Skip to comments.What's wrong with Same-Sex Marriage? Too High a Price to Pay for Making Gays Feel Good
Posted on 06/25/2013 8:28:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This year, June's wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages. I hereby invoke a panel of experts -- Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut -- to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.
Fr. Vandenberg's new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:
"The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school."
Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Gays care that other people get married.
They want to destroy the institution of marriage by making it meaningless.
In Massachusetts, only about 20% of homosexuals in relationships are married.
That’s not 20% of all homosexuals, that’s 20% of all homosexuals who claim to be in relationships.
Massachusetts has had legal homosexual marriage for the longest time of any state.
Clearly, it seems that homosexuals have agitated for the right to be married, but do not choose to exercise that right once it is gained.
The eventual goals of LGBT activists is legalized group marriage, with any number of partners, any gender of partners. They see monogamous homosexual marriage as a transitional step towards that eventual goal.
But you will never hear anyone say that. They make it sound like they want “equal” marriage rights and the right to marry 1 partner at a time and that’s it.
Exactly. They wanted to join the Boy Scouts for precisely the same reasoning.
We make laws and social policies anymore based on political correctness, and to make the officially recognized grievance groups happy.
We have to boost everyone’s self esteem. We have to boost the self esteem of the homosexual by saying he/she can marry a same sex partner.
Just look at how these issues are discussed. Anyone opposed to homosexual marriage is called a bigot and a hater. We have passed the point of no return. We’re not allowed to talk about the purpose of marriage, or the importance of mothers and fathers raising children. The only issue is that homosexuals want the legal sanction of marriage, and will steamroll all who oppose.
The liberals will try to destroy anyone who stands in the way. Whether it’s a Miss USA contestant who has the audacity to oppose homosexual marriage, or a fast food restaurant owner who personally opposes same, the liberals set out to destroy such opponents. We can’t debate the issue, instead, opponents must be destroyed.
Speaking of Chick Fill A, how many lawsuits were ever filed against Chick Fill A for discrimination by the gay activists? Zero? See, Chick Fill A does not discriminate, and the activists could not find a single homosexual who was discriminated against by that company. You know that the activists were digging deeply to find someone who could claim discrimination, but they never found anyone.
“The liberals will try to destroy anyone who stands in the way.”
Yep and they are amping stuff up now. The problem is that the game doesn’t work with converted liberals. ;)
I believe that this was our former Parish priest at St. Vincent de Paul Church in Federal Way, WA. He retired several years ago. Had a wonderful sense of humor.
While today brings us good SCOTUS news something tells me Kennedy will swing a 5-4 on gay rights.
Succinct assessment. And dead on.
what’s wrogn with it is that marriage is an institution that was foisted away fro m the church by the govenrment and turned into a money makign scheme in which heterosexual peopel are given govenrment money and incentives to reproduce children to produce future generatiosn of taxpayers to help support future govenrments-
marriage is NOT a right- whether heterosexual or gay- marriage is a privilege, not a right- A man is barred from marryign his sister, hism other, his aunt- he is barred fro mmarryign several women at once, he is barred from marrying his dog etc etc etc-
Gay marriage does NOT produce offspring naturally, nor is it conducive to a healthy normal upbringing of a chikld who NEEDS botrh female and male influences in their life for the greatest possible chjance at normalcy-
The govenrment is supopsoed to care abotu children, NOT allow perverts to have unfettered access to them by grantign htem a ‘right’ to adopt and raise children- (not all gay peopel are perverts- but many of them are- a far higher percentage of gay peopel have multiple sex partners and MANY of them identify as havign had committed pedophilic assaults on children at soem point in their lives)
Yiou woudl think a govenrment woudl want to protect chuildren as best it could, but instead, what we see is our govenrment forcign kids to be raised in notoriously dangerous situations, and under circumsdtances which bvery often prove to be detrimental to the emotional and physical well beign of kids- Apparently our gobvenrment is now doign everythign it can to make sure they create an evironment conducive to sexual predation by gay folks- NJ even goign so far as to ban parents from seekign ‘restorative therapy’ for a kid they suspect is gay-
this ocuntry is rapidly becomign a sewer pit
Close - it's not even a privilege - it's an obligation two people undertake (ideally) prior to engaging in conduct which might reasonably be expected to produce children, for the purpose of maximizing the chances that said children will survive to become productive adults.
We will never win this debate on religious grounds. Instead, we must make people answer the question “What is the societal purpose of marriage?”
The answer is, of course, to create children that have the best possible chance of success in that society.
