Gay marriage is wrong

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.

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.

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.

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.