Even Secular Marriage is about Dying to Self

Sometimes in the battle against the anti-marriage true believers (“Marriage is just a piece of paper.”) we point out that Christian marriage is about dying to self. Christian wives are told ‘Wives, submit yourself unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’ [Ephesians 5:22] Christian husbands are told ‘Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.’ [ Ephesians 5: 25]

Since Christ loved the church— composed of unworthy sinners— by dying on the cross for it, Christian wives win. We can see that both husbands and wives are given strict commands where the end result is being very unselfish to the marriage partner— dying to self, or at least putting your more selfish side in second place.

Secular marriage is different from Christian marriage— after all, many ancient cultures allowed for easy divorce and remarriage. But the dying to self part of marriage is not necessarily absent.

Let us take the example of a caveman— or, more technically, a Paleolithic man. His name is Marcus (not all cavemen have to be named Ogg) and he’s just taken a wife named Lucia. Once married (or pair-bonded, since they don’t have ‘a piece of paper’ since paper hasn’t been invented yet), they stop living just for themselves and start thinking more of their partner. When Marcus is out hunting, he anticipates how Lucia will react when he brings down an antelope. When Lucia is out gathering edible plants, she rejoices when she finds things she thinks Marcus will like— even if she doesn’t much like it herself. They try to please the other.

In a more life-and-death situation, the fact that Lucia is a wife and not a virgin enhances her chances of getting pregnant. But pregnancy brings with it a risk of dying in childbirth. Marriage may cost Lucia her life. Staying a virgin would have been safer. But Lucia takes the risk.

In time of crisis— perhaps the tribe is being attacked by the men of a rival human band— it is Marcus who may have to give his life. Males, even in animal herds, tend to fight a threat while the females and young can get away. Marcus may have to fight attackers while Lucia takes the babies and runs away. Marcus might die to save the lives of his wife and offspring. But that’s what even secular marriage is about, and if Marcus has living offspring who survive because of his sacrifice, at least his genes will live on.

What about a same-sex couple? Let us say that in Marcus and Lucia’s tribe there is a pair of males, James and Andrew (yeah, also not named Ogg.) James and Andrew may be sex partners, or may just have a very intense friendship that leaves little room for other social relationships. (‘Being Gay’ in the modern sense has most certainly not been invented yet.)

James and Andrew may care about one another every bit as much as Marcus and Lucia do, but neither James nor Andrew has to worry about dying in childbirth because of it. And if the tribe is attacked, both, being males, will be expected to fight against the enemy to help women and children escape. Since their union cannot produce children, their genes will not live on if they both die in battle. Since James and Andrew have no escaping wives and children to worry about, they may be forgiven if they decide that self-preservation is more of a thing for them.

Because male-female couples can potentially produce children which have a genetic future, ‘dying to self’ in a marriage makes more sense, even in secular contexts. And putting self second makes a marriage last longer that deciding that marriage is a 50/50 proposition and then quarreling over what constitutes 50%. Other relationships— whether same-sex or cohabitation or hookups— just don’t normally generate the whole ‘dying to self’ attitude. Which is why marriage is special, and not necessarily the same thing as a friendship or a casual-sex-partner relationship.

If you think my opinions are politically incorrect, thank you for paying attention. I personally am ‘non-heterosexual’, but I believe in man-woman marriage. I realize a lot of people don’t think I’m allowed to hold such opinions.

Same-Sex Marriage is an Oxymoron

Please actually read article before forming opinion, and look up the word ‘oxymoron’ in the dictionary if you don’t know it. And yes, I know, this post will probably lose me all my blog readers, some because of the SSA, some because of the Christianity/Catholicism.

To me there are many amazing things about the same-sex faux marriage movement. How they got a gay community who considered themselves the opposite of bourgeois married people to fight to participate in the bourgeois institution is beyond me. I guess propaganda really can do anything.

The problem is that the word marriage has a meaning, and substitutions are not a given. A lawyer and client, in American law, have a special relationship. And yet a client cannot sue his ex-lawyer for alimony! A proctologist need not expect to be granted equal rights to perform risky brain surgery. And you cannot have a priest-penitent relationship with your plumber— even if he’s a really great plumber!

Marriage is the union of two unlike elements: a man and a woman. To say that the woman is disposable, and can be replaced by a second man without changing anything, is insulting to women. To say that the man is disposable and can be replaced by a second woman is insulting to men. Pairs of men or of women are different from man-woman couples, and it’s kind of heterosexist to say otherwise.

