Posted on 11/24/2003 8:38:19 AM PST by xzins
Rogue court activism, and messed-up people with (evidently) far too much time on their hands and far too rich resources, have once again set out to push America in a direction in which it ought not go.
I speak, of course, of "gay" (homosexual) marriage.
My intent here is not to focus on the whole issue of homosexuality. I have a more modest aim. I want to address one argument which is heard frequently from the pro-"gay"-marriage faction: "Nobody has ever explained to me how 'gay' marriage threatens the institution of marriage."
While I find this claim initially hard to believe, I'm not sure I've ever seen a direct response. So here is my own modest effort. I phrase it in the form of a question: "Does counterfeit money threaten genuine currency?"
The answer to that is that, of course, counterfeit money does threaten genuine currency. It devalues it. If a $1 bill bearing picture of Bill Clinton on it, run off on someone's HP printer, suddenly is accepted as being as legitimate as a genuine $1 bill, then all currency is devalued. The broader the acceptance, and the greater the proliferation, the more devastating the blow to currency.
For this reason, a man shall forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh
(Genesis 2:24, my translation)
Here are the elements, in a nutshell:
That is marriage, in God's eyes. All variations are offensive to Him, and destructive to man.
Marriage has already taken serious blows. It is easy to get into, and easy to get out of. A man stands before God and everyone else, and swears the most solemn oath imaginable that he will be faithful to his bride alone. But if he then turns into a serial adulterer, he is protected from consequences. As far as I know, he cannot be jailed nor sued for breach of contract. In fact, he might become a very popular figure. Even President.
Or, if the wife in this solemn relationship gets bored, or finds marriage more demanding than she anticipated, she can get right out of it. Any reason will do, or none at all. Just fill out the paperwork, hit the legal "reboot" button, and she's back on the market.
All of this damages marriage. All of this lowers the estimation and value of marriage. All of this cheapens the institution.
And yet, even amid all that, society for centuries has been clear on at least one element: marriage involves a woman and a man.
That is what today's moral nihilists are trying to change.
Of course it does.
It harms many other things as well -- the individuals involved, society, any poor children who get caught up in any way in the resultant monstrous abomination. But marriage is harmed by the redefinition of a basic word. "Marriage" by definition cannot be homosexual. If it is broadened to include one sexual perversion, there is no rational reason why it should not be broadened to include every sexual perversion. Advocates don't like this point very much; I think that is because it is irrefutable.
And so, if "marriage" means everything, then it necessarily means nothing. A word with no fixed definition has no definition. A word that can mean anything at all means nothing at all.
This is just a little glimpse at a teensy bit of the harm this insane notion involves.
It all goes to prove the point made often in Scripture, and summed up nicely in Jeremiah 8:9b. The prophet says: "behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" The slightest rejection of God's Word necessarily and unavoidably moves one just that far in the direction of insanity.
And so we see here.
I respectfully disagree. It does affect the culture I live in, as it will dramatically affect this country's view of what family is and is not. Immorality degrades cultures. Finally, inviting God's sanction against our country is something I have to live with.
I don't like slippery slope arguments. What it comes down to is saying that the act in question is actually OK, but the person using the argument is against it, because it may lead to things that are not OK.
After all, when it comes right down to it, allowing premarital sex and oral sex between married, heterosexual couples are steps down the slippery slope.
As for the examples you put forth, the key is consent. Children and animals are not considered capable of giving such consent.
I'd like to ask you some questions in all seriousness, and I'd like your best serious responses.
/1/ If marriage no longer is going to mean one man plus one woman, but can mean two men or two women, why not two men plus one woman, or three women, or five men? If we are going to toss out thousands of years of civilizations lessons, why must marriage be restricted to two people at all? What exactly is so important about the number two? If two men can be fine parents, wouldn't two men and a woman be even better for the child? How can you throw out the traditional definition of marriage, and then hold the line at the number two? Exactly on what basis now must marriage be defined as two people?
/2/ If all that matters is the loving relationship between any two consenting adults now, gay or hetero, how can you possibly prohibit the marriage of a father and son who is over 18? On what basis can you forbid the marriage of a mother and daughter or son, if they are consenting adults? Or a brother and sister? Forget the genetic arguement, we allow 45+ year old women to have babies, and there is a greater risk to children from her age. So on what basis do you now forbid the marriage of a 45 year old father and his 18 year old daughter, or son? Don't give me "tradition" because you have already blown that out of the water. What reason do you give now for forbidding incestuous marriage? What is the harm in a 36 year old father marrying his 18 year old son? Be logical, explain in detail, and remember, "tradition" doesn't count.
