Replies

I heard Don Imus ( on his radio program ) ask the question regarding Gay Marriage -— “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?”

First, regarding — “What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?” — Liberals make a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals.

The reality is -— there’s currently nothing that stops homosexuals from making lifelong commitments to each other. Gays already are allowed to make the same commitment. In fact, it’s done all the time. They already have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives.

The problem lies here -— A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty.

It doesn’t give liberty, it FORCES SOCIETY’s APPROVAL of that union, which homosexuals don’t presently have.

It forces people whose deeply held religious beliefs tell them that homosexual acts are sinful to give their APPROVAL to these acts.

So, gay marriage is not about what homosexuals are being forced by others not to do, but what society is being forced to do by homosexuals: APPROVE. That’s another issue entirely.

Gays can marry all they want, but why should devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and others be FORCED to violate their religious tenets in order to give approval to this lifestyle?

Second, implicit in the act of altering the definition of marriage to include homosexuals is the acknowledgment that marriage isn’t anything in particular, but can be defined and redefined as society likes.

If marriage isn’t any particular thing, then family isn’t any particular thing either (this not only follows; it’s an integral part of their argument). If we then concede that family isn’t anything in particular, but is simply a convention, a social construct we invented and can alter at will, then this has direct ramifications for the future of the family as we know it.

How can you say this isn’t an impact?

Finally, if marriage isn’t anything in particular, but is merely defined by society in a way that the definition can change to meet changing conditions, then you cannot argue that “marriage” between humans and animals could never take place because animals can’t consent (or can’t, as some people put it, enter into contracts).

“Who are you to say” that a marriage is based on consent? If you can change its definition once you can change it again.

For instance, a baby used to be considered human, worthy of protection under the law. Now, there are those who would allow babies born alive to be slaughtered. Once you start on that path, how does it end? What was once considered a ridiculous argument has now become REAL and something we are now grappling with.

It’s also a bit stunning that liberal objections to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder they can offer?

Philosopher J.P. Moreland tells of a guy in Colorado, I think, who brought his horse to the courthouse to try to get a marriage license for the two of them. The clerk was flummoxed for a moment and finally turned him away because the horse wasn’t 18 years old yet! I guess this was just another way of saying that the horse was under the age of consent.

My point is, I think there is a more obvious concern than mere consent. Marriage *IS* and *MEANS* something in particular, not something we can re-define and twist any way we want.

I agree with everything you said. But what we must accept is that some of this idiocy going on now about gay marriage is largely our own fault. Since the 1960's, adultery, divorce, remarriage, promiscuity, abortion and single parent home rates have all skyrocketed. The "gays" aren't responsible for that - we are. If heterosexual marriage remained the recognized and respected nucleus of society, I don't believe the small percentage of homosexuals demanding equality in marriage - and honestly, even they know the majority of gays have no intention of ever getting married and cramping their promiscuous lifestyle - would have nearly as much evidence to throw back in our faces and get us to admit they have a point. Society, even ten years ago, would have (and did) denied gay marriage. Now, with the abysmal example heteros have made concerning the sanctity of marriage and keeping the family intact, is the perfect time for them to make their move. We have lost the very ground upon which we could have made a stand.

As Christians, we know that God calls homosexual acts an abomination and that marriage was instituted by HIM to be between one man and one woman and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. That should be enough of a reason to reject gay marriage - and homosexuality as a whole - and combined with a strong, stable and superior example of one man/one woman marriage and stable families, prove it is the ONLY acceptable way. But take away what is called the "religious" reason for rejecting gay marriage, presuming upon the establishment clause preventing government's respecting one religious view over another, and the argument is lost. Our own destruction of what marriage has been about for millennia will be why they will succeed. We have brought this about. It may be too late now to right the ship and our great country will fall into the abyss that the slippery slope of relativism started. I'll never approve but I will have to watch it happen.