Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

Unique Power in Traditional Marriage

email Email

Most Americans know instinctively that marital relationships between men and women count as more consequential, more beneficial to society, than even the most loving connections between couples of the same gender. Those same-sex partnerships shouldn’t be banned or derided, but they shouldn’t be equated with traditional marriage, either.

Heterosexual unions derive their incomparable energy by uniting two partners across this vast male-female divide—a gap far larger and more elemental than any differences of race, class, education, ideology or age.  The power of unifying males and females is reflected in their unique ability to produce offspring—rather than pro-creative ability by itself conferring distinctive significance on man woman-couples.  Even childless partnerships between males and females bring together contrasting gender outlooks and roles in a manner that deserves the sponsorship and encouragement of organized society.

email Email

Comments (12)

Leave a comment
  1. April  •  Apr 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    Medved has a very good thing going here. I wish he would elaborate.

  2. Tino Abudagher  •  Apr 26, 2013 at 4:44 am

    ♫You don’t believe we’re on the Eve of Destruction…♫

    It’s not about morality, ethics, values, or religious beliefs. It’s not about a world view, point of view, mindset, or opinion. It is about “Hard Science”. Unarguable, conclusive, verifiable, objective, rational, biologically efficient Science.

    This is a simple message, a simple revelation, but one with dire consequences if we do not listen to “… the voice calling out in the wilderness” to a nation on the path to self-destruction.

    The revelation I speak of is objective, irrefutable, and unarguable truth about our species, and the danger we are now facing. This once great nation must be awakened to see the future of our species through the unfiltered lens of pure science.

    In 1989, two young activists began a movement for the normalization of homosexuality. Authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen pointed out that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would not be successful unless the movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, instead of moral acceptance. The War had begun.

    I call this the “War” because a Supreme Court victory here for them means the ultimate end of our nation, and of our species. There will be no more battles to fight if they win. This well thought out strategy of “this is about our civil rights,” surprisingly joined the politically defined liberal with many who considered themselves otherwise conservative, and it even brought into the fold some of the “fundamentalists. And, those with no political preference also donned the mantra that went out, “It is about civil rights!” Who could resist that?

    Since then this argument has led to the decriminalization of homosexual behaviors, the inclusion of homosexuals within the United States military, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states.

    The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments in two cases that directly address the question of same-sex marriage and the U.S. Constitution. The argument before the court over same-sex marriage is not just about same-sex marriage, and civil rights. Much more is at stake.

    In Darwin’s famous work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, he envisioned the spontaneous formation of simple life evolving into higher forms through the forces of nature selecting the fittest. The story of evolution denies the existence of a supernatural Creator. All evolutionary processes are purely naturalistic. Evolution means “no God.” No God means there are no rules, no commandments that we must obey. Molecules-to-man evolution allows the liberal to live as they choose.

    Roe v. Wade, created the legal concept of “Reproductive Rights,” otherwise known as the right to abortion. This decision by the court surgically removed from our national creed the right to life.

    I think that we should modify the Declaration of Independence to correctly read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Since Roe v. Wade, no human being has the right to “Life.” Life is in this nation a matter of convenience. And, if Eve decides that this is not a convenient time, then with the support and power of our government, you must be aborted. All the power of the former greatest nation on earth will make sure you do not see life. Eve’s legal right to not be inconvenienced trumps your right to be born and have life. Couple this decision with what now looms before the court and the survival of our species becomes tenuous at best.

    What we have before us is a nation that decries the involvement of religion in government and the public square. We are a nation that vehemently espouses the separation of state and religion and we conveniently ignore the that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We are a nation whose god is science, a nation that worships at the altar of the “Big Bang Theory,” a nation that equates governmental neutrality with belief in science. But, now as we head to the U.S. Supreme Court, Darwinian natural selection and human evolution must be cast aside. The liberals must make the case for ignoring science in order to normalize homosexuality. It is after all about civil rights!