In the past the gay community firmly rejected the notion that gay persons should form imitation heterosexual married couples. Back before I became a Catholic, I once joined a Lesbian lonely hearts club and appalled them by referring to my desired future partner as a ‘wife.’ Though of course in even earlier times, the gay community divided each sex into ‘butch’ and ‘femme’, masculine and feminine, and all gay couples were supposed to consist of one masculine and one feminine partner.

The thing is, words have meanings and there are required elements. A lifeboat in a ship needs to be an item that will float. Baptism requires water and not, for example, a handful of sand. A book writer has to actually write a book. And a marriage has a man and a woman.

Think about this: suppose I were to write a book of Lesbian fiction about two women who were life-partners as well as partners in solving crimes. And in the very first story one of the women is killed. Would the story be just as Lesbian if the surviving woman married a man? Or does a Lesbian life-partnership require two women, with no substitutions possible?

One big difference between a married couple and members of a Gay life-partnership is that a man-woman married couple, if they are young enough and fertile enough, can experience the birth of children whether they want kids or not. No contraceptives work 100%, and I’ve even heard of cases where a woman went in for an abortion and came out still pregnant. In a Gay life-partnership, children not only don’t happen by accident, they must be planned for and paid for. And they must accept that they cannot become biological parents together, but only one at most can be biologically related to the child, and they must obtain sperm or ova from some human being who will be equally a biological parent with them. Gay men often need a woman to provide the egg, and a different woman to go through the pregnancy— and then they have to hope these women go away for good and don’t seek out a relationship with the child.

Of course, when I was connected with the Lesbian community, there were loads of rumors that science could make a baby from two women, but they wouldn’t, because sexism. A couple decades have passed, and I still haven’t heard of any two-mommy babies, and I’m coming to believe they didn’t know how to make them all this time after all. At any rate, hell will freeze over before poor Lesbians will be able to afford custom-concieved two-mommy babies.

At any rate, this is reality: marriage requires a man and a woman the same way homicide requires a victim and a killer and Lesbian coupledom requires two Lesbians. And people who don’t like to accept realities like that are just not my problem.

As I have revealed in the article above, I am a woman with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA, Lesbian orientation) and I am also a Catholic convert who supports the teaching of the Church. If you are a homophobe or a Catholic-hater, you probably shouldn’t have read this blog post. Comments with homophobic or anti-Catholic hate are not published but will be laughed at. Civil comments, supportive and dissenting, are welcomed.

I have a pro-marriage Facebook page, and a pro-marriage MeWe group. You are welcome to join either or both if you also support marriage (Man & Woman.)

We Support Traditional Marriage — and We’re Gay: https://www.facebook.com/defendtradmarriage/
Defend Trad Marriage: Biology & Theology: https://mewe.com/group/5bca1f9c73a3f14e7c8572e5

Supreme Court: Barbarians at Our Gates

marriageWestern civilization: I’m going to miss it. I think we all are, including those who celebrated a tragedy by pasting rainbow symbols all over the internet and bullying those who wouldn’t do likewise.

No matter how much a person hates Western civilization, Christianity, the Catholic faith, man-woman marriage, and the family, we all depend on these things. When you need help, who will you turn to when Christian charity has been mocked, regulated, and punished out of existence? When you are old and need young people to pay in to your pension fund, to mow your lawn and to provide skilled nursing care when you need it, what will you do when your society values children so little that there are no longer enough people to help the aged— and no moral law telling those young people why they should.

In Pagan Rome, people were allowed to kill their slaves— by crucifixion— for any real or imagined misdeed. The father of a household could demand that a newborn baby of that household be killed by ‘exposure’— taken out and abandoned. Gladiatorial games grew out of a custom of having two slaves fight to the death at a funeral to provide a sort of human sacrifice in honor of the dead man.

Later in Rome, the emperor was declared a god, and people who for religious reasons could not give the emperor-god worship when asked to do so were executed in the arena for the entertainment of the masses.

This is how it was before Christianity civilized the Western world. What will it devolve to when the people with power are so definitively rejecting Christianity— along with human biology, logic and common sense?

But there is good news among the depressing stuff. The last time the Supreme Court made a decision this evil, people said everyone would accept it and the opposition would melt away or die off. On the fortieth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, the March for Life was bigger and stronger than ever, and it was frequently remarked how many young people were getting active in the prolife movement.

I predict the same thing for this new decision. Human biology will not change. The teachings of the Bible and the Church can not change. And Christianity has endured far worse than this and rather than disappearing, it has grown stronger.