Happily mirage after

As children, we always enjoyed hearing every bedtime fairy tale end with, “…and they lived happily married after and had many children.”

A joyful adventure concluding with the Prince conquering all the evildoers, rightfully inheriting a kingdom and marrying his beloved Princess.

As the years went by, however, less and less fairy tales closed with ‘…and had many children’. This was a result of a gradually forged mentality by proponents of population control: ‘smaller families, that is, lesser children equated to a happier married life.’ Say goodbye to our Prince Charming dreams.

Advocates of population control continue to doubt man’s capacity to freely engineer his perfection together with God’s help. They seem to forget the blessings –an abundance of livestock, harvest, more children– that Job received when he faithfully and patiently embraced the tribulations God allowed in his life.

But something more is about to happen to our fairy tale with the advent of same-sex marriage. Our children’s tales may still end with the usual ‘happily married after,’ but parents may find it complicated to explain who are actually getting married. The institution of marriage is rapidly and effectively being redefined and dismantled by a systematic gay agenda.

This agenda holds that ‘marriage as a social institution has evolved and changed numerous times over the course of human history.’ They claim this was ‘to accommodate the needs of a particular society and culture.’ With these two premises craftily proposed, they conclude that ‘marriage ought to evolve again to address the contemporary notions of human sexuality that recognize the fluidity not only of gender identities but also of sexual orientations.’

Exactly what they mean by ‘ought to evolve’ is not quite clear. If by evolve they are referring to how the institution of marriage has been gradually liberated from former primitive human unions such as polygamy and forced engagements, then marriage has actually achieved an identity respectful and perfecting of the true dignity of man and woman.

If by evolve they mean reducing and impoverishing the institution according to the dictates of the disordered tendencies present in human nature, then they are implying nothing more than a devolution of marriage to a state where and when it was once appreciated only for its reproductive contribution to society.

In reality, ideas evolve more than things in reality. Sadly, not all ideas are applicable to reality and may be unhealthy for man. Marxist ideology is one example. It considered man to be only matter (that is, without a soul), and considered him to be a dispensable minion for work and reproduction of the state.

From this ideology, Marxist created the communist state. It became an institution described as ‘heaven on earth without God.’ We need not describe the horrible and lingering consequences this had for man’s history. Many have not yet learned from the harsh lessons of this socio-political experiment.

Similarly, proponents of same-sex marriage are redefining marriage. Although they are not attempting to ‘create a new institution’ they are trying to reconstruct it with the aim that it may ‘now embrace unions according to evolving gender identities or ideologies.’

Perhaps, in their attempt to broaden and enrich the definition of marriage as an institution now embracing their sexual orientations, they are not aware of actually weakening it and making it vulnerable to losing its authentic identity and function of cradling the complementary union between one man and one woman.

We cannot here speak of evolving, but of retrogressing or devolving, as when a particular reality begins to lose the upgraded and perfected qualities it has gained through time. Moreover, it would be unfair to simply redefine a reality or institution, without considering if the ‘new definition’ will first uphold the nature and dignity of man.

It must be recalled that marriage, although a human institution, originally stems from the innate God-given dignity of man and woman. To neglect this or based its redefinition on one stray psychological tendency –to which the human person’s richness cannot be reduced to– would be nothing more than intellectual shortsightedness.

Marriage evolved in its dignity and function as humanity discovered, upheld and protected the objective identity and dignity of the human person. Thus, it is the most natural and fitting institution protecting and perfecting the union between man and woman. Thus, it serves society by ensuring the lifelong union of a man and a woman and promoting the procreation and education of their children.

If same-sex advocates refuse to open and reflect on these underlying objective truths about the human person and marriage, then the most that they can achieve is to deform marriage into a mirage of their sexual orientations. And when this mirage –created by the heat of their passionate agenda– fades into thin air, those who had hope to find an oasis of hope and affection, will instead encounter a harsh, dry and barren reality of regrets and disillusion.