Posted on 11/26/2008 4:27:06 PM PST by goldstategop
The writer Andrew Sullivan sits across the table from you on Chris Matthews' Hardball praising gay-marriage as a symbol of the homosexual community's desire to join the mainstream. He is a Catholic, conservative in many things, and a highly articulate spokesman for his point-of-view. What do you say?
The requisite conservative on pundit panels usually falls back on citing heterosexual marriage's 5,000 year history as society's basic building block. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. 65% of the American people are against homosexual unions. Etc.
That's not going to get it. It's a way of brushing off the Andrew Sullivans of the world, and if nothing else Mr. Sullivan and the homosexual community have shown that they will not be dismissed.
The reality of a concrete person, of a friend who is gay, makes claims upon us.
First, I think it's necessary to deal with how uncomfortable the whole discussion makes heterosexuals feel. Not because of homophobia, either. The reality of a concrete person, whether it's Andrew Sullivan or my friend who is gay, makes claims upon us. There he is with his desire to be accepted, to be loved, to enjoy the comforts of home, family, and community. Why should he be denied these things? More particularly, how can I justify putting legal obstacles in his way?
So many conversations that have gone on in the last forty years have seemingly boiled down to a person before us, who says, Here I am in this predicament—a marriage that's not working, an unwanted pregnancy, a sexual orientation that's not the norm. Here I am. See me. Why should I have to suffer unnecessarily when a suitable remedy is close at hand?
In this situation, anyone's first response is, "No problem. Be well and God bless!" The person before us elicits our empathy and should.
Unfortunately, there's a vast difference between love and the merely nice response that empathy often inspires. We are called to love our neighbors, and love can only be real when it's grounded in truth.
What the advocates of gay marriage are asking society to agree to is a lie. They are asking us to say that homosexual unions and heterosexual ones are morally equal.
Gay marriage advocates want us to pretend that heterosexual marriages and gay relationships are the same thing.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it's a moral issue. Certainly homosexual people have been treated unfairly in the past in certain contexts—housing, health care, rights of inheritance. All of these areas admit straightforward remedies that do not involve marriage. The dissatisfaction of gay activists with this approach speaks to something that's even more important than civil rights: blessing. Gays want their relationships blessed. They want society to honor their relationships as fitting, purposeful, and happy expressions of their identities.
That's why hundreds are rushing to San Francisco's court house to receive marriage licenses. The joy of an authority's recognition and validation. Your relationships are OK! They are just as good as anyone else's!
Catholics and all other faithful Christians know that as much as we might like to agree in this (Be well and God bless!), we would be agreeing with something manifestly untrue. I could speak theologically about these things, but that's not necessary. A man and a woman possess complementary sexualities whose differences make heterosexual relationships unique both in their affective and material dimensions. The two sexes’ complementary natures join together to make new human beings. Babies are the love of the couple incarnate. This sets the union of a man and woman apart-hallows that union, makes it sacred by virtue of its participation in the life-giving process itself-in a way that all non-procreative relationships never can be. This is not an emotive statement. It is factual—the nature of the case.
To enter into the mystery of life-giving, in all senses from the biological to the affective, is the reason for marriage. Entering into relationships that do not possess heterosexual marriage's life-giving potential makes these relationships something else besides marriage, whether they are friendships or same-sex relationships that entail sexual-gratification. So, let's just not pretend.
But that's what gay marriage advocates want us to do—pretend that heterosexual marriages and gay relationships are the same thing.
When societies accept collective lies, devastation always follows. The only hope for cultures—how often do we have to learn this lesson?—is to live in the truth.
What I would say to Andrew Sullivan then is, I love you, but don't ask me to lie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517040/posts
Marriage is a house built for a man and a woman.
Let the homosexuals go build their own house.
Very funny.
And your letter was actually printed?!!!
How much hate mail did you receive?
None, so far.
We live in a small town though, not New York, San Fran or Seattle, so that makes a difference.
I take a biological position. Same sex marriage cuts the definition of marriage off from procreation, mother and father and, for the child, next of kin on both sides of the family. Basically, same sex marriage separates marriage from biology. What remains is an adult-centered institution that has no particular connection to the future and therefore no importance in the long run. The destruction of marriage is, in fact, the goal of some activists who see marriage as oppressive and patriarchal.
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.