Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's the Harm with Gay Marriage?
Stand to Reason ^ | Greg Koukl

Posted on 11/19/2013 3:19:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Dear Greg,

Your views on gay marriage bother me. Shouldn’t consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting anyone? What harm is there? I know you think there could be potential damage to society if we allow the traditional marriage to be threatened, but what is the threat? It won't have any impact on traditional marriages if gays are simply allowed to make that same commitment. If you think this will just lead to the slippery slope of other compromises on marriage, like condoning marriage to animals, this is unlikely because animals are unable themselves to consent to marriage.

Bill

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Bill,

Some quick comments on "gay" "marriage."

First, re: "What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives?" you have made a common mistake in assuming this issue is about limiting the freedom of homosexuals. There is 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. A marriage license, however, goes a step further than providing liberty. It doesn’t give liberty, it gives society's approval of that union, which homosexuals don't presently have. Homosexual 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. See "When the Bride Is a Groom" on the STR web site for more development of this point.

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? If this still is not clear, please read "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher from The Weekly Standard. There's a link on our home page.

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? "Who are you to impose" your own dogmatic definition of marriage upon others who don't happen to conform to your narrow views of morality? In other words, to quote you, "What harm is there in letting people do what they want with their own lives as long as they don't hurt anyone?"

If you respond, "But it's obvious that marriage is not the kind of thing that is for humans and animals," you are advancing my exact reasoning against homosexual marriage. You can't have it both ways. Sorry. That’s cheating. You might want to check out "You Can't Marry Your Canary" on the web site to get more detail on this.

It's also a bit stunning that your objection to humans marrying animals is grounded in the inability of animals to consent. Is this the best rejoinder you can offer? 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 seems to be something in particular, not something we can twist any way we want. Obviously marriage isn’t for humans and animals and, just as obviously, it isn’t for members of the same sex.

Thanks for your challenge Greg Koukl


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; sin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: CtBigPat

RE: What’s the worst that could happen?

See here:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/

here:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html

here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/02/bible-thumping-bch-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-is-shutting-down-its-shop-following-threats-anger/

here:

http://www.cbn.com/tv/2522243964001

here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5032750/Homosexual-couple-sue-Christian-hotel-owners-for-refusing-them-a-double-room.html

and here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312976/christine-quinn-goes-after-chick-fil-john-fund

Just to name a few problems.

Now if the above were non-existent, sure there would be no problem.


21 posted on 11/19/2013 4:30:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Apparently you didn’t click on the link.


22 posted on 11/19/2013 4:40:11 PM PST by CtBigPat (Free Republic - The grown-ups table of the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Re: “Gay Marriage”

The term itself is fraudulent, and is another example of the left twisting our language to promote their agenda.

Homosexuals aren’t “gay,” and marriage has always been between men and women (one of each).

This about re-defining words and attacking the foundation of western civilization (the family) at the same time.


23 posted on 11/19/2013 6:21:17 PM PST by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babygene

When I say I chuckle I mean marriage between same sex couples is a joke.

Laughter at them is the best way to let them know how you feel.


24 posted on 11/19/2013 6:37:26 PM PST by Venturer (Keep Obama and you aint seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
"Shouldn’t consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting anyone?"

This is based upon a false premise.

In God's Plan, men and women have been made for one another. For every right man, there is a right woman. First, they need to be attracted to one another, and then must verify their compatibility.

As with all other aspects of our lives, when we fail to walk in fellowship with God through faith in what He provides, we also place ourselves outside His Plan. We can lose rewards and inheritance which had bee predetermined for us in eternity past by our volition and rebellious behavior.

In the case of marriage and family, if 2 homosexuals continue to rebel from God and what He provides, they not only damage themselves, they also deny their predetermined spouses from their predetermined marriages and families.

Homosexuality doesn't just effect the 2 homosexuals, it effects at least two other potential spouses and the denial of potential family members their inheritance of families.

Homosexuality is also the most sexist of behaviors, being entirely opposed to the rights of the opposite sex in how provided for them.

25 posted on 11/19/2013 6:50:32 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

People had married for thousands of years, all over the world, before Henry the Eighth.


26 posted on 11/19/2013 8:05:08 PM PST by ansel12 ( Democrats-"a party that since antebellum times has been bent on the dishonoring of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bkmk


27 posted on 11/20/2013 6:04:17 PM PST by AllAmericanGirl44 ('Hey citizen, what's in YOUR closet?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Marriage is an institution based more on morality and custom than law, and concerns the family rather than the state. To say that marriage is a legal matter only is to say that the family is what the state says it is.


28 posted on 11/20/2013 8:32:18 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson