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?
Whoops ! fyi ! ...
Not a chance. Levels would remain the same.
If gay marriage becomes legal then after the dust settles you'll probably simply see the same spectrum of people getting "married" as you do with hetersexuals -- from Britney Spears weekend weddings to lifelong commitments. In the beginning you'll get a whole bunch of idiots not ready for marriage who are just doing it because they can, for stupid activist reasons. Expect that to throw the gay divorce stats way off in the first few years as these people realize their mistakes, and expect those against gay marriage to gloat about it. We won't know if a gay marriage is as stable as a heterosexual marriage for at least 10 years.
Who knows, in the end it might actually do something to tone down the stereotypical promiscuous behavior among homosexuals.
So, among heterosexuals, there is no real reason that marriages will all of a sudden break down or that people will start abandoning straight marriages in favor of gay unions.
A few reasons I can think of:
1) Better education and higher income levels mean that homosexuals are good at organizing politically and have the financial means to do so.
2) Anti-gay discrimination has lead to the creation of various activist groups that work to protect the interests of homosexuals.
3) Geographical clustering- large numbers of homosexuals live in places that are proximate to power: New York, Washington, Los Angeles. Living there gives homosexuals a greater ability to influence policy than if they lived, for example, in Idaho.
All right. Marriage as a public institution is a bit more concerned about the structure of society than it is about the so-called special rights of particular groups. In other words, the state gives breaks to married couples because the tendency in marriage is toward producing children (which is flatly impossible within a same-sex 'marriage'), and those children will grow up to be--hopefully--upstanding, productive members of society.
For arguments in a similar vein, but in a different format, see the following article.
Actually, the point is more along the lines of devaluation. Once the dollar was no longer associated with a specific amount of gold, it was allowed to "float" in value, inevitably winding up less valuable in the long run. By redefining the basis of marriage, I believe that the "value" of marriage (note - NOT the relationship itself, but the social value) will inevitably deteriorate, affecting anyone who is married.
The change will not be pronounced by those who hold themselves in a traditional marriage, but will imposed by the societal devaluation of marriage itself.
This argument also works against no-fault divorce (in fact, against most divorces outside of the biblically described valid reasons).
"Affect" = "have an influence or effect upon"
"Effect" = "effectuate", "bring about", "cause to happen"
You're quite correct. The really radical gays who are driving the process would like to abolish marriage altogether, because it throws a residual, Levitical shadow over their own deviant sexual arrangements. The radicals regard the gays who want to get "married" as trimmers, shallow and timid "mainstreamers" who dream of being Ozzie and Harriet instead of wanting to rape Ozzie and Harriet and bury them and their memory in shallow graves, etc., etc.
In the radical paradigm, even gay "marriage" is a reminder of the canonical origins of marriage, and belittling it in all its aspects is their constant, busy work.
In addition to that, someone somewhere posited that the high percentage of gays in DC has put them in contact with many policymakers. Putting their best foot forward (ever hear of a "pride parade" in DC?), they have been schmoozing decisionmakers assiduously for 30 years. As a result, many policymakers -- most spectacularly including the current "conservative" President -- have been influenced to adopt "gay-friendly" attitudes and policies w/o regard to further consequences of their doing so.
We can expect more of the same. Schmoozing and good behavior in DC, chickenhawking, chicken-skinning, and open predation in Burbland.
The "secular world" doesn't comprehend everything that is done outside a church or temple. Your statement implies that moral values based in revealed truth should be closeted, and the amorality of Babylon prevail in the public places.
You have articulated the homosexuals' position on public morality.
Being a sovereign People, we need not apologize to anyone who isn't the God of Israel for what we decide to make our public morality. The fact that our mores are deeply Jewish and kohein in their origins -- particularly as regards personal modesty and where we set the boundaries between public and private, and private and deeply personal -- and that those mores were subscribed to by Christian Europe is something of which we can justly be proud, not apologetic, and something that we can openly recognize as inuring to our benefit as a society.
We don't need to take anything off anybody, or suffer the sodomites to strike words out of our mouths, or inscriptions and symbols off our buildings and out of our mind's eye. We will not be censored by the trashy little commissar-wannabes of political correctness.
"Political correctness", by the way, is a term of art invented by the Nazis. Its purposes and uses ought to be obvious, and repellent, to every freedom-loving American.
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.