|
Posted on 05/21/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Recently, a congressman whom I have known for many years and whom I greatly respect asked me about objections he’s hearing to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He said, “I don’t have a good answer when people say to me, ‘Isn’t it better for kids to be raised by two fathers or two mothers than single parents raising kids.’ Why is gay ‘marriage’ bad for kids?”
My response to him was that if two were better than one, why wouldn’t four be better than two? If it’s just a matter of the number of people in the home, then polyamory is best, or maybe we should legalize polygamy. He understood that, but he kept returning to the question of the single parent. How does the single parent model the proper role for raising children?
I think single parents—beginning with my own daughter—deserve special medals for valor. They do an heroic job under adverse circumstances. But in most cases, children know their other birth parent, and usually that parent is there when they need them. That is, except for instances of death or the most egregious desertion, children know both parents. That means children have male and female parental role models—as imperfect as they may be.
This is vitally important in understanding what’s going on with the same-sex “marriage” debate. In this whole issue our opponents are basically denying the differences between men and women and, thus, the need for children to have one of each in a family. As Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family notes, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts declared that traditional marriage, as codified in the law of the state, “identified persons by a single trait [that is, the ability to reproduce sexually] and then denies” those without that ability equal treatment under the law.
Stantongoes on to write: “The court would have us believe your wife’s only essential value as a woman is her womb or your husband’s, his seed. That, they say, is the only unique thing we, as gendered-beings, bring to the table. Everything else, the court would have us believe, is ‘bridgeable.’”
The court’s reasoning is foolish. When it comes to the family, there is a clear role for a woman and a clear role for a man. Is it possible that members of the court haven’t noticed the differences between “Mars” and “Venus”? Both roles are essential to the proper functioning of many aspects of our society—certainly for the character formation and nurturing of kids.
In considering the meaning of marriage in the public square, our first consideration ought to be what is good for society as a whole. We are fighting to preserve an institution that is required for procreation and is the best possible environment for raising children. That’s been proven. Marriage is where the future comes from.
Maybe it’s not always ideally fulfilled, like in single-parent families, but that doesn’t mean we should alter the law to reflect the lowest common denominator.
This debate is about what is best for America’s children and what it means to have a just society. And the evidence over the centuries is on the side of traditional marriage, which is why on Monday President Bush gave such a ringing endorsement to the marriage amendment. But the critical thing here, friends, is to learn how to make this case well so our secular neighbors understand it. There’s nothing less than the survival of our civilization at stake.
Expert Gives Powerful Testimony in Defense of the Family
I try to post similar articles to have them available as backups for reference in the categorical index.
Indeed. And that is precisely why the categorical index was created. There are many avenues from which to argue against homosexuality. I only argue the religious angle when it is first tabled by the pro-homosexual side.
I just read the Narth article by Satinover (again). He is really an inspiring man. No one could possibly accuse him of "homophobia" unless they were crazy. His compassion and deep understand are clearly evident.
The categorical index is like a storehouse of ammunition - all the way from fat rubber bands, .22 long rifle, shotgun shells and slugs, .45 hollow points, and then there's the heavy artillery stuff...
(I know nothing about guns, obviously!)
You have done an incredible job compiling and organizing all that information. Thank you!!!
It's most defintely a team effort, and your part is no small part, my friend. I'm trying to work on the next revision (1.2) as time allows, and I'm (again) thinking of a format change to remove some of the "white space" in an effort to save space. The darn thing is getting really big at 606 articles...
Thanks - the more of us who try, no matter how small we feel our own part, the better!
Ephesians 5 says marriage is a model of Christ and the church. In marriage, two very different (almost opposite, although certainly complementary) people form a single unit, just as Christ and the church are united although they are so different in nature. Whether we appreciate the symbolism or not, it is inherent in every marriage between a man and a woman.
Homosexual marriage and adultery are perversions because they mock this Christ/church model.
Man/woman couples can still honor this highest purpose of marriage, to model Christ and the church, even if they don't have children, love, or financial security.
In a heterosexual marriage, no group (male or female) is excluded. A homosexual marriage excludes half of the population--thus you could say they are exclusionary--maybe even phobic towards half of the population. It does not lead to a healthy, cohesive society.
Definitely practice! After shooting my .357, I often want to shoot my two H&K compact 9MMs - one in each hand. Somehow I don't think others at the range will see the same humor in it. :-) Good night, LJ.
If there's no real difference between men and women, then why are homosexual men only attracted to men and homosexual women only attracted to women. I mean, if there's no difference, why would they care at all whom they marry?
Excellent exigesis! And it's the one model that doesn't have any exceptions.
See post 29.
|
Agreed. BTW, you aren't the same Nick Danger they mentioned on that Adult Swim commercial, are you?
I doubt it. If I get an urge to exercise, I lie down until it goes away.
Stroingly disagree NCB. God outlaws homosexual behavior in order to stop the spread of the disease. People caught in the behavior are to be killed. There is no atonement for this sin. The infected are to be killed before they can infect others. Even lepers are given a few weeks to be 'cured'.
Why is this so? Because homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit. even then. God didn't want this behavior to infect His people. (further because the behavior itself is hazardous to their health and wellbeing)
We see the same rational used in the commandment to utterly destroy the people who lived in canaan before Israel took the land. God didn't want the old behaviors to infest and infect His people. Likewise we see it in the command to not join our sons and daughters to the unbelievers, because they'd be pulled away to follow strange gods. (Why did Solomon fall? Because he married a woman who followed strange gods and she pulled him after her into idolatry)
God defended His people by not allowing them into areas where they would be infected with hazardous behaviors (homosexuality, idolatry etc). He did this pretty uniformly throughout the old testament
Thanks for actually addressing my question.
The huge problem is that so many children are born out of wedlock in the last 40 years.
I have the stats at home, but as I remember them:
Until approximately 1960, the out of wedlock birth ratio was under 6% - as high as 22% in some Black American communities.
By 1991, half of our births were outside marriage!
What is the change that enabled/caused the increase?
First, the separation of sex and procreation. Supposedly, the two became separate issues, and Surprise! Contraception didn't work.
Next, men took the separation more and more to heart. Some of it's the old "Why should he buy the cow,when he's getting the milk for free?" But, let's face it, the driver for promiscuous sex has always been the male.
Men are not all promiscuous, and many are begging for a chance to take responsibility and keep the traditional home. Far too many, however were/are thrilled with the concept that conception is "her problem." In addition, fatherhood is a mental process - rather than 9 months of gestation, as it is for women.
Nowadays, however, the States are demanding that men support their offspring - however they are conceived. Perhaps this will change the outlook of men.
Or to use a crude old saying, again: If he's paying for the feed, the barn and the upkeep, he might as well buy the cow.
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.
Same-sex marriage is not about homosexuals. They'll use it, but they will be the minority of those who do.