A Crack in the Foundation

We are a nation of laws, not of men. That guiding principle has served our nation since its inception. Today, however, we can clearly see cracks forming in that foundational ideal. Over time, post modern relativism has gradually seeped into our culture and brought into question some of the immutable principles upon which our society rests. Chief among these is the notion of the family.

Sociologically speaking, the familiy unit and how it is defined, is the bedrock of any culture. For ages, our cultural definition has centered around the consensual monogamous relationship of one man and one woman. Certainly other cultures have had other definitions, to their ruination. There seems to be some timeless wisdom in the Judeo-Christian ideal of a life-long commitment between a man and a woman.

First of all, there is obviously the biological advantage. One man and one woman in a committed relationship provide sexual satisfatction for one another without the risks of disease, the stress and anxiety of infidelity and jealosy, and countless other pitfalls that come with polygamous or uncommitted affairs. Procreation cannot be discounted either. Psychologically, we see the benefits of intimate relationships which are based on something more than mere sexual gratification. The notion that sexual union can concieve a new life is sobering for those who truly consider it. That sobering truth brings added respect to the sex act and to the partner with whom one is sharing. Sexual union becomes something awesome and, dare I say, holy, when it is more than a pursuit of physical gratification.

Second, we see the sociological advantages of committed monogamous relationships: the idea of a "help-meet" as expressed in scripture. It is comforting to know that, come what may, there is one person in the world who will always be at my side, offering encouragement and support.

Third, the monogamous, heterosexual union of man and woman provides the ideal structure in which to raise children. Like a mini corportation, this union provides co-equal "CEO's" who run the family. Children are exposed to both genders, allowing them to establish healthy notions of themselves and others. Roles within the "company" are clearly delineated, again providing a sound structure. Like any organization, these roles and boundaries must be defined and observed. There are obviously many families where this is not the case. It is only within the monogamous, heterosexual union, however, that the ideal can be attained. Other unions naturally begin with dysfunctional patterns. In those cases, one can only "hope for the best" out of an already bad situation.

We have already seen the homosexual lobby succesfully put the first cracks in this foundation. Under the ruse of "equal rights," they have successfully called into question the very defintion of marriage, parenthood, and with it, the very foundation of our culture. Many warned of the "slippery slope" that was eminent once we started this redefinition. They were dismissed as "prudes" and "alarmists." This was all about "equal rights for gays and lesbians."

Now we see the further erosion of the bedrock as polygamous families begin the quest for their "rights."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7953270.stm




Where will this end? Now that we've allowed precedent for individual "rights" to supercede bedrock societal laws and principles, where can we stop? Where is the defense against other "choices" of relationships?

I pray that we can come to our senses, but history teaches us that once we've started down this road, there's no turning back. That's why it's called the "slippery slope." I fear we are gathering momentum and headed toward a precipice.