David Russell Explains Marriage Defense Well

David Russell writes at The Poached Egg on his case for marriage. He touches upon what's going on in Christian circles:

We live in a culture where sensationalism wins the day and scriptural illiteracy runs rampant in the pews. To assume Christ would change his mind undermines the truth of his divinity and if the apostles got it wrong the inerrant word of God is no longer inerrant or it is basically ignored. The scriptures couldn't be more true when it says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

 

One need not be Christian to see that marriage unites the sexes, but any follow of Christ should not deny what He affirmed. Then Russell moves on to the larger issue of society:

 

Civil rights is not the issue. There is no discrimination except in basic behavior, which all laws are based around. The truth is, we are all entitled to marry in the same way, we all share the same rights and restrictions equally. I am a heterosexual male and have the same right to marry as the homosexual, I also have the same restrictions the homosexual has. Greg Koukl gives a beautiful illustration in a past issue of solid ground, he puts it like this, “Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither are allowed to vote in France. Jones, however has no interest in U.S. politics, he's partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained?" Simply put NO! both he and Smith have the same rights to vote in America Smith chooses to exercise that right, so for Jones there is only inequality in desire not in legality. 

Basically, the marriage law applies to each citizen in exactly the same way, the Homosexual wants the right to do something neither person can do. So all those with equal signs posted to their profiles are drastically misinformed, or they simply like being part of the crowd.

Right. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have EQUAL rights now, and they would still have them under neutered licensing. This is not about equality, but that word is a useful emotional hook.

Natural marriage produces the next generation, the government has a vested interest in the next generation, so, naturally it promotes the carrying on of the civilization. The government needs to be somewhat involved in this process due to the behavior of humans and their inability to commit. Also, imagine what a man would do if there was no accountability, he could leave and bear no responsibility to his mate or children; the government makes sure the women and children are protected. The government doesn't get involved because you're in love, it reigns in that aspect of commitment and furthermore, deals with inheritance intrinsic to natural marriage, It also provides relief to promote the family in regard to the very nature of child rearing, something also inherent to natural marriage. Tax relief is given to lighten the load for fathers who have out of work mothers and children you now have to feed.

That is a excellent way of boiling down the truth of the matter.

With examining the benefits of natural marriage, why do I think it should be the only one promoted by government? First, it is the natural foundation of society and yields benefits to everyone, no other relationship can do that. Second, a study by J.D. Unwin concludes out of eighty six civilizations spanning the course of five thousand years the most prosperous were the ones with a strong marriage ethic, he includes that every civilization that abandoned this ethic and liberalized their sexual practices experienced demise not long after. (Joseph Unwin, Sex and Culture: London Oxford press, 1934)

I'm sure some Leftist has written a response to that work by now that blames economic inequality for the demise of those civilizations.