Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage is wrong
Vanity

Posted on 03/25/2013 7:39:25 PM PDT by lonestar67

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 constitute the awkward rhetorical cornerstone of why gay marriage cannot be legal. A popular aphorism among anti-conservatives is: “What does Jesus say about homosexuality?” The unspoken argument warrant is the idea that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and therefore Jesus’ followers should follow his lead of silence on the matter. I like to ask what did Jesus say about ‘heterosexuality’? It is at this point that it becomes possible to realize that the entire essentializing system of psychology surrounding human sexuality is highly suspect. This is a rhetorical system that is designed to reify sexual behavior and offer it as the cornerstone of human identity. This reification is highly unstable even in activist communities identifying as homosexual. Jesus’ words go to the heart of the theological matter by harkening back to God’s original suggestions in Genesis. God made humanity in forms of male and female. That peculiar difference is the heart of the matter that makes marriage necessary. Men and women are different and find one another relatively incomprehensible. Marriage is the religious sacrament that provides the potential for keeping this incomprehensible pair together. The lack of diversity in same sex relationships is perplexing to the proposal of founding marriage upon this. Almost every human being is presently involved in a same sex relationship. Many people go decades avoiding relationships with the opposite sex. In fact, same sex relationships make the long term avoidance of the opposite sex within the confines of a limiting relationship such as marriage entirely possible. The insistence that same-sex marriages are a statement in favor of diversity is plainly untrue. These relationships are profound statements of sameness. Jesus’ statement defends God’s purpose in maintaining diversity. It is not a statement about the psycho-sexual categories invented by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud. In fact, the normativity of same sex relationships is apparent throughout human history. The greeks were apparently quite comfortable about this practice. The practice of same sex sexual relationship is apparent in almost any time period and most cultures. This exposes another peculiar argument fixation about same sex relationships and marriage. These relationships are exotic and peculiar. This exotic notion is its own form of heteronormativity. Presently, American soldiers are advised not to comment on the prevalence of same sex relationships among Taliban commanders and militants. Societies like the Taliban utilize same sex relations as a social vessel for sexual activity and then use different sex relationships for procreative goals. These societies exist throughout the world and history. Honest intellectual brokers of sexual history such as Michel Foucault acknowledge this but the complicated reality of global sex is hidden from Western and American audiences in order to play an irony against the normativity of “heterosexual sex.” Many of America’s sexual fundamentalists know better but play coy [a sexual fundamentalist is someone who essentializes human identity from sexual practice]. The emergence of long term monogamous different sex marriage is a peculiar and distinctive social practice that exists against global norms. Its emergence is undoubtedly predicated on statements like those offered by Jesus. The challenges are immense since biology demonstrates a history of difficulty with monogamy. The peculiar observation that same sex marriages might be more stable and long lasting is missing the rather obvious point that Jesus highlights-- male/ female marriage involves the management of profound difference. By now it is possible that any lingering readers opposed to this thesis have moved on to the notion that the separation of church and state does not allow the government to limit marriage on the basis of religious warrants like those offered by Jesus. Here again the gay marriage advocates are being profoundly ironic. Stop and look at the text of the first amendment in its first clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Anti-conservatives are generally delighted to invoke the religion clauses to protect the state from the influence of the church. They seem incapable of recognizing when the state threatens the church. Here is a perfect case. Marriage is an establishment of religion. It is sometimes difficult to imagine what might be an establishment of marriage. Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage. Regardless of how the government might interpret or modify marriage, it is unconstitutional to do so and such actions constitute a violation of civil rights for the religious communities that derive these customs. This is why both the Defense of Marriage Act and various rulings for gay marriage are both unconstitutional. Could the state make other rules modifying religious customs with which it disagrees? Might the state conclude that communion ought to be more broadly understood as honoring not just the body of Christ-- but Buddha and Mohammed as well? If the convention of marriage is to change, only religious bodies could do this. For the state to do this would violate the ‘separation of church and state.’ While that metaphor is rather rough and possibly counter productive-- if it is to have meaning it must apply as much to a hostile state as a hostile church. Gay marriage instituted by Courts and legislative bodies violates the expectations of the religion clauses. Like most young people, when I graduated from college, I thought gay marriage should be legal. After watching literally thousands of people debate the matter and thinking through the competing views, it seems apparent that same sex marriage should not be mandated by the state.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: demagogicparty; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; marriage; nambla; sodomy; ssm
Personal thoughts
1 posted on 03/25/2013 7:39:25 PM PDT by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Please try that again. It is unreadable and maybe worth reading.