This answer explains why we don’t let adult siblings marry, or those deemed mentally incompetent. It’s also the reason behind historical polygamy.
We started winning the abortion debate when we moved from “God says it’s wrong” to “It’s murdering babies.” Same thing with gay marriage.
i meant privilege granted by the government- Shoudl have made that clear
privilege: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual
you are right- peopel don’t auromatically enjoy privilege when it coems to marriage- they must be granted that privilege- hence why peopel can’t just marry whwetver they want- government won’t grant that priviledge fro soemoen to marry say a rock or tree or whatever
(of course peopel can act outside of marriage, but they certainly don’t have a right to marriage, nor even a priviledge to get married UNLESS the government grants them that privieldge)
The whoel premise behind govenrment foisting hte holy sanctitty from the church and bastardizing hte institution of marriage was os that future geenrations coudl be raised as normally and healthy as possible to contribute taxes to support the govenrment- The government’s grantign of marriage has nothign to do with honorign God any logner- it’s strictly abotu geenratign revenue- so hte hwoel argument by gay groups that htey have a ‘right’ to be married is BS- and it’s just shockign htat lawyers have NOT made thsi clear to the courts who ruled in favor of gay marriage-
Some know, some don’t - but it’s all about destroying the family.
That's just a step towards their ultimate goal, the complete destruction of Christianity.
Even in small groups (isolated tribes, for example) too small to have a government large enough to levy taxes, there's still an incentive to foster classic marriage (assuming they don't consider children to be "disposable") in that it minimizes the chances that children become a burden on members of the group other than their parents.
It’s not just Christianity they want to destroy - it’s all of Western Civilization, the idea of a society not wholly dependent on The State for everything that they want to destroy, and to purge even from the historical record.
God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a persons estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was married and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular States definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than Gods definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was Gods intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature is only heterosexual.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assuming we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves married against Gods law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the States public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is normal. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes marriage that God cannot sanction.
Marriage has always been a part of government, or tribal law, or in the cases where a religion was the law, then it was still law.
See post 19, marriage will remain a legal structure, as it must and always has been, any church or Mosque, or Mormon Temple can have it’s own internal marriages, but it doesn’t make it legal.
We all know that Rome and Greece and obscure tribes, all have to deal with defining marriage, and dealing with the issues coming from it, for instance property issues, inheritance, does the first born son inherit, or the widow?
Even when legalized, gay marriage is still pretend marriage, and nothing will change that. Gay couples are pretending to be married to claim some normalcy and legitimacy for their relationship, but that will never happen. They will get all the complications of marriage, but none of the reward heterosexual couples have. Nothing, not language, not popular culture, not marriage will ever make homosexuality anything but sexual perversion.
Couldn’t help giggling at your comments. You were typing so fast you were reversing your letters, or you are Dyslexic. My son is Dyslexic and he types like that. :o)
it’s not dyslexia I don’t beleive- it’s neurological issue that for osme reason reverses the letters between the brain and hte figners- My mind sees them right- but by hte itme it gets down to hte fingers, it’s reversed- (plus I’m a sloppy typer which doesn’t help matters any)
God defines marriage not government. When we allow the State to define marriage, it does so for its own purposes. Because the First Amendment forbids the State from expressing an ecclesiastical opinion, its definition of marriage is a secular one derived by the political process. As such whoever has the power at the time gets to define marriage to its advantage or to the disadvantage of groups it wants to punish.
In the case of same sex marriage, clearly advocates are more interested in destroying Christian marriage than they are in adopting it. They also yearn for approval, which I cannot give.
It is time to get government entirely out of the business of marriage. Every single secular aspect of state-defined marriage is already handled by alternative means or can easily be accommodated by minor changes in existing law. Inheritance is already resolved by existing legal structures. We have entire demographic segments in society where more children are born outside of a marriage than are born inside one. Their rights of inheritance are not encumbered by the lack of marriage at their conception, or at their birth or upon the death of a biological parent.
(eg. 74% of black children are born outside of marriage.)
If you scan the website of the Human Rights Campaign (hrc.org) you will see that most of the reasons they give for same sex marriage is related to the tax code. I just heard this morning that over 1,100 specific points of the tax code relates to the government’s definition of marriage. There are 1,138 points of federal law that refer to marital status.
We have allowed the State to make marriage a secular matter when it cannot be. The only role for the State is to respect the marital status of a person, however that person defines it. It is not for the State to express an opinion on that status unless fraud is clearly involved.