    With apologies to the religious, survival of the fittest is what got our species to where we are today. What should have gone before Congress was not a “Defense of Marriage Act,” but a “Defense of Species Act.”

    I believe that there may be only one instance in our species where behavior may not be a choice and that is in mental illness. Despite the arguments to the contrary, all other behavior is a choice.

    As a nation we have continually engaged in the psychology or “Excuseology,” excusing behaviors of all types so as not to offend anyone. If our species is to survive and continue our evolution we must not continue to look at behavior through the lens of social values, culture, psychology, religion, etc., but rather through lens of objective, rational science.

    Strictly from a common sense basis, how is it that we are even considering a single biologically defined deviant human behavior to be worthy of becoming a “civil right?” This former “one nation, under God” no longer recognizes that any of its citizens has a constitutional right to life (Roe v. Wade), but we are willing to now extend constitutional protection to an aberrant human behavior?

    The use of the words “deviant” and “aberrant” are not derived from some subjective, ethical, moral, or religious judgment. I use them strictly from a biological and scientific standpoint. The evolution of our species is imperiled when we begin to define homosexual behavior as a constitutional right.

    Let us look objectively and scientifically at human behavior. Let us begin with some of the more familiar ones. Drug addiction, alcoholism, pedophilia, the serial murderer and rapist, the armed robber, burglar, drug dealer, auto thief, forger, prostitute, satyr, nymphomaniac, etc., and the list goes on and on. Would we consider any of these behaviors a civil right? Why not?

    Science cannot predict with certainty who will become a drug addict, alcoholic, or child molester. Even if there may be some evidence of a genetic proclivity towards a particular behavior, all behavior is still ultimately a choice.

    Think about this, if in fact homosexuality is genetically determined, if it is not a choice, and the Supreme Court determines that being homosexual is a constitutionally protected right, is Roe v. Wade undermined. Is Darwin’s theory of evolution and survival of the fittest torn down?

    Unlike the rest of us who do not have a constitutional right to life because of Roe v. Wade, will homosexuals become the only human beings that cannot be aborted because it is a civil right to be homosexual? Or will the Supreme Court include a clause in their decision that states that even though homosexuality is a constitutionally protected right, Roe v. Wade remains supreme and homosexuals will be subject to government sanctioned abortion?

    I was once asked by a homosexual friend, when had I decided to become a heterosexual? He was explaining to me that he believed he was born a homosexual and that he cannot change who he is, no more than he could change his skin color.

    I thought about this and answered him that each morning I must choose what I will be. In fact each morning every human being is not only free to, but in fact they must choose what they will be. Tomorrow I can choose to become an alcoholic, or a drug addict. I can choose to become a rapist, or child molester, and I can do this despite my genetic makeup or DNA. There is no power on earth that could stop me or anyone from becoming a homosexual tomorrow. That is our choice.

    He responded that I may choose to engage in any of these behaviors, but that doesn’t make me an alcoholic, drug addict, or homosexual. I may choose to become any of these, but I can quit, or change my behavior any time I want to. He said, in his case he cannot quit being a homosexual.

    I answered that he was probably right. But like him, an alcoholic can never stop being an alcoholic either. An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life, a drug addict is a drug addict for life, a pedophile is a pedophile for life. What they can do is choose to stop engaging in the behaviors of the alcoholic, drug addict, or pedophile. They can stop drinking, taking drugs, or molesting children, but it does become a daily choice for each of them for the rest of their lives.

    Here is where science, evolution, and biology become important. Imagine if tomorrow every human being, including those waiting to be given permission to be born and have life, became a homosexual. In one lifetime humans would be extinct. Let us put aside our morals, values, and religion in this discussion and rely on science and evolution to guide us.

    Of all the human behaviors that we can engage in, only one leads directly to human extinction. This is not conjecture, or opinion based on some subjective morality, or religious viewpoint, it is pure unarguable, irrefutable, objective, scientific fact.