2 posted on 03/25/2013 7:41:02 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

gay marriage is neither


3 posted on 03/25/2013 7:44:58 PM PDT by Darteaus94025
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Personal thoughts
yep they can F off, this family will never accept it and as for the usual trolls which pretend to be republicans or conservatives who only thinkig taxes and debt is important then they too can F off.

Half baked idiots who shout the usual Govt out of it are pushing a communist agenda and should understand what they are pushing and who invented that agenda .

Kids do better with a mother and fatherm seriously a man likes to get off with another mans ass, have anal sex and push feces or a woman think she hates a guy so she wears a steap on to pretend she is a guy and act like a guy during sex

and they think that is normal and they shoud play family and raise children plus taking them to freak parades and no I;m sick of hearing the usual of “I know some and they are nice , they love each other and I do;t care”

Just because youknow someone does nto mean you give up on children , America, the future and your morals


4 posted on 03/25/2013 7:45:00 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 constitute the awkward rhetorical cornerstone of why gay marriage cannot be legal. A popular aphorism among anti-conservatives is: “What does Jesus say about homosexuality?” The unspoken argument warrant is the idea that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and therefore Jesus’ followers should follow his lead of silence on the matter. I like to ask what did Jesus say about ‘heterosexuality’? It is at this point that it becomes possible to realize that the entire essentializing system of psychology surrounding human sexuality is highly suspect. This is a rhetorical system that is designed to reify sexual behavior and offer it as the cornerstone of human identity. This reification is highly unstable even in activist communities identifying as homosexual.

Jesus’ words go to the heart of the theological matter by harkening back to God’s original suggestions in Genesis. God made humanity in forms of male and female. That peculiar difference is the heart of the matter that makes marriage necessary. Men and women are different and find one another relatively incomprehensible. Marriage is the religious sacrament that provides the potential for keeping this incomprehensible pair together.

The lack of diversity in same sex relationships is perplexing to the proposal of founding marriage upon this. Almost every human being is presently involved in a same sex relationship. Many people go decades avoiding relationships with the opposite sex. In fact, same sex relationships make the long term avoidance of the opposite sex within the confines of a limiting relationship such as marriage entirely possible. The insistence that same-sex marriages are a statement in favor of diversity is plainly untrue. These relationships are profound statements of sameness. Jesus’ statement defends God’s purpose in maintaining diversity. It is not a statement about the psycho-sexual categories invented by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud.
In fact, the normativity of same sex relationships is apparent throughout human history. The greeks were apparently quite comfortable about this practice. The practice of same sex sexual relationship is apparent in almost any time period and most cultures. This exposes another peculiar argument fixation about same sex relationships and marriage. These relationships are exotic and peculiar. This exotic notion is its own form of heteronormativity. Presently, American soldiers are advised not to comment on the prevalence of same sex relationships among Taliban commanders and militants. Societies like the Taliban utilize same sex relations as a social vessel for sexual activity and then use different sex relationships for procreative goals. These societies exist throughout the world and history. Honest intellectual brokers of sexual history such as Michel Foucault acknowledge this but the complicated reality of global sex is hidden from Western and American audiences in order to play an irony against the normativity of “heterosexual sex.” Many of America’s sexual fundamentalists know better but play coy [a sexual fundamentalist is someone who essentializes human identity from sexual practice].

The emergence of long term monogamous different sex marriage is a peculiar and distinctive social practice that exists against global norms. Its emergence is undoubtedly predicated on statements like those offered by Jesus. The challenges are immense since biology demonstrates a history of difficulty with monogamy. The peculiar observation that same sex marriages might be more stable and long lasting is missing the rather obvious point that Jesus highlights— male/ female marriage involves the management of profound difference.

