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?
We can if we want to. Political freedom.
these people want to be recognized by the state so they can have the same rights as everyone else in terms of taxes, benefits, etc...
No, they don't. They want the State to recognize and "sanctify", viz. by sanctioning, their couplings, as a countervailing sanction against the Levitical and New Testament moral sanctions against their homosexuality.
They want marriage because they want to rebuke and silence those who reject homosex as immoral, amoral, and abominate.
if anyone tells me why they should not be extended these same privileges then i will listen.
This is the homosexuals' argument, and a dishonest one. The two percent, the proponents of radical change, bear the onus of attempting to prove their case to the rest of us, not we to them. Nice try, though.
one thing though: you may not bring religion into the argument at all.
You wish! Nice of you to offer to make the rules for all the rest of us, though. I'll argue anything I want, thanks.
Concurring bump. Gays like to say, "show us the reasons why not!" with a great deal of indignation that anyone would presume to deny them a "civil right" (that has never existed in the history of the world!). By so saying they invert, baselessly, the burden of proof, and they also separate the other side from their arsenal of data, by the interposition of the unbreakable membrane of time.
The conservativses of the 1930's and 1940's didn't have the crime data from the 1970's and 1980's that would have instantly condemned socialist housing projects like Cabrini Green and Pruitt-Igoe, and so the liberals could pooh-pooh conservative objections in the convenient absence of data. Anyone can play this game, of course, but liberals love it to death.
Other people's death.
Ha, I bet she felt big, telling off a 7 year old kid...
This is an attempt to make Christians accept this crap as OK....just what the evil one wants.
A married couple is more than two people, two friends or even a sister and brother. A married couple is a political unit with political power. When that couple/unit is homosexual with a left-wing political agenda and a piece of paper that says they have the same rights and say-so as straight parents...you'll begin to see what this is all about.
Oh, I see, you attribute logical opposition to same sex marriage entirely to church, rather than state, and then prohibit discussion about that church you referred to. How sporting of you.
But even on your terms, the reality is that, in terms of the law, the ability to obtain a certificate of marriage is not dependent in any way, shape or form upon any religious stamp of approval. It is, however, dependent upon one man and one woman applying for a marriage license, whether the justice of the peace knows they are atheists, agnostics, muslims, jews, buddhists, unitarians or otherwise.
Marriage has also lost it's significance thanks to Drive Through chapels in Vegas. Why isn't anyone bitching about that? You aren't ordering fries and burger, you're getting married. Yet not too many people yell about this.
then there is the argument that marriage is defined the way it is so that a man and woman can raise productive children. this seems to hold little water. why, then, isn't there such an uproar about divorce, out of wedlock children, or single parent households in general? it is because these situations have been around for so long people have gotten used to it and have accepted them.
basically, for me, i see it this way: the arguments being used today against same-sex marriages are the same arguments that people used when it came to interracial/interreligious marriages in the past. this is simply another stepping stone, and in another 15-20 years same-sex marriages will be as common as the union between a jew and a christian or a black person and a white person. i am not saying i agree with same-sex marriage. but if we, as republicans, espouse freedom over governmental controls then why would it be such a big deal for the states to recognize a new form of union?
again, i argue these points with no regard to religion whatsoever. therefore, if you choose to interject religion, then my argument can be discounted on any number of points and i respect that.
Now what makes you say that? Promiscuous behavior defines the gay lifestyle, even among those who have "life partners" or civil unions or other "committed relationships".
Sexual fidelity is not part of most homosexual relationships. Isn't sexual fidelity part and parcel of a "marriage"? Or would you like to redefine marriage to exclude that?
Not really. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean society approves of it. It's perfectly legal to be an alcoholic or to cheat on your spouse (okay, there are adultery laws, but they'e never enforced), but that isn't behavior society approves.
The homos and the liberals are trying to hide what the homo "sex act" really is. A normal person should be sick at their stomach just thinking of such a thing!
Not really relevant to the discussion.
These people are the sickening filth of the earth and anything that legitimizes them is pure evil.
Statements like this make conservatives look like troglodytes. Do you even know any homosexual people personally?
I do. I have two cousins, one who's gay and one who's a lesbian. I don't even want to think about what they do with their 'partners', because it's morally wrong.
"Commitment" in marriage is only meaningful if there are children involved. If marriage only concerned the two adults who are planning a life together, then one can envision a set of legal documents that would spell out all the mutual obligations; for example, if one person agrees to build and clean the home and cook meals and clean clothes, and the other agrees to go out and earn an income, then some sort of agreement would have to be made, for example, to protect the home-bound person in case of adultery or illness or pre-mature death by the spouse.
But Life-long "Committment" is a fundamental part of Marriage because of CHILDREN. It may be time for opponents of Same-sex Marriage to take the bait dangled by A. Sullivan and others and to honestly admit that the fundamental purpose of Marriage is Children.
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.