    Homosexuality, by biological definition can only lead to extinction. There is no other possible path for any species. If all birds began engaging in homosexual behavior, they would quickly become extinct as would dogs, cats, horses, etc. Our continuation as a species requires us to be able to procreate. By biological definition two creatures of the same sex cannot create life. The species ends!

    So the question becomes why would we make it a constitutional right to be homosexual, when we know that this leads to extinction, and especially when the Supreme Court has already ruled that no one has a constitutional right to life? Where is the logic in that?

    Some homosexual individuals assert that the true homosexual lifestyle wants nothing to do with anything heterosexual. Their position is that they have freely and knowingly chosen an alternate lifestyle that is preferred to the heterosexual lifestyle.

    Marriage is a heterosexual activity whose sole biological purpose is procreation of the species. By scientific definition raising children is also a heterosexual activity since two homosexual creatures cannot create offspring.

    It is my understanding that those living the true homosexual lifestyle see these individuals involved in this great debate demanding the status of marriage and parenthood, as being involved in a great and unfortunate self-deception. Simply put, it is their feeling that these individuals fighting for marriage, or to be parents, have an obvious conflicting psychological and emotional desire to embrace the heterosexual lifestyle, or at a minimum an inconsistent desire to simulate the heterosexual lifestyle.

    What is clear to me in this argument is that civil rights are those rights that a person should be recognized to possess simply because he or she is a citizen. No one should be denied these rights. We ought not to be assigning constitutional rights to anyone based on their biological behavior, especially when that behavior leads to our extinction as a species.

    I guess we are predictably here today because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, once they stripped all human beings of the constitutional right to life, constitutional rights and life become arbitrary and subject to the whim of those in power.

    “Eve walks among us and given to her is the power to choose…to choose death over life…the human vessel of life has become its destroyer…now comes forth her companion whose mission is extinction…”

    Tino Abudagher

  3. Rich  •  Apr 26, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    I don’t understand why you think there is a “vast male-female divide” We “connect” pretty easily after reaching puberty, in fact you might say that there should be parental control keeping rutting opposite sex children apart from each other lest that “vast divide” be obliterated by hormones.

    • April  •  Apr 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm

      I’m so happy to hear of your good fortune Rich. I hope that your personal experience remains an easy one with the opposite gender. May I ask if you are married?

  4. Loretta  •  Apr 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Michael, I am a 69 year old heterosexual woman with two grown children. I was married for 13 years and now have been living a homosexual life style since the age of 52. I made the decision to “cross over” after living alone for many years after my divorce and feeling nothing more than a sexual object to men. Then I met a a most generous and kind woman who completely respected me and asked nothing of me. I had been praying for a loving companion for years and finally decided that God had answered my prayer and sent me a loving partner in the form of a woman. I threw my fortune in with hers and we’ve been sharing our lives together for more than f7 years. Neither of us believe in gay marriage. We think marriage is a sacrament for men and women only because only men and women can procreate. That is a miracle given to us by God. We do not want marriage. We have all the paper work and legal rights drawn up including power of attorney and the legalities that protects our families and gives each to the others upon death etc. etc. etc. Anyone can do this without needing to get married. Perhaps I took the easy way out choosing to live with a woman….or maybe it was the “sick” way out….I don’t know….I question myself all the time…but i would never in a million years promote homosexuality, or demand any special “rights.” To me that is myopic and self destructive to our own civilization. I believe we must always put posterity ahead of ourselves or what’s the sense of anything. The only thing my partner and i insist on, not for ourselves, because we never have any trouble, but for the public at large, and that is to treat homosexual people with fairness and allow them to have their dignity. After all, who can throw stones? In the end, all of us are working out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Each of us must ultimately face our maker and be judged on the merits of our own lives. With respect, Loretta