By now it is possible that any lingering readers opposed to this thesis have moved on to the notion that the separation of church and state does not allow the government to limit marriage on the basis of religious warrants like those offered by Jesus. Here again the gay marriage advocates are being profoundly ironic. Stop and look at the text of the first amendment in its first clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Anti-conservatives are generally delighted to invoke the religion clauses to protect the state from the influence of the church. They seem incapable of recognizing when the state threatens the church. Here is a perfect case. Marriage is an establishment of religion. It is sometimes difficult to imagine what might be an establishment of marriage. Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage. Regardless of how the government might interpret or modify marriage, it is unconstitutional to do so and such actions constitute a violation of civil rights for the religious communities that derive these customs. This is why both the Defense of Marriage Act and various rulings for gay marriage are both unconstitutional. Could the state make other rules modifying religious customs with which it disagrees? Might the state conclude that communion ought to be more broadly understood as honoring not just the body of Christ— but Buddha and Mohammed as well? If the convention of marriage is to change, only religious bodies could do this. For the state to do this would violate the ‘separation of church and state.’ While that metaphor is rather rough and possibly counter productive— if it is to have meaning it must apply as much to a hostile state as a hostile church. Gay marriage instituted by Courts and legislative bodies violates the expectations of the religion clauses.

Like most young people, when I graduated from college, I thought gay marriage should be legal. After watching literally thousands of people debate the matter and thinking through the competing views, it seems apparent that same sex marriage should not be mandated by the state.

I re paginated and welcome mods fixing my original post.

Sorry about that. Original paste job dropped returns.


5 posted on 03/25/2013 7:49:20 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
The lack of diversity in same sex relationships

That'll make some heads explode, lol.

6 posted on 03/25/2013 7:52:57 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Personal paragraphs?

Apart from anything about the biblical/scriptural aspect of gay marriage, it also entails a complete rewrite of the whole tax code, which is of course what the alinskyites want. As much societal chaos as possible.


7 posted on 03/25/2013 7:53:45 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Vendetta))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

I read it. Very good stuff, and you argue your points well. In fact, I can imagine it being argued in this way at the Supreme Court. Loved the part about altering communion.


8 posted on 03/25/2013 7:56:30 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage.

Should read:

Surely marriage is an establishment of religion.


9 posted on 03/25/2013 7:57:21 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it.


10 posted on 03/25/2013 7:58:42 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I’m doing my part.

Now I’m asking the state to do theirs.

The great thing about that which can even make libertarians happy— the state needs to do nothing!


11 posted on 03/25/2013 8:05:19 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

It’s just common sense - marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s amazing to me that anyone would think otherwise. We already have domestic partnershps so the gay lobby can’t scream discrimination.


12 posted on 03/25/2013 8:05:42 PM PDT by District13 (Obama scares me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
In Luke 10, Jesus certainly does say something about homosexuality:

8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Jesus referenced Sodom for a reason. He knew why it was incinerated and obviously agreed with it or he wouldn't have chosen it to point out the special hell, relative to the hell where the Sodomites deservedly are, that awaits those who chose to ignore his word.

13 posted on 03/25/2013 8:12:06 PM PDT by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: District13; All

Marriage is a religious institution and has been defined as such as the covenant-bond between a man and a woman for thousands of years. The attempts by the left to redefine marriage isn’t - at its hearet - about equal rights, it’s about destroying the religious foundation of society’s most fundamental unit: the family.

Destroy the uniqueness and sanctity of marriage and you destroy the family. Destroy the family and government fills the social vacuum left behind. And this is nothing more than replacing traditional religion with the state.

Want to know why??? The left can’t control religion, they can only try to destroy it. But if the state supersedes religion, then the left can control that and everyone affected by it. The left is nothing if not persistent in its attempts to destroy traditional American society and replace it with their godless utopia.


14 posted on 03/25/2013 8:17:22 PM PDT by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Well, can’t read it but the topic is correct.


15 posted on 03/25/2013 8:31:29 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deagle

I reposted it in post 5 to make it more readable. Sorry.


16 posted on 03/25/2013 8:33:00 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

This is nonsense. Poorly written, not factually correct.


17 posted on 03/25/2013 8:37:19 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

Actually.

No.


18 posted on 03/25/2013 8:42:45 PM PDT by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Your critique of the attack on marriage and the left’s discomfort with religion is sound, though your starting point is flawed.

Marriage is not a religious institution, nor is it a state institution, but a natural institution. Our Lord appealed to the order of nature in His reply to the question about divorce, not to religion. Marriage existed before God’s call to Abraham, it existed before the Law, it exists in all human societies known to history, irrespective of their religious beliefs. And, it existed before the state, before kings or governments of any sort, in tribal societies (like, for instance, those described in Genesis).

