Posted on 10/30/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?
The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.
Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?
Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.
That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?
When added to Americans' aversion to discrimination, to the elevation of compassion to perhaps the highest national value, and to the equating of opposition to same-sex marriage with opposition to interracial marriage, it is no wonder that many Americans have been persuaded that opposition to same-sex marriage is hateful, backwards and the moral equivalent of racism.
Is there any argument that can compete with the emotionally compelling fairness argument?
The answer is that one can -- namely, the answer to the second question, Is it good for society?
Before answering that question, however, it is necessary to respond to the charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism.
There are two responses:
First, this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or "gender" as it is now referred to) are analogous.
They are not.
Because its a sin and anyone who calls themselves a Christian is commanded in the Bible to have no fellowship with the works of darkness but rather reprove them.
“Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples.”
It’s also unfair to polygamists, zoophiles, people who want to marry their Michael Jackson vinyl, etc....
You can’t go around marrying whatever you want, and that is how it should be. As soon as I see the ‘gay marriage’ people march with the man who loves his horse very very much, then I’ll give them credit for consistency.
Since the Dawn of Civilization marriage has been between a man and a Woman.
If you can marry a same sex person, why not your horse or the coffee table? What part of society does this build up? This is more about Sodom & Gomorrah and tearing down of the standards of our civilization.
Passing a law or a court order calling a same sex relationship a "marriage" will not change what it actually is. It is not marriage and never will be. The legal benefits of marriage are relatively minor, particularly for those who cannot have children. The social benefits of compulsory approval of gay relationships are almost certainly non-existent. The gay lobby will discover, even if they eventually win, that it's a hollow victory that will not change reality. Biology will still discriminate against them by preventing them from having children naturally. Scripture will still discriminate against them by stating that their unnatural relationship is unnatural. Their own tendencies will discriminate against them: I have had such couples as neighbors, co-workers, and relatives, and the percentage of those couples who stayed together "till death do us part" is zero. And those who are compelled by law to act as if they don't find homosexuality revolting? Even a far left liberal should be able to figure out how effectively that will win over photographers, bakers, wedding venue owners, and others compelled by force to serve the demands of the gay activists.
But if you're dealing with a society larger and wider than FReeperdom, you have to either consign yourself to permanent irrelevance by using only-Biblical arguments, which are un-convincing to non-believers --- as well as to Biblicists who interpret differently than you do ---- OR you have to approach a Natural-Law argument which would prevail on the basis of evidence and reasonable inferences from evidence, pertaining to the flourishing of individuals, families, and societies.
I think that's what Prager is heading toward. And it's absolutely necessary unless you're content to get Amens from the FR Amen Corner, and that's it.
Conversely,
the primary motivating incentive for a leftist is to assuage sin-guilt by proving to themselves that they are a “good person”.
This is done primarily through advocacy, less frequently through works, but never do they acknowledge that they are inherently NOT a “good person” whose works and advocacy count for nothing in the eyes of the final Judge.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Communist goals........
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/william-murchison/the-gay-marriage-fantasy.html
.....Large realities dwarf and overshadow the tiny human figures reacting to them. You can say up is down if you want, or hot is cold, or far is near. It’s your democratic right. Saying doesn’t make it so, nonetheless, except to activists with a personal agenda. In which case, let fantasy reign.
I’m sorry, there’s no such thing as gay “marriage” — as distinguished from gay “relationships” — because marriage as understood by the whole of humanity for the whole of human time, normally under religious auspices, exists for purposes no gay relationship can satisfy.
What might those purposes be? One is the blending of the relationship between the only two human types there are — male and female. The man and the woman go together: physically, emotionally, intellectually. I mean, I’m sorry if that hurts anyone’s feelings, but Reality does get in the way sometimes when we set out to change it or make it dance to a merry new tune.
A second, genuinely urgent thing that marriage does — and no gay relationship possibly can — is project the human race into the future.
The Bible does not need interpretation so far as homosexuality is concerned. It clearly defines it as deviant behavior. It is far past time for those who call themselves Christian to stand up for the truth. We are living in a day where God is separating the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares. Secular arguments for traditional marriage can be made successfully using both biblical values and secular reasons as their foundation.
The definition of the word is clear, and no ranting or screeching by homosexuals will change it. The word "marriage" means exactly what it has always meant.
Homosexual acts, with or without love, do not alter the definition of a word. Neither does political pressure.
Abortion
LOL! My full comment got cut off.
Abortion lovers want to redefine the word "life" in a similar way. And again, the word means exactly what it has always meant, liberal ranting notwithstanding.
Both sides are asking the wrong question. The right questions is: why is the government involved in marriage, a religious ceremony, in the first place?
That is perfectly legitimate, since the same Divine Author is the source of both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture.
That's exactly what I was talking about.
Marriage is about providing children what they need to grow up - stable environment with a mom and a dad.
its not all about the partners.
Situations change, the marriage will end like it never occurred. Drew Carey did this on his TV show a dozen years ago to keep his boss in the country, King of Queens did it so two roommates could earn a TV, and Adam Sandler and Kevin whatsisname did it in a movie for whatever reason. The only difference was that they pretended to be gay. Change the law to any two people, and they won't even bother with that.
Simply put, without THE Basis of epistemology, there is NO basis for knowing anything, especially in the realm of right and wrong, good and evil.
Without a completely objective source to measure against,
right and wrong are just an opinion,
and those who state that Scripture is not the reference point simply don’t live that way.
Without this basis, they have no justification to call anything “wrong”.
Why a Good Person SHOULD vote Against Same-Sex “Marriage”
(More accurate...since GOOD is not relative.)
One problem with same sex marriage is that it normalizes a clearly deviant behavior. Being attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex is obviously a pretty severe mental disorder IMO. Normalizing this requires that homosexuality be treated as the equivalent of heterosexuality in schools, language, TV, etc. It therefore promotes this deviancy which does not produce children (something society has an interest in). I do not agree that the present marriage law is unfair to gays. If a gay man wants to marry a woman he has the same right as a straight man.
Legitimate government promotes righteous behavior through rewards and punishes wicked behavior.
And if you ask what defines righteousness or wickedness, you know where I’ll point.
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.