Freedom and Marriage
Freedom and marriage are two hot topics in our society right now, as they should be, since those two things are inseparably connected.
The right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of freedom. Without life, there is no freedom, and without freedom, there is no life (at least no life worth living).
New life can only be created through the mixture of female and male DNA. Those two ingredients are mandatory.
Newly created life is completely helpless and must be nurtured for many years before it can enjoy true freedom.
Male and female influences are essential ingredients for raising well-balanced people, thus the best results are obtained when the man and the woman who created the life take responsibility for the raising and nurturing of it.
The second of the foundational principles of freedom is the right to live free from coercion. This means in a free society, we all agree to not use force or fraud when dealing with others.
Specifically with children, this means we don’t create them forcibly (rape) or fraudulently (promiscuity), we don’t raise them forcibly (abuse) or fraudulently (abandonment or neglect), and we don’t terminate their lives forcibly (abortion).
Traditional marriage is both the social tradition and the legal contract Western society came up with to best protect the lives and freedoms of our children.
There are (or were) two essential aspects of traditional marriage that best protected our children from coercion:
1. Sexual morality and exclusivity – this means we do not use the power of creation outside of marriage, which is the best way to guarantee children aren’t brought into the world unwanted or uncared for.
2. Life long commitment – this means we get married and stay married at almost all costs, which is the best way to guarantee children aren’t abandoned emotionally and financially.
These customs were and still are the best guarantors of freedom for children.
We collectively abandoned our children and their rights when we legally and socially divorced the notions of sexual exclusivity and life long commitment from marriage. This was known as the sexual revolution. It was indeed a revolution, unfortunately freedom lost.
In doing this, we made it socially and legally permissible and acceptable to create life fraudulently and to easily abandon it fraudulently. We then compounded the crime by making it acceptable to terminate that life forcibly through abortion.
We had a choice to make in the sixties between sexual tyranny (sexual liberation for the adults, at the expense of freedom for our children) and true freedom. We chose the first one.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “Those who deny liberty to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God will not long retain it.”
It doesn’t even require the existence of a just God to take away our freedoms. It is a natural consequence. Freedom is based on a set of principles. If we obey those principles, we are free. If we stop obeying them, we stop being free. Those principles are the ones described above: the right to life, and the right to live free from coercion.
When we decided the pursuit of sexual pleasure for adults was more important than the life and liberty of our children, we ran the ship of freedom into the iceberg of tyranny and have been taking on water ever since.
There are those who look at what marriage currently is (some sort of vague commitment between two people that confers some legal rights and has some legal consequences once it ends) and see no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to same sex couples.
There are those who understand the real purpose of marriage and believe that its destruction is leading to the loss of freedom for our children and will eventually lead to the loss of all our freedoms (if a person doesn’t value the right to life of their own children, is it really all that surprising that they won’t value the right to liberty of their political opponents either).
They are fighting to have us return to the old definition (exclusivity and life long commitment). They see changing the definition even further to include homosexuals as just one more dysfunctional step further away from their goal and so oppose it.
In any community, there is something known as herd immunity. It means that if most people are doing the things needed to keep the community functioning, then you and I don’t have to and it won’t have any noticeable affect on the community.
In the case of marriage and freedom, it means if enough people are being raised in healthy traditional families, then children being raised in the less optimal circumstances of single parent, same-sex parents or abusive heterosexual parents won’t be a problem to society as a whole.
The question is what happens if we get to a point where a majority of children are being raised outside of traditional families? What affect will that have on society as a whole? Will human adaptability compensate and make it so there is no noticeable difference, or will it be fatal to our society? We don’t know, but from what I see in the world, it does not looking promising for us.Freedom, Politics, Religion