I await your speedy and logical replies.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0) |
| Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list) |
| Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search |
| All FreeRepublic Bump Lists |
Would you like to be part of the solution? To stay informed of the issues? A simple freepmail is all it takes to join the homosexual agenda ping list, and you can cancel at anytime.
With regard to the sodomy laws, I think the supreme court decision was quite libertarian. More to the point, the 9th Amendment states that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are still rights. Even if not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the right to consensually carry on in your own home surely exists and is protected by the 9th. It is no more unlibertarian than a law that would bar the publication of certain books.
The homosexual marriage decision is on shakier grounds in terms of libertarianism. That is because it commands the government to take certain actions. From my libertarian standpoint, however, the problem is that government is too involved in personal affairs. It shouldn't be sticking its nose into what is marriage one way or another. That should be a personal a religious issue.
If certain "marriage" contracts are drawn up, the government has a role in seeing to it that the parties don't break the contract -- which is why easy divorce and adultery bother me a lot more than homosexual marriage. However, I think the government has taken too large a role in the definition of marriage. And I'm not sure that the Massachusetts courts have done any good with regard to that.
Marriage between man and woman has a religious aspect to it by definition. Every marriage in the world between man and woman is a tiny picture of the marriage between Jesus and the church. Many are not aware they are carrying this testimony around with them but it is the case. For the government to once have known this and to now become ignorant is quite an alarming trend.
This argument is ridiculous. If the government prints another genuine $1 bill, your currency is devalued just as much as when a counterfeit bill enters circulation. The value of marriage is not due to scarcity. Is your marriage worth less when your (straight) neighbor gets married?
Marriage as a strictly religious institution was poisoned by state sanction. The civil union was the inevitable deathblow. It's too late to save that patient. I suppose it shouldnt surprise me that people get upset by a proposal to violate its corpse.
But I say, "so what?" The author needs to convince me that homosexual marriage is somehow worse than the marriage of heterosexual athiests or Wiccans. It is obviously in the interest of certain churches to recognize none of these, but how are these interests shared by the government?
Here's an interesting angle from Howie Carr of the Boston Herald:
Once the incest and polygamy bans fall, and they will, what happens if a dying millionaire decides that the best way to avoid the inheritance tax is to divorce his wife and marry ... his son? Or his daughter? Or his daughter and his son?Source
If you stand to leave a million-dollar estate, you can pass down every penny, tax-free, to your spouse. If you leave it to anybody else, your heirs will pay a 55 percent death tax - $550,000.
And what if criminals start getting married, to avoid having to testify against each other? Hell, it already happens. Who could stop Whitey Bulger from taking Steve Flemmi as his bride, er, groom? Omerta isn't what it used to be, but you don't need a vow of silence if everybody in the gang is hitched to each other. This SJC insanity may yet give new meaning to the old movie, "Married to the Mob."
Of course, the natural response of the gay marriage crowd is "End spousal privilege." Now spouses will have to testify against ther husbands or wives. No more tax exemption on inheritances (never mind that the death tax is inherently unfair to begin with). Rather than open up the benefits of marriage to gays, what it will do is destroy those privileges that currently exist as a way of justifying a decision that really turns marriage into nothing more than an association of convenience.
I support allowing consensual multi-partner marriages as well. In fact, given the households of Abraham and Jacob they have a long tradition. (For that matter, I've know of several multipartner arrangement, some of which have been together for more than 10 years -- and insofar as they have any political beliefs, they tend to be conservatives, otherwise.)
/2/ If all that matters is the loving relationship between any two consenting adults now, gay or hetero, how can you possibly prohibit the marriage of a father and son who is over 18? On what basis can you forbid the marriage of a mother and daughter or son, if they are consenting adults? Or a brother and sister? Forget the genetic arguement, we allow 45+ year old women to have babies, and there is a greater risk to children from her age. So on what basis do you now forbid the marriage of a 45 year old father and his 18 year old daughter, or son? Don't give me "tradition" because you have already blown that out of the water. What reason do you give now for forbidding incestuous marriage? What is the harm in a 36 year old father marrying his 18 year old son? Be logical, explain in detail, and remember, "tradition" doesn't count.
Intrafamily relations are close on a level that consent for sexual encounters cannot be assumed. Incestuous relations fall into the marrying children and animals category.
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
The list starts with pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, failure aid the poor and needyand climaxes with the accusation that they "were haughty and did an abomination before me." Homosexuality is the abomination in question.
This passage has often been misused by some who yearn to downplay the homosexuality so clearly emphasized in the Genesis account. Those who try to twist it to this end tend to overlook or downplay the mention of "abomination" in v. 50.
That wasn't your plan, was it?
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
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.