separation.

    Divide and rule and those of us who can’t see what is going down are in an amazingly vulnerable position because they are lending their still democratic voices to the destruction of the building blocks of society.

  9. October 26, 2009 at 19:38

    I wasn’t refuting the family unit or the extended family unit in any way. I wouldn’t do that, it is something I very much believe in. Over the years I have found it disappointing that these values have slowly diminished. People have become selfish and think first of themselves before they think of others.

    Now I would like to know your thoughts on the talk about love in the Bible and the marriage vows.

    I know you have done a new post which I will get onto properly in a bit, but I just wanted to reply to your answer here 🙂

  10. October 26, 2009 at 20:20

    Christianity exhorts love, of course, especially a man for his wife and I believe in it. In the post, I was referring to the historicity of marriage in general.

  11. October 26, 2009 at 22:28

    You explained it much better in your later post 🙂

Comments are closed.