A Commonsensical Definition of Marriage

In the article “Liberals Don’t Want You To Read Ryan Anderson” found on The Federalist, Rachel Lu argues that Ryan Anderson, in his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” “is a man who knows what marriage is.  [And] this is dangerous stuff, indeed.”

In the article she states that Ryan Anderson provides this commonsensical definition of marriage:  [marriage is a] “permanent, exclusive union of husband and wife.  [It exists], to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces.  Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.”

Marriage exists because a man and woman can forge a unique kind of relationship that no other assortment of people can duplicate.  Human love takes many forms, each with its own rewards and attendant obligations, but this is the only kind of love that gives rise to new life.  That is why we distinguish and elevate it, and also why we use legal and cultural structures to impose a substantial body of rules and expectations on the married.  Disordered procreative relationships beget social chaos, which affects a great many people who were never given the opportunity to “consent.”

What do you think?

Don’t take my word for it, read the article (and the book), don’t wait for the movie.

Have a little hope on me,

Roger