Oh, Canada!: Marriage Gets a New Definition

BreakPoint ^ | 12 June 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The first line of yesterday's Associated Press story says it all: "An appeals court ruled that Canada's ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, and hours later two Canadian men tied the knot in the country's first legal same-sex wedding."

This is the beginning of a vast social experiment initiated by judicial fiat. Canadian Justice Harry LaForme wrote in his opinion, "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage."

The argument, you see, is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it's not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.

In his wonderful new book, WHAT WE CAN'T NOT KNOW, University of Texas professor J. Budziszewski states that the purpose of marriage is procreation -- the begetting and rearing of children. The future of the human race depends on marriage understood as the union of one man and one woman. Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage.

Budziszewski writes, "To call procreation the purpose of marriage is not arbitrary; alone among all forms of human union, the union of the sexes produces children . . . A legislature [or a court] can no more turn sodomitical unions into marriages than it can turn dogs into cats; it can only unravel the institution of marriage by sowing confusion about its purpose."

And that confusion is growing. Most people oppose or support homosexual marriage for sentimental reasons. Some can't stomach the idea at all, but they don't know why except for a feeling that it's wrong. Others have friends, neighbors, co-workers, or family members who are involved in long-term homosexual relationships. They enjoy the couple's company; they know that they're in love. Since marriage is all about love, they reason, same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.

Photos of happy gay and lesbian couples getting married as a result of this ruling only reinforce this sentiment. The negative sociological consequences won't be fully felt for years -- when, by then, it will be too late.

Christians must not fall into that sentiment trap, nor can we simply quote Scripture to deny homosexual unions. We need well reasoned arguments based on a biblical worldview. And BreakPoint is committed to helping you make those arguments cogently and winsomely. Call us here (1-877-3-CALLBP); we'll offer you some good resources.

J. Budziszewski is right: We and our neighbors can't not know that marriage by nature is about procreation. And only a man and a woman together -- two becoming one flesh -- can procreate. Same-sex relationships can never be marriage.

A second issue is that those who espouse sexual liberation have defined the issues in the debate. I'll address this on our next broadcast, so stay tuned.

What has occurred in Canada adds fuel to the same-sex marriage movement. Now more than ever Christians must make a well reasoned defense of marriage.

[Mr. Silverback]

"The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage."

Wait, then doesn't the fact that I can't marry my sister restrict my relationship options, offend my dignity, convey the message that I am unworthy of marriage? Why, if I had a sister, I'd be really ticked off that I'm being treated this way! </sarcasm>

I would not go so far to say that procreation is the purpose for marriage (to the point that couples who know they are infertile shouldn't marry, or such) but I would certainly say that it's the primary purpose for marriage, and that this primary purpose is so much more important than the other purposes that any attempt to make another purpose equal is to screw up the institution. For example, we could say that one of the purposes of an F-16 is to fly in Thunderbird demonstrations, but if we painted all the F-16s in the inventory high-vis red, white and blue, we'd be buying ourselves some trouble.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping! If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ping!

[Paul Atreides]

Canadian Freepers and Conservatives, I feel so bad for you!

[OREALLY]

This could be good for U.S. if homosexuals move to Canada !

[Russell Scott]

This is like asking God to bring judgement and ruin on a nation. Hopefully he will have mercy on them for their ignorance, and the church's lack of clarity. Otherwise, Canada will soon be as big a problem for our immigration service as Mexico.

[yankeedame]

Question: Has any known civilization and/or society anywhere, and however far back in history, offically reconnized and/or sanctioned a same-sex marriage*?

I can't.

(*And I'm not talking about winking at various forms of, er, "behavior". I mean marriage)

[JmyBryan]

ROFLMAO!!!!

[VOYAGER]

Canadian Justice Harry LaForme wrote in his opinion, "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to...BLAH BLAH BLAH

I don't know what Book this judge is reading from but it certainly not the one he will be judged from!

[joesnuffy]

Wait till the UN declares that marriages in any member country is good in all member countries...
Next up

[proxy_user]

Never mind the morality stuff. From a purely rational point of view, it is in the interest of the nation that someone supply the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. It is the job of government to make laws to further the national interest.

So what sort of laws do you conclude we should have?

[randog]

Canadian Justice Harry LaForme wrote in his opinion, "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays...

But somehow marching in a parade dressed up in leather and simulating sex acts does wonders for their self-esteem.

[Snowyman]

A legislature [or a court] can no more turn sodomitical unions into marriages than it can turn dogs into cats;

Somebody should tell Vermont, Canada is just following Vermont, and that's the US , on this one .

A landmark bill granting Gay couples the benefits of marriage ('Civil Unions'), has won final approval in Vermont. It is the first law of its kind in our Nation's history.

Officially signed into law by the Governor of Vermont, the first 'Marriage'/Union ceremonies for same-sex couples can begin as early as July 1st.

Partners will gain the benefits of marriage, such as the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of partners, inheritance,insurance coverage, child custody, and other rights.

Although the law skirted the word "marriage", to reduce the stress on ultra-conservatives, the list of rights in the new law confers all the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage, but under a new category known as 'civil unions'. The passing of this law stems from a Vermont Supreme Court ruling in December 1999 that required Same-Sex Couples to be treated in the same way as opposite-sex couples by the State.

http://www.gayweddings.com/landmark.html

[goldstategop]

There are heterosexual couples who by nature or choice can't have children. It would be better to say the purpose of marriage is lifelong companionship sanctified by God. A lot of lesbians have something approaching that ideal but few gay men are capable of it. And it is one even questioned today when 50% of all marriages end in divorces, its hard to say Western society is living up to the purpose let alone to procreating another generation in the bonds of holy matrimony.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Next, it will be, "I want to marry my SISTER!!!"

[Qwerty]

"Wait till the UN declares that marriages in any member country is good in all member countries... Next up "

That will be very interesting...

[KCmark]

Wait, then doesn't the fact that I can't marry my sister restrict my relationship options, offend my dignity, convey the message that I am unworthy of marriage? Why, if I had a sister, I'd be really ticked off that I'm being treated this way! </sarcasm>

---

At least you didn't go straight to pedophilia and bestiality (not consenting adults).

Now bear with me as I am just having this thought and I'm not going to wait to think it out. I would think incest would be a GOP issue as it would be a way to concentrate wealth. The libs can't stand concentrated wealth, ergo against. Actually, I'm surprised the libs aren't using this as a talking point. It holds as much water as anything else I hear. hehe. Ok, back to reality. I don't know what made me think this.

Consenting adults. Do you think enough people want to marry their sister that we need a law? There is the genetic issue, of course. But that was surely addressed when it came to inter-racial marriages. All things considered, it wouldn’t surprise me if incest were legal in a hundred years. Gay marriages are going to come to America; the only question is when. Once it does, another group will fill the vacuum of special interest group.

Procreation is not the “primary purpose of marriage.” Companionship is the primary purpose of marriage. I like the way you qualify out heterosexuals who want to be married but cannot procreate. How convenient. These people love each other and want to spend the rest of their life with each other. As long as we are talking consenting adults, any couple should have the rights and responsibilities as every other couple. Procreation or no procreation. This is supposed to be the land of the free.

[jethropalerobber]

Wait, then doesn't the fact that I can't marry my sister restrict my relationship options...

that depends, is your sister the only person in the world you could ever be attracted to?

[biffalobull]

Wait, then doesn't the fact that I can't marry my sister restrict my relationship options...

Jet, Do you know why the best banjo player in the world, came from Arkansas? Because his parents were brother and sister, and he was born with four thumbs.

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP