Sonja Corbitt Offers a Non-Religious, Social Defense of Marriage
The family based on marriage is the natural heritage of humanity written in every person's DNA and which characterizes the culture of all the peoples in history
After Tuesday's NC vote to ban gay marriage and civil unions, many are asking "why"? Questions of concerning marriage as a relevant institution, a legal advantage, and an individual right and have become so widespread, systemic, and divisive in our society that it is important to publicly revisit, in a non-religious, anthropological way, why traditional marriage must be legally elevated above other unions, cohabitative, homosexual, or otherwise.
If religion or faith is part of their lives, it takes a back seat to a sense of justice provoked by the denial of equal rights of gays to marry or protections for those who live together without marrying. All initiatives and arguments that seem opposed to this sense of choice and fairness, then, are seen as religious and irrelevant without considering the other, more convincing foundations.
Supporters of equal rights for alternative family models believe that any institution or government that acts to maintain the status quo, does so exclusively because the family, based on marriage, is simply the cultural model (a "traditional" as opposed to "progressive" model) that it wants to keep, despite the great advances and evolutions of our times.
Questions of marriage as a relevant institution, a legal advantage, and an individual right and social justice for all, then, have become so widespread, systemic, and divisive in our society that it is important to publicly revisit, in a non-religious, anthropological way, why traditional marriage must be legally elevated above other unions, cohabitative, homosexual, or otherwise.
A Rational Perspective
The justice or fairness argument is most often taken up in defense of a situation, person, or group of persons with whom individuals and groups are personally connected or sympathetic. It is therefore an emotional assertion. Arguments based on emotion, whether based on compassion or ideology, are inherently superficial, prejudiced, and most often culturally conditioned. They cannot be wholly rational, nor therefore wholly just, at all.
Viewing the case for legal equality for alternative unions through sympathy pits contemporary, individual, private choices against decades of scientific evidence and millennia of historical proof for the objective value of traditional marriage to the social order. It exalts individual freedom of choice without reference to any relevant social value.
It is an individualistic and private approach to marriage and the family that is blind to its objective social dimension. Without these considerations, the argument is irrational and contrary to reason. It is self-affirmation, often forced against others. It is selfish because it affirms and acknowledges only self, not society, and does not consider either the past or the future, only the present. It cannot therefore, be just.
The difference between the family originating in marriage, and the community that originates in an alternative union, is not, and could never be created by any public authority. It is a natural and original institution that is completely and absolutely prior to any group whatsoever.
An Ancient Anthropological Perspective
What is prior, inherently takes priority. Before there was ever a civilization, society, race, or tribe, there was a man and a woman. DNA studies indicate that all modern humans share a common female ancestor and a common male ancestor who lived in Africa thousands of years ago. The first humans had children, and a family was created.
Aside from any physical anomaly, fatherhood and motherhood are genetically and physiologically written into the first man and woman, and every man and woman after them. Genetically and physiologically, woman receives man, and a new human is created. Children have a genetic, inherent, and fundamental right, then, to both a mother and father. This fact is physically and genetically irrevocable.
Furthermore, children can only proceed from this union. Certainly fatherhood and motherhood can also be and are emotional, intellectual, or spiritual, but gender is inherently natural, genetic, basic and foundational. Physical anomalies can and do occur, and we have compassion and empathy when they do, but anomalies do not, and cannot change that man plus woman is the genesis of all humankind.
Granting marital status to unions between persons of the same sex is anthropologically opposed by the natural impossibility of the transmission of life and the absence of complementarity between male and female at the most basic biological level. If the bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real anthropological family, then it follows that the right for that union to adopt children without a family is also ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Attorney General approved warrant for Fox reporter's emails
- 'Journalism has been criminalized' Juan Williams declares
- Documents reveal US drone policy is scandalously indiscriminate
- Special Report from the Virginia Republican Nominating Convention: A Time To Choose - Life
- Lois Learner pleads the 5th. Was she the crook behind it or was she following orders from higher up?
- Sick of deception! Democrat threatens IRS with appointment of special prosecutor
- FOURTH OBAMA SCANDAL: Did HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicit funds for nonprofit group?
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?