It don't work any other way
Posted on 03/09/2004 11:03:15 AM PST by DameAutour
In a recent discussion concerning homosexual marriage, a conservative said "I really don't care since it doesn't impact my marriage". This comment reminded me of those who say that the solution is to "get government out of marriage altogether" or "make all marriages civil unions". They believe that the issue is one of policy and linguistic technicalities. But in reality, the social impact on our civilization is much more profound.
For homosexual marriage will effect not only your marriage, but your entire family structure. It will effect the culture and values of your community and ultimately, that of your children.
When marriage no longer means "the committed union of one man and one woman", it can come to mean virtually anything. How does that effect you? Do you say that you will know the value of your own marriage no matter what? But marriage is not just about your love. Otherwise, there would be no need to get married at all. Marriage is a public testament to your commitment. Even in the days before churches or the government were so intimately involved in marriage, witnesses were still required. Marriage has always been a public affair.
When you stand before the public and say, "I am married to this person", what will that mean?
When feelings are elevated above morality and sound reasoning, the effect can be devastating. There must be always be a balance between emotions, sound judgement and moral behavior. Emotions join people together and strengthen the social compact. Rationality promotes objectivity, debate and the logical thinking necessary to propel us forward. And objective morality keeps our actions grounded in a higher plane and our expectations elevated.
But the push to change the meaning of marriage ignores sound reasoning and antiquates societal morality. Proponents of homosexual marriage give little thought to the consequences of their actions, and this should give any conservative pause. Their morality is subjective and relative, and "feels good" means "good". If this is how the establishment of marriage is to be refashioned, what else will be sacrificed on the altar of pleasure?
Will hedonism be the most important philosophy of the new Western civilization?
Years ago, no-fault divorce and painless annulments were introduced to the American people. When Britney Spears marries and destroys a marriage in the span of a weekend, it cheapens the institution of marriage even for those who really did mean "til death do us part". Their children see that marriage is just a fun thing to do when you're in Las Vegas. Because of no-fault divorce, immorality no longer meant anything when it came to the dissolution of this committed union. Now it seems morality will mean nothing in the joining of this committed union.
When the moral weight is stripped from the fiber of your marriage, can you really say it wasn't effected?
If marriage means whatever our feelings want it to mean, how do you convey that to your children? How do you impress upon them the significance of marriage when you can't even tell them what it means because the definition keeps changing? What reasons will you give them for getting married at all, if the decisions and sacrifices they make as part of that committment won't even be acknowledged by their own government? If the neighbors to your right have a "group marriage" while the neighbors to your left have a "homosexual marriage", then what does that make your marriage? Are all unions equal in meaning and significance? And since "equal" doesn't mean "the same", what will you say when the divorce rate skyrockets as a result of "homosexual marriages" that will last an average of 2 years? How will you teach your children the true meaning of marriage when every TV commercial, school book and pamphlet will undermine it? With all the confusion will you even remember what marriage is?
If marriage loses its importance and significance, how can you say it wasn't effected?
Marriage was originally defined as a legally recognized religiously based contract. In accepting homosexual "marriage", one is tacitly giving God's imprimatur to an unholy union.
In a more secular vein, let's rephrase the question. Was a dollar under the gold standard (heterosexual marriage) worth more than a dollar tomorrow (homosexual marriage). How about after the dollars are "adjusted for inflation" (subjected to grotesque redefinition of "marriage")?
I'm sure my parents could have said the same thing about the sexual revolution of the '60s. And they would have been right. It didn't impact their marriage. They have been married for 50 years and still love each other, although they did a lot of learning about what love was.
The argument is a strawman because those of us who are concerned aren't talking about the impact on an instance of a marriage, but on the concept of marriage. The selfish people who say, "It won't impact MY marriage," haven't considered the impact on their children's marriages, or their children's children's.
Marriage in my time was greatly impacted by the sexual revolution and it is even more greatly impacted for my children. In fact, this whole perverted marriage push would not even be on the radar if it had not been for the "free love" movement of the '60s.
Now for an important question. Should we consider the future impact of our actions, or is it enough to take care of ourselves and let our children worry about it?
I know where I stand.
Shalom.
This is a cultural norm and a historical fact. And the attitude is that if a heterosexual person is a philanderer, that person should not get married.
A homosexual goes into a "committed" relationship/civil union/gay marriage without this promise of sexual fidelity. Their love transcends the physical. The physical is separate from the emotional. They are not like heterosexuals. Sex describes their lifestyle choice. No homosexual will discourage homosexual philandering -- certainly no heterosexual will.
Are we to then have two definitions of marriage? Or will one influence the other? I think the fidelity issue is a strong one.
You've made a few comments to posters: "and I applaud your attempt to bolster this weakened-marriage argument -- but I don't think you've succeeded.' and "I still think it's one of the weakest arguments in our arsenal."
Perhaps you's like to contribute something besides criticism? Perhaps you'd like to share maybe a strong argument or two?
Look harder. The movement is gaining steam. Right now a "covenant marriage" is offered as an alternative marriage in some states. I believe Louisiana is one.
Shalom.
If this is your condition, then you must refrain from using the word "marriage", which carries with it the legal (secular) recognition of a religious (biblical) contract.
This is like endorsing the practice of identity theft - All ID Thieves do is merely amend the definition of some other person's name and personal data to include themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way is fully comparable.
Civil unions? Fine. Don't make me pay for them (through tax-funded insurance programs, insurance industry broad-base rate retrenchment to cover newly expected losses, etc.). Don't make me endorse them, either - it trods heavily on my own religious freedoms (at least until they completely redefine "religious").
Would slavery fit that definition? Just wondering.
It don't work any other way
I just don't see homosexuality all of a sudden becoming more attractive to people just because gay marriage becomes an option. Are there really people out there who would be gay but for the fact that they can't get married to a member of the same sex?
Considering that homosexuals make up 2-4% of our population, I really don't see how much of a difference this would make to Social Security etc.
Keep in mind, too, that the average homosexual is better educated and has a higher income than the average heterosexual person, so the financial aspect doesn't seem like a major factor.
Next up ??
-- Why can't I have three wives/husbands ??_______________________________________________-- I want to marry my pet crocodile. We're in love !
-- _______________________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX(fill in the blank)
If I had to choose between those folks that are opposed to gay marriage and:
-- the Vigilante mayor of San Francisco illegally giving out marriage licenses to same-sex couples... I'll take those opposed to gay marriage. I am opposed to same-sex marriage myself.-- the mayor of New Palze, NY (ditto above)
-- the folks in that New Mexico county (ditto above)
-- the folks in that Oregon county (ditto above)
-- the city of Asbury Park, N.J. (ditto above)
-- the folks filing the lawsuit in Florida suing for same-sex marriages
-- (whoever I've left out doing the same)
-- The Faggachusetts Court telling the legislature they MUST write a law APPROVING gay marriage.
I fault the MAYORS taking blatantly ILLEGAL actions (Vigilante actions) and LIBERAL judges not making decisions based on the law, etc. These people should be dealt with HARSHLY. Judges should be impeached and thrown out of office. Legal action should be taken against mayors NOT upholding the laws/going AGAINST the law.
I don't FAVOR an amendment on such a thing, but given the situation of out-of-control judges and mayors, what other remedy is there ? I don't see another way.
So until I see an EFFECTIVE alternative remedy, I would support the amendment.
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.