Jeff Jacoby: Down the slippery slope [Same Sex Marriage]

Jewish World Review ^ | Nov. 21, 2003

[Revolting cat!]

[Revolting cat!]

Oops, wrong thread (again!)

[AmishDude]

If there is no legal recognition of marriage, then it won't matter if the church performs a gay marriage or not. It would be like a church refusing to baptize a non-Christian. If we got to that point, then there are problems beyond the church being forced to perform gay marriages.

[little jeremiah]

Of course the most radical redefinition of marriage in centuries is going to have deeply disturbing consequences.

And those deeply disturbing consequences are the very reason the homosexual activists and their bots are pushing the gay agenda.

Note that in "Brave New World" the words "mother" and "father" were deeply offensive words, never to be used in polite society.

[Mr Crontab]

aren't we getting just a wee bit hysterical here?

[little jeremiah]

Go to scripter's profile page and read some of the voluminous information he has collected about homosexuality, much of it from homosexual publications and studies they themselves have done. Then get back to the discussion.

Homosexuals own words and lives speak the truth about their minds and desires.

[codder too]

"How will guests know which is husband and which is wife?"

Probably will require churches to remove "center aisle" so that all can sit in the middle and not be embarassed by making the wrong choice.

[Grig]

"Well, Chicken Little, perhaps you had better look for the precedents."

Did you read the next paragraph, or did it not penetrate through your rose-coloured glasses? It's a simple fact that creating gay marriage creates a legal minefield for most churches, and precedents do exist for the state imposing a definition of marriage on a church.

The E-T Act I cited came AFTER a USSC ruling that brushed aside religous objections to anti-polygamy laws. Freedom of religion came in second to the state's power to enforce it's definition of marriage. Changing the definition of marriage alters the ruling from being pro-traditional family, to anti-traditional family (and other rulings may be likewise effected this way). This is not 'the sky is falling' alarmism, these are legitmate concerns and IMHO ignoring them is foolish. If time proves me wrong, I'll be quite happy about it.

[Grig]

When a church tells one married couple they can't join because they are a married gay couple, and tells another straight married couple that they can join, they are discriminating against the first couple on the basis of sexual orientation. It doesn't matter if the state recognizes marriages or not, there is still discrimination based on orientation, and the courts are apt to take action against it.

[longtermmemmory]

Will this then be used to piece the tax exempt status of churches?

Homosexuals have no constitutional right to impose recreational homosexual sex on the marriage institution.

[Grig]

"Will this then be used to piece the tax exempt status of churches? "

Perhaps that, perhaps something worse.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for your honesty. Now, have you taken a look lately at any of scripter's index of articles? And after you take a look, can you come up with some studies and so on that refute any of them?

[redhead]

"Marriage is not about love or even orgasm. Homosexuality is only about orgasm."

Exactly! Here's the text of one of my articles posted on PALACE OF REASON, posted in July:

July 6, 2003

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down laws against sodomy in the Texas case this past week has been the foot in the door for homosexual activists who guarantee the rest of us that there will be laws on the books legalizing "gay marriage" in the foreseeable future. Somehow, these people have the idea that legalizing the live-in union of same-sex couples will somehow legitimize it, and force the rest of us to condone it, as if the legalization of the act was tantamount to agreeing with the practice. But, what if legalizing such a peccadillo could not legitimize it?

The victory the homosexuals got in Texas makes them think they are going to be able to force the country to accept what they refer to as "gay marriage." Their next goal, frequently stated, is exactly that.

They can call it whatever they wish, but they aren't going to make it a marriage. And forcing a law onto the books that "recognizes" their bogus union as a marriage isn't going to make it a marriage any more than it would if the partners were poodles.

Andrew Sullivan was a guest on Michael Medved's radio program this week, trying to explain why we straights should look on his relationship with his boyfriend as something to be blessed with the name "marriage." In response to Medved's incisive questioning, Sullivan was unable to produce a single good argument for such a designation, let alone an argument in favor of legislating it as a special "right" of homosexuals of whatever stripe, even though his replies sounded calmly presented.

Marriage in human culture is so special that it has been protected by laws for the entire period of known history. No other status has this protection. Marriage is not only a relationship between a man and a woman, it can't be anything else. And if that man and that woman are not right in their hearts about what makes up a real marriage, the relationship they have can not be a real marriage, but will be a marriage in name only. Calling a relationship between two people of the same sex a "marriage" will no more make that union a marriage than will the passing of a law.

A marriage exists on such a different plane from other relationships that there can't be a comparison. Why did your grandparents stay married for 65 years? Do you think that Fred and Ted, who want to be groom and groom, are going to have that kind of relationship? They not only won't, they can't. What makes a marriage different from any other romantic relationship can't be present in a homosexual union.

History was right on this one: In order to insure that heirs are legitimate, there has to be a way to prove their paternity. Maternal descent is easy to prove, but paternity is a different matter. So in order to insure a more legitimate succession or inheritance, marriage was given primacy over every other physical union possible. Religious reasons for marriage were equally important, and strictly enforced, all down through recorded history.

Even the few historical sallies into polygamy and polyandry that have popped up here and there can't change the definition of marriage: Marriage is a state of connubial union between one man and one woman. Like the knowledge that the sun comes up in the East, it's a truism, and can't be otherwise. Any other kind of union is simply a counterfeit, no matter how much the parties believe they "love each other" or how much they believe they have in common. Two men can't contract a real marriage any more than two women or a man and several women. (Even in the case of polygamy, there is really only one wife. The rest of the women in the relationship are concubines.) No matter how you slice it, marriage is possible only between one man and one woman.

The only reason homosexual activists have for pressing for legalization is to slap the face of straight people and religious believers. It has been revealed repeatedly that homosexual men are incredibly promiscuous, having hundreds of different partners in a year, for instance. I'll admit that there might be a few men out there who are settled down comfortably. But the chances of such a relationship lasting 65 years like grandma and grandpa's are virtually nil.

Suspicion and jealousy among homosexuals is rampant, because all homosexuals know what homosexuals do, and they all know how promiscuous they can be, no matter how much Fred and Ted think they "love" each other. They can't produce anything but a pale imitation of the kind of love that grows between a man and a woman in a real marriage over long years together, a love like our grandparents had.

"Love" to most homosexuals is what they do to each other. Desiring legitimacy for their unions is one more way they try to demand that we condone their behavior. They really don't want marriage. They want us to be forced to accept that they love what they do more than they love whoever they do it with. Feelings of comradely loyalty are quite a different thing than a desire to put one's genitals into places not intended for such invasion.

Forcing the courts and legislatures to legitimate an unnatural union doesn't make that union anything but legal. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't justify it, and it simply cannot, by virtue of its very nature, make it a real marriage.

Someone long ago said, "Marriages are made in Heaven."

Precisely.

[Borderline44]

i agree that the traditional definition of "marriage" should stand as it has been defined for thousands of years, and that the word "marriage" has a specific meaning that should not go beyond the union between a man and a woman.

however, the "slippery slope" argument is a bloody red herring. that argument was proffered during woman's suffarage at the turn of the century as well as the civil rights movement in the 1960s, but as far as i can tell there aren't any 6 year olds voting for president. there aren't any animals sitting at lunch counters either.

make whatever arguments you want against this idea, but the "slipper slope" argument is a bloody red herring.