The Church blesses marriage because Our Lord sanctified it with His first miracle and because it is within marriage that the calls to chastity and fecundity (be fruitful and multiply) can be lived out simultaneously. The state, when it is not arrogating to itself the purported power to define marriage, has, in almost all societies since the advent of governments, regulated marriage as a socially desirable institution (or as a competing source of social support).

In the Christian context, oddly enough, civil marriage preceded sacramental marriage historically. The earliest form of Christian marriage was a Roman civil marriage undertaken with the blessing of the local bishop, following which the couple would receive the Holy Eucharist at the same liturgy — there was not separate sacramental rite of marriage. Within the Empire, it was only when Emperor Leo VI promulgated a novella putting the Church in charge of marriage (and adoptions of children) in 912 that a specific marriage rite was composed. In the West, only slightly earlier, the Carolingian court was militating for the blessing of a priest to be considered necessary for a marriage — prior to that, evidently, local usages existed in which it was not.


19 posted on 03/25/2013 8:58:46 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

Factually incorrect - hardly! It might be a religious statement of fact (which it is) but factually incorrect...to you!.. please..

Almost everything stated in conflict would be incorrect unless your are ignorant of religious beliefs.. It is okay for you to profess different opinions but to do so with ignorance and contempt... without cause..not so nice.


20 posted on 03/25/2013 9:16:10 PM PDT by Deagle (quo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: District13

There is no “Right” to do vile, evil acts which go against the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” in the USA.

Justice—is based on the philosophy of Natural Law Theory and sodomy has always been a Vice (Just Laws are always promoting Virtue) and there is nothing natural about sodomizing others. That is a “Right from Satan”. US Rights come only from God.

In fact, the vile act which causes diseases and high costs to society should be a felony still, like it was for more than a thousand years. We should also put it back on the mentally ill list since it is a immaturity which is fixated on genitals and excrement.

Not even animals sodomize each other and their young——all homosexual societies from the Ancient Greeks to the Samurai and today’s Afghanis—are SEXIST-—they hate half of the human race and create a slave class.

Homosexual groups of males-—are the most vile and brutal in the history of man-—like the Bolsheviks and the Nazi Brown shirts——they always brutalize boys and young men and they force them into sexual acts and they can easily use dehumanizing methods to kill off people.

It is all history and provable.


21 posted on 03/25/2013 10:01:42 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Use a synonym for “joyful” to describe pederasty, and you’ve lost the argument before it started.


22 posted on 03/25/2013 10:06:23 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Man french kissing another man is sick, man ***K*** another man is as bad as rape and is utterly disgusting.

Just picture them exchanging bodily fluids,

I think the Bible is right.

23 posted on 03/25/2013 10:09:57 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

How about this: Jesus came to do the will of the Father and not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Homosexuality is a sin crying out to Heaven. Jesus and the Father are one as per the hypostatic union. The Son and the Holy Spirit said everything the Father said in the Old Testament because they are one.


24 posted on 03/26/2013 5:03:21 AM PDT by frogjerk (Obama: Government by Freakout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

Some interesting points, though with faith all that’s needed is the simple truth of the title: GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG.

God the Father had already made it clear as to his position on homosexuality in the Old Testament record, so God the Son had no reason to address the morality of it, especially to his main audience—Jews—who easily got that it was an abomination to God and were not clamoring for something as bizarre as “gay marriage”. It’s one of those things that don’t change and will always be wrong (though absolutely forgiveable through the shed blood of Christ, should someone call on the name of The Lord)).

A huge problem in arguing for heterosexual marriage as superior in our era is the wholesale rending of the family at the hands of “normal folk”. They get no credit for abstaining from something they naturally, easily find disgusting (homosexual sin) and they are responsible for abandoning themselves to the sins they do find attractive (fornication, adultery, divorce/remarriage). They’ve done a bang up job of destroying the family and, consequently, creating more homosexually disordered persons in the process. And like many destructive people they can’t imagine you’d be talking about THEM.

Anyone else find it odd that people who selfishly divorce have no sense of irony in their critique of homosexual marriage? They didn’t find God’s commands worth following, who are they to judge? If they had not abandoned their roles en masse we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, and homosexuality would operate on the fringe as it has throughout most of fallen man’s history.


25 posted on 03/26/2013 5:57:03 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson