Let’s Restrict the Definition of Marriage for Straights
The most visible and applauded marriage illustrating this was the seven-hour liaison between Britney Spears and her fifteen-minutes-of-fame significant other. Legally, this was a marriage, but what went into it? About fifty bucks and a lot of alcohol. Even the most hardline conservative can’t say that this marriage did anything to enhance the strength of the family.
A second illustration is Britney’s current pairing. Minutes after the annulment of her first folly, dear Britney hooked up with a guy whose claim to fame is fathering two out-of-wedlock children with a shack-up honey. These children now look forward to the joyful experience of being knapsack kids, shuttling back and forth between households on a regular basis, hoping that bio-mom, bio-dad or stepmother Britney is willing to pull the plug temporarily on their all-important career and pay attention to them. Boy, this marriage really did a lot to promote family values, didn’t it?
The debate about marriage needs an injection of intellectual honesty. To be sure, homosexuality isn’t normal in either the psychological or biological sense, and attempting to normalize this behavior by calling sex between same-sex adults a marriageï is disingenuous. However, calling what Britney Spears and her current appendage did a marriage is just as degrading to the institution, and the damage that has been done to the fragile fabric of the childrenï’s world is real, current and immense.
In order to protect marriage, we need to define it as a sanctified union between grownups who have a clue what they’re doing and are willing to assume the responsibility for their choice. Anything less than this whether it be a union of gays or straights is a business deal.
About the Author
The author is a freelance writer and farmer with a lot of opinions. She lives in the stubbornly red state of Indiana.
