Sensus Infidelium: The Gay Marriage Question goes from the Absurd to the Absurd

     It is amazing to me that everyday more and more of our countrymen, especially among the young, become convinced that we should have "marriage equality."  This has come to be code for a man being able to marry a man, and a woman, a woman.  The amazing thing is that all these people are making this determination without ever raising the essential question: "What is marriage for?" How can we have this debate at all (let alone make a determination one way or another without a discussion concerning the purpose of marriage.  It must be discussed.  It must be discussed NOW, and we need to get rid of the malicious influence of this current Administration, which is actually, actively trying to prevent the discussion. 
     Those who embrace the ethics of traditional societies (ALL traditional societies in the history of the world), have every reason to be confident concerning the outcome of a real discussion/debate, if such were ever really permitted.  The reason for this is that the forces, which are militating for societal acceptance of diandrogamy (the marriage of two men) and digynecogamy (the marriage of two women) really don't have an argument.  This is the case because in traditional societies marriage is not principally for the spouses.  It is for the procreation and education of children. Conversely, diandrogamy is closed in on itself.  It is essentially a selfish association.  It is for me and thee.
     Marriage is like all other noble and worthwhile human endeavours.  It is never, ever done from selfish motivation.  Noble human endeavours are never alliances made between individuals for the sake their own pleasure.  Quite the contrary, traditional societies (ALL traditional societies) look with disdain and contempt upon those, who would form such alliances, and who would profit by them.  No, noble things are done for others, often at considerable cost to ourselves.  So it is with marriage.  The purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.  Neither procreation nor education can be considered activities that have pleasure as their end.  It is true that there are joys to the responsibilities of marriage, but the obligations outweigh them. It is the obligations of the state themselves, which are the opportunities for growth in virtue.  Afterall, those whose pursue pleasure, and circumstances that conduce to pleasure do not become virtuous.  They become vicious. Only sexual intercourse, which is separated from procreation is susceptible to this categorization of an act that is closed in on pleasure.  It has pleasure as its end.  It is, by nature, an act that is selfish.
     Society has a responsibility to encourage those things that conduce to virtue, and punish those things that conduce to vice.  If a society does the opposite, then each successive generation will become more and more vicious, while the foundations of the society itself will be rapidly eroded. Sound familiar?