  5. Robert Berger  •  Apr 26, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    This is all ridiculous. Same sex marriage will not bring the “ruination” of America any more than allowing blacks and women to vote, blacks and whites to marry, and allowing blacks to serve in th e military along with whites did.
    Yet long ago, there wer emany foolish and misguided Americans who believed these this WOULD bring our ruination . Same sex marriage does not interfere in any way with opposite sex couples getting married and raising families . And to say that it will lead to legalizing
    pedophilia, incest, polygamy and bestiality is absolutely idiotic .
    DOMA is a stupid and dagerous idea. Marriage does not need to be “defended”. It’s the rights of gay Americans (I’m not gay myself) which need to be defended, because they are under attack by homosexual bigots all over America . DOMA is nothing but a smokescreen for the homophpbic bigotry of the religious right and right-wing extremist politicians in congress .
    It will open up the slippery slope toward gradually eroding the civil rights of gay people in America . DOMA is as ridiculous as a bill in the past caled “Defense of white male voting rights” would have been . It is totally unconstitutional and totally immoral, and must be repealed .
    There is not one shred of evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple is in any way harmful to children as long as they are good parents . And having a heterosexual couple as parents does not guarantee that they will be good parents . It’s the quality of th eparenting, not the sexual preference of th e parents which matters .

    • Mary  •  Apr 27, 2013 at 8:52 am

      If marriage is about “who we love”, then there are no boundaries. If three women, two men, and four teens “love” each other and want to marry, who can raise an objection? Once you cross the line off marriage between one male and one female, anything goes. Taken further, these marriages of multiple people will inevitably produce children, and inevitably some “within” the marriage will find it necessary to divorce. Who gets the children? Which are the parents of the children – all the adults of the marriage, or just the two who created them? Now the children of the divorce of multiple people will be split between multiple factions of what used to be a marriage. Ask the children, who will be the innocent victims of this brave new world of newly defined marriage, if it made their lives more secure and less complicated. Maybe you have no limits to what marriage can be defined as (can someone marry their dog if they “love” it?) but the chaos and deterioration of the fabric of society is inevitable if we move off the current definition. If you do have a limit to the definition (someone cannot marry their dog), you will not be able to defend it, and if you try, you will become the new version of phobic, bigot, intolerant, offensive, and all the other derogatory terms you currently label those who see things differently than you.

      • Robert Berger  •  Apr 28, 2013 at 11:43 am

        What you’re talking about is not going to happen . You’re worried about nothing .
        If anything, it’s people who speak out against homophobia who are the ones who are in danger of being penalized ,not those who object to same sex marriage .
        Much ado about nothing.

      • Michael  •  Apr 29, 2013 at 8:31 pm

        Yes, indeed. In fact, one need look no further than the extreme example championed by the ACLU many years ago: the “Man-Boy Love Society”

        Pay particular attention to the “history of relations with LBGT” section.

        As Hugh Hewitt has remarked, “marriage is the load-bearing wall of Western society,” and no serious intellectual can honestly believe that we are more sophisticated in understanding human nature than all the philosophers and political leaders who have advised and led nations since the beginning of time. We engage our “do what feels good” narcissism at our own peril.

    • April  •  Apr 27, 2013 at 5:28 pm

      You are forgetting that representative government allows the people to voice what they believe is right. People living homosexual lifestyles are not interfered with anymore than any other kind of lifestyle in America.

