I've noticed a growing number of people (many of them Christian) who think the solution to the state redefining marriage is for the state to remove itself from the regulation of marriage completely. I reject this view completely.
Marriage is a social institution, and removing the state from the regulation of marriage would speed up the social unraveling that we are now currently experiencing. The state has an absolute interest in marriage because without marriage, there is no state. We may as well just close down Parliament completely and go back to tribal living, where absolute authority is vested in leaders of small groups.
Can I produce a coherent argument as to why marriage not regulated by the state would be so destructive to the state? Not yet, but I will.
Even if NZ makes a terrible mistake in redefining marriage, we need to stick with the State as a regulator of marriage, because this situation will not last long. At some point, people will wonder what the point of regulating short-term romantic attachments is. They will notice that children brought up by non mother/father couples will have serious problems, just as we are noticing now that children brought up by single parents, depending on their background, have serious problems. And then there will be a push to create an ideal marriage status, defined as optimal for children, and we'll have traditional marriage back again. How long this process will take, I don't know, but it with either happen or the state will implode.
In the meantime, it's worth really understanding what marriage is and how to counter the marriage revisionist arguments.
Related link: Opposing same-sex marriage: a civil decision, not a religious one ~ LifeSiteNews
Marriage is a social institution, and removing the state from the regulation of marriage would speed up the social unraveling that we are now currently experiencing. The state has an absolute interest in marriage because without marriage, there is no state. We may as well just close down Parliament completely and go back to tribal living, where absolute authority is vested in leaders of small groups.
Can I produce a coherent argument as to why marriage not regulated by the state would be so destructive to the state? Not yet, but I will.
Even if NZ makes a terrible mistake in redefining marriage, we need to stick with the State as a regulator of marriage, because this situation will not last long. At some point, people will wonder what the point of regulating short-term romantic attachments is. They will notice that children brought up by non mother/father couples will have serious problems, just as we are noticing now that children brought up by single parents, depending on their background, have serious problems. And then there will be a push to create an ideal marriage status, defined as optimal for children, and we'll have traditional marriage back again. How long this process will take, I don't know, but it with either happen or the state will implode.
In the meantime, it's worth really understanding what marriage is and how to counter the marriage revisionist arguments.
Related link: Opposing same-sex marriage: a civil decision, not a religious one ~ LifeSiteNews