I think a major strategic error overlooked by conservatives is adopting the terminology of the enemy:
Using the term, “traditional marriage”
Tacitly one is crossing a very important psychological threshold just by using that term —you are allowing for the concept of NON-traditional marriage.
Right away you are giving away 50% of the battle, just by doing that. NEVER never never use enemy terminology, and the left rarely does that:
They always say, “anti-choice”, they never say, “pro-life”.
You can “love” many people....doesn’t mean you should MARRY them...or be sanctioned by the state into a marriage with them. And, yes....homosexual marriage is impossible...ie...”absurd”.
We ought to be able to go into a courtroom and say to the judge, “Your honor, you know as well as I that same-sex marriage makes no sense; and so I rest my case.”
The real solution is to have the judge recalled and thrown out.
Problem is that there is no such thing as a self evident truth to the left. To them right and wrong only exist as long as they agree to it and they get to decide when to move the boundaries.
The problem is that this is already the argument of the opposition to God-designed marriage: “it’s a self-evident truth that people who love each other and want to commit to each other should be allowed to, regardless of their sex.” (Next year it will be “regardless of their number,” and the next it will be “regardless of their age.”)
There is no rational argument, because the argument is not rational, it is spiritual. I Corinthians teaches us that the rational mind cannot discern the things of the Spirit of God. Period.
We destroyed the particularity of natural marriage by winking at premarital sex.
We destroyed the stability of natural marriage by OK'ing easy, even no-fault divorce.
We destroyed the procreativity of natural marriage by accepting contraception, sterilization and abortion.
We destroyed the paternal significance of natural marriage by expanding the state to fill the role of the husband, making provision by actual men, husbands/fathers, redundant.
"Natural marriage" has been smashed to the pavement --- by heterosexuals -- and consists of a broken chassis and a scattering of shiny bits.
So now that there's nothing left of "natural marriage" except two adults registering their self-centered self-gratifying coupledom, there's no rational reason why they can't sift through the wreckage and pick out the fragments: the cake, the reception, the honeymoon, the bits they like.
The problem is that Progressives reject the ideas of the Declaration and its assertions of natural law. Progressives see “truth” as whatever is the contemporary sense of the norm. . .even if the contemporary sense is perversion. That’s why, for Progressives, it’s all about propagandizing the people to cow them toward the “norms” that their superiors, the experts, feel is best for them.
They already stole the word gay, leave marriage to the ‘breeders’. They can call their arrangement anything else they want.
Only a science denier would believe that it takes a male and female member of a species to advance that species! Only a science denier would believe that a gay trait in any species could survive millions of years of evolution without being able to procreate....
You science deniers are a whacky lot!
Wasn't much of a bother when, from 1969-1973, marriage was comprehensively redefined by the States and the courts.
Common sense rationally dictates that when you go to a hardware store to buy electrical connections, if you go home with a male-male instead of a male-female you gotta go back cuz the guy behind the counter sold you the wrong equipment and it ain’t gonna work.
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order.
Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking.
Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children.
Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties.
It's true that "marriage" was always understood to be "one man and one woman for life." But it's also true that it meant that the couple accepted children as a gift of God and that they stayed together for life.
First came divorce, instituted by King Henry VIII and the Church of England. No more together for "life". Marriage became more and more terminable at will. King Henry and his Church of England were the first "re-definers" of marriage.
Then, in 1928, this same Church of England broke with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition by allowing artificial birth control for married couples. By placing artificial barriers to conception, it was Christians who left the "marriage" contract.
Both divorce and contraception involved the wholesale disposal of an enormous tradition. And it was done by Christians. First the Church of England (who is directly responsible for the decay of our civilization), and then by other Christians - Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran. Luther condemned contraception in no uncertain terms.
For our God, this is the equation:
(HETEROSEXUAL SEX) + (CONTRACEPTION) = SODOMY.
There is no fundamental spiritual difference between a "married couple" that is engaging in artificial birth control and two men having at it. Spiritually, it's essentially six of one, half dozen of the other.
And that's essentially what the courts are recognizing here. Homosexuals have sterile sex with more than one partner. Their relationships are general characterized by their sterility and less-than-lifetime duration - just like most of us Christians.
So homosexuals are just saying to the courts "hey, our relationships look an awful lot like contracepting heterosexual couples. They get benefits for getting married that we can't access because we're same-sex, even though in essence our relationships are the same. We pay our taxes. We're citizens. We have a right to the equal protection of the laws. So please make this institution of "marriage" as it's come to be defined by heterosexual Christians open to us." And the courts are compelled to agree.
As am I.
And I'm as guilty as any. I sinned and grievously.
I am the one who killed marriage.
My fellow Christians, the fault is ours. This will not get better until we start with a frank admission of our own sin.
Marriage is the joining of unrelated heterosexual members of different families through public profession of commitment to fidelity and support. To secure this commitment and to provide reasonable resolution to issues of inheritance, property division and family responsibility, as well as to ensure that the force of law can be applied to these concerns, Civil Marriage was instituted by human societies many centuries ago. It had nothing to do with love or emotional attachments, nor should it. Government must not be given the power to define, legitimize or legally characterize love relationships in any way!
If, however, society insists on such redefinitions as are required to authorize homosexual marriage then it is opening the Pandora’s box of just such governmental intrusion into the affairs of mankind. By saying that loving someone should be enough of a prerequisite to civil marriage we cannot restrict, for long, any union that two, three or more individuals may desire.
Marriage would be better off, in such a case, being “privatized” and taken away from the corrosive power of the state!
The idea that something could be called “socially useful” is a concept of subjective political values. I ask how is it that ANY judge other than a tyrant can have authority to dictate what is and what is not “socially useful”.
That is after all dictating Social policy goals.
Weather or not marriage is a socially useful institution, is a political judgement on the desirability of product of marriage. A product technically impossible to achieve without a man and a woman.
This article exemplifies the attitude of the quitter. We should not cease making good arguments just because they will face resistance and rejection. We need to let everyone know that there IS another side, even if many, if not most, will not listen. Also, the defenders of real marriage need to work the supporting arguments deep into their own minds, and hearing them made by those who can make them best will help them to do this.
Was in for reproduction or personal enjoyment?..well if its for any other reason then reproduction then there no need for more the one sex..as gays prove.
So why is the state involved in person entertainment? It has no need
Conversely the state does have and interest in reproduction..else we die out as a people. .
She called me a hater. I said, I don't hate homosexuals, but they do have a mental disorder. I asked her if she had a choice to choose her sons' sexual orientation, would she push the button for homosexuality or heterosexuality. She refused to answer. But I know what button she'd push.
I thought this might have been yet another “I really don’t want to run for president” proclamations from Rand Paul.