Posted on 06/25/2013 8:28:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This year, June's wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages. I hereby invoke a panel of experts -- Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut -- to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.
Fr. Vandenberg's new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:
"The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school."
Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Gays care that other people get married.
They want to destroy the institution of marriage by making it meaningless.
In Massachusetts, only about 20% of homosexuals in relationships are married.
That’s not 20% of all homosexuals, that’s 20% of all homosexuals who claim to be in relationships.
Massachusetts has had legal homosexual marriage for the longest time of any state.
Clearly, it seems that homosexuals have agitated for the right to be married, but do not choose to exercise that right once it is gained.
The eventual goals of LGBT activists is legalized group marriage, with any number of partners, any gender of partners. They see monogamous homosexual marriage as a transitional step towards that eventual goal.
But you will never hear anyone say that. They make it sound like they want “equal” marriage rights and the right to marry 1 partner at a time and that’s it.
Exactly. They wanted to join the Boy Scouts for precisely the same reasoning.
We make laws and social policies anymore based on political correctness, and to make the officially recognized grievance groups happy.
We have to boost everyone’s self esteem. We have to boost the self esteem of the homosexual by saying he/she can marry a same sex partner.
Just look at how these issues are discussed. Anyone opposed to homosexual marriage is called a bigot and a hater. We have passed the point of no return. We’re not allowed to talk about the purpose of marriage, or the importance of mothers and fathers raising children. The only issue is that homosexuals want the legal sanction of marriage, and will steamroll all who oppose.
The liberals will try to destroy anyone who stands in the way. Whether it’s a Miss USA contestant who has the audacity to oppose homosexual marriage, or a fast food restaurant owner who personally opposes same, the liberals set out to destroy such opponents. We can’t debate the issue, instead, opponents must be destroyed.
Speaking of Chick Fill A, how many lawsuits were ever filed against Chick Fill A for discrimination by the gay activists? Zero? See, Chick Fill A does not discriminate, and the activists could not find a single homosexual who was discriminated against by that company. You know that the activists were digging deeply to find someone who could claim discrimination, but they never found anyone.
“The liberals will try to destroy anyone who stands in the way.”
Yep and they are amping stuff up now. The problem is that the game doesn’t work with converted liberals. ;)
I believe that this was our former Parish priest at St. Vincent de Paul Church in Federal Way, WA. He retired several years ago. Had a wonderful sense of humor.
While today brings us good SCOTUS news something tells me Kennedy will swing a 5-4 on gay rights.
Succinct assessment. And dead on.
what’s wrogn with it is that marriage is an institution that was foisted away fro m the church by the govenrment and turned into a money makign scheme in which heterosexual peopel are given govenrment money and incentives to reproduce children to produce future generatiosn of taxpayers to help support future govenrments-
marriage is NOT a right- whether heterosexual or gay- marriage is a privilege, not a right- A man is barred from marryign his sister, hism other, his aunt- he is barred fro mmarryign several women at once, he is barred from marrying his dog etc etc etc-
Gay marriage does NOT produce offspring naturally, nor is it conducive to a healthy normal upbringing of a chikld who NEEDS botrh female and male influences in their life for the greatest possible chjance at normalcy-
The govenrment is supopsoed to care abotu children, NOT allow perverts to have unfettered access to them by grantign htem a ‘right’ to adopt and raise children- (not all gay peopel are perverts- but many of them are- a far higher percentage of gay peopel have multiple sex partners and MANY of them identify as havign had committed pedophilic assaults on children at soem point in their lives)
Yiou woudl think a govenrment woudl want to protect chuildren as best it could, but instead, what we see is our govenrment forcign kids to be raised in notoriously dangerous situations, and under circumsdtances which bvery often prove to be detrimental to the emotional and physical well beign of kids- Apparently our gobvenrment is now doign everythign it can to make sure they create an evironment conducive to sexual predation by gay folks- NJ even goign so far as to ban parents from seekign ‘restorative therapy’ for a kid they suspect is gay-
this ocuntry is rapidly becomign a sewer pit
Close - it's not even a privilege - it's an obligation two people undertake (ideally) prior to engaging in conduct which might reasonably be expected to produce children, for the purpose of maximizing the chances that said children will survive to become productive adults.
We will never win this debate on religious grounds. Instead, we must make people answer the question “What is the societal purpose of marriage?”
The answer is, of course, to create children that have the best possible chance of success in that society.
This answer explains why we don’t let adult siblings marry, or those deemed mentally incompetent. It’s also the reason behind historical polygamy.
We started winning the abortion debate when we moved from “God says it’s wrong” to “It’s murdering babies.” Same thing with gay marriage.
i meant privilege granted by the government- Shoudl have made that clear
privilege: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual
you are right- peopel don’t auromatically enjoy privilege when it coems to marriage- they must be granted that privilege- hence why peopel can’t just marry whwetver they want- government won’t grant that priviledge fro soemoen to marry say a rock or tree or whatever
(of course peopel can act outside of marriage, but they certainly don’t have a right to marriage, nor even a priviledge to get married UNLESS the government grants them that privieldge)
The whoel premise behind govenrment foisting hte holy sanctitty from the church and bastardizing hte institution of marriage was os that future geenrations coudl be raised as normally and healthy as possible to contribute taxes to support the govenrment- The government’s grantign of marriage has nothign to do with honorign God any logner- it’s strictly abotu geenratign revenue- so hte hwoel argument by gay groups that htey have a ‘right’ to be married is BS- and it’s just shockign htat lawyers have NOT made thsi clear to the courts who ruled in favor of gay marriage-
Some know, some don’t - but it’s all about destroying the family.
That's just a step towards their ultimate goal, the complete destruction of Christianity.
Even in small groups (isolated tribes, for example) too small to have a government large enough to levy taxes, there's still an incentive to foster classic marriage (assuming they don't consider children to be "disposable") in that it minimizes the chances that children become a burden on members of the group other than their parents.
It’s not just Christianity they want to destroy - it’s all of Western Civilization, the idea of a society not wholly dependent on The State for everything that they want to destroy, and to purge even from the historical record.
God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was “married” and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than God’s definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature is only heterosexual.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assuming we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes marriage that God cannot sanction.
Marriage has always been a part of government, or tribal law, or in the cases where a religion was the law, then it was still law.
See post 19, marriage will remain a legal structure, as it must and always has been, any church or Mosque, or Mormon Temple can have it’s own internal marriages, but it doesn’t make it legal.
We all know that Rome and Greece and obscure tribes, all have to deal with defining marriage, and dealing with the issues coming from it, for instance property issues, inheritance, does the first born son inherit, or the widow?
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.