Some facts, the argument to remove any legal definition of marriage would be the end of marriage anyway, since it wouldn’t exist and the word would not have any definition at all, since it could mean anything from Islamic relationships to gay, to incestuous, to satanic, it would just be a toy word to be mocked and played with for a couple of generations.
Besides, government or a controlling religion/authority has always had to rule on marriage, society cannot function without it, that is why the Romans, the Greeks, the Apache, New Guinea headhunters, people that we have never heard of, all had to have marriage laws, property, children, inheritance, warrior deaths in service, marriage law is not something that politicians cooked up a 100 years ago.
Besides, why waste time on such childish LIBERTARIAN silliness anyway. DON’T WASTE TIME IGNORING ACTUAL POLITICS AND REAL LIFE AND CURRENT LEGISLATION AND ELECTIONS BY TRYING TO PRETEND THAT MARRIAGE WILL BE REMOVED FROM LAW AND GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO OR 20 ANYWAY, THAT ARGUMENT DOESN’T EXIST, AND QUIT PRETENDING THAT IT DOES.
Outraged At FLA, I got my threads mixed up and did not mean to ping you to this post, I was not trying to drag you into a thread that you are not on, sorry.
When we give secular government the power to define marriage, when people whose real ideological motivation is to destroy marriage seize enough levers of government power, they will use government to the effect of destroying the institution we all want to preserve. Allowing government to define marriage for purposes of taxation and others was fine when government was not inherently hostile to marriage. Sadly that time has passed. In order to protect marriage, we must now prohibit government to have any role in defining or approving of marriage at all.
Just because some ancient nations extended control over marriage doesn’t justify giving any of the United States or our federal government a monopoly over it today. The Prophet Abraham got married without benefit of State sanction, as did many people in Torah.
To preserve marriage, it is time to let marriage return entirely to the private sphere, such as exactly where it was before organized government was extant was this continent was being settled.
Gay marriage pops up and suddenly you guys want to block the efforts to stop it, where were you the previous thousands of years?
Why you want Mosques and gay churches (and Catholic churches)and any individual, and Mormons, and atheists, to define marriage, is puzzling, but by winning, you force the government to accept it.
The Pentagon has already announced that your gay spouses will start receiving death benefits.
Oh stop that stupid nonsensical argument. There is no movement to erase marriage laws from American society, or Western civilization, or from anywhere else on earth.
Your childish fantasy has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate in America.
Marriage law has always existed in America, and even before the white man arrived, and in the places where the white man come from.
Atheists marry, Muslims marry, Catholics marry, gay ministers marry, and people move from state to state, their family structure moves with them, they want to adopt, divorce, serve in the military and have their spouse be declared dependent, they want to bring their spouses to America when immigrating, they want child custody, they want lawyers to decide how 100 million dollar estates are divided.
Marriage isn’t going any place so drop that silly notion, that is merely your own weird fantasy, it has no place wasting people’s time on a political forum about conservative political action.
That is my understanding of Dyslexia. The brain has some kind of glitch that mixes the signals from brain to hand. My son can’t spell anything and he is a genius in some things.
So far I get my spelling mostly correct, but my brain stops signal to my eyes and refuses to open them. The brain is a funny thing and can sure make life interesting. Hope I didn’t embarrass you.
[[My son cant spell anything and he is a genius in some things.]]
Sounds like what’s mostly happenign with me (although some is that my fingers also hit keys next to the one I’m tryign to- but you’ll see consitsantly many of mine are infact reversed- but I’m thinking mine is caused by a neurological problem as my spelling (and speakign for that matter soetimes- although speakign isn’;t affected nearly as bad as my spelling is for soem reason- but I do often say thoughts backwards) was never bad- and infacvt was quite good- I was an editor i nour school newspaper back i nthe day- I have a coupel of health issues which can cause as a side effect, neurological problems- I’ve been tested some, but they only found mild polymiositis- not enough to cause such issues with my spelling- but perhaps there’s mroe wrogn than what the few tests I’ve had have found- haven’t had the full neurological workup tests doen yet- kina dreadign htem really-
[[My son cant spell anything and he is a genius in some things.]]
Maybe genius has soemthign to do with it I don’t know- My iq was tested at 152 although you’d never nkow it looking at my psots superficially- and they say many of the world’s greatest writers were horrible spellers who gave their editors fits- even some presdients couldn’t spell well at all and had peopel checkign htem over for them before printing- Hemmingway drove his editors crazy with his bad spelling- I believe Keats too- and dickenson and agatha Christie too- I hjad a whoell ist of geniuses who couldn’t spell wirht