      Virtually no one has their religious liberties (or their agnostic liberties!) infringed upon by freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, or freedom of the press. Nobody’s personal rights are hampered by checks and balances or the constitutional duties of the 3 branches. Government sanctioned homosexual marriage would be unprecedented, because it would inevitably infringe upon the religious liberties of millions of Americans. There is nothing comparable to that in the constitution today. No where has it been demanded of the American people to sanction any kind of behavior that violates anyone’s religious views. Some racist Americans were once compelled to tolerate certain aesthetic features on some citizens, but never to sanction behavior that is immoral to them. To demand that religious Americans must sanction homosexuality through their own representative government or directly if they serve in government is unconstitutional without popular consent. It would be unconstitutional for the supreme court or the president to just swoop in and subvert the will of the entire nation. We have protection in the constitution to vote our conscience on behavior as do you. And may the best cause win. The gay marriage movement should focus it’s efforts on why it’s a good idea, rather than demonizing the hearts and intents of the other side, or in suggesting that the back door is a way to compel the entire nation to see things their way. These are glaring shady tactics, and reveal much about the proponents of gay marriage and their cause. We ought to be able to have a conversation about this without constant references to segregation or slavery. Those calling themselves homosexuals or people who act effeminate have never been legally segregated in anyway, yet liberals can’t get through a sentence without invoking the memory. The act has been outlawed in the past, but the people themselves have NEVER been systematically discriminated against. Look at the statistical prosperity of homosexuals. They are obviously not held down.

      Clearly it isn’t precisely the same thing to marry two of the same gender vs. two of different genders. Honest people know that there is a difference; they are not identical. We’re talking about redefining an institution to mean something other than it has in the past. You want it to evolve into a definition that newly includes any two people who love each other. Fine, it’s never meant that before. Preserving the old definition does not somehow present a new and imminent danger to the civil rights of homosexual couples. It just simply means two of the same gender may not join and then call themselves by precisely the same as two joined of the opposite gender. Obviously it’s more about acceptance than it is about rights.

      I don’t vote for traditional marriage simply because it’s a deterrent to the neglect of the needs of children. I vote for traditional marriage because it’s right and just. That’s what the freedom of religion is for. Religion isn’t something to hide in your chapel and keep a secret. The framers did not protect the exercise of religion in precisely the same way that they protected the retention of property. Religion ceases to have any purpose if it’s locked up and kept private. The framers new that and that is why they used the word exercise rather than simply giving us the freedom to assemble to worship or to enjoy private religion as though it was private property. Traditional marriage proponents are exercising their religious liberties. What could be more American than that? We are exercising our belief that the only just unions are heterosexual ones. How is it that our rights to retain our religion are not a concern for the gay marriage proponents? Does anyone honestly believe that individual church’s are not going to be restricted in who they can employ? If government leaders see the rights of homosexuality the same as the rights of race, we will inevitably experience laws attempted to influence de facto segregation in churches and certainly in homosexual quotas and inclusion at church altars and in church positions. Church funds are going to be put on the table when their leaders won’t comply with the morals that the government will impose upon them. How can you say that religious conservative Americans are guilty of the same crimes as Bull Conner, and then turn around and say that all the movement wants is for gay marriage to be legal in government? This is a hoax. Liberals never speak their mind to only encourage others to do what they think is good. They use the government to compel others to do what they think is good.

  6. Earl Chantrill  •  Apr 29, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    Thanks for bringing God back into this conversation. Liberals want to take God out of all discussions of liberal policy. By doing so, conservatives cede way too much. Conservatism is based on an understanding that religion, and therefore right and wrong, is central to all such discussions, as what the left is trying to do is make right and wrong irrelevant and therefore make their argument much easier. God has given us his word on these subjects through the Torah, the Bible, and for those who believe it, the Book of Mormon. These books are, to my understanding, in fundamental agreement on basic moral issues: the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, respect for God and family, and loving and raising righteous children as well as prohibitions against murder, lying, adultry, coveting, and theft. Homosexual behavior is also specifically prohibited in both the Old and New Testaments. We should not shrink from advocating our faith in God and in His moral code.

  7. Rufio  •  Dec 27, 2013 at 1:41 am

    Help us in Utah. The popular vote is being trampled by a rouge activist judge. If you believe in traditional marriage and the moral values that are extended to society and the rising generation at large, please become a part of the conversation. There is a lot to lose and unfortunately the popular vote means nothing when activist judges can simply remove the rights of the majority. This is a bad political move for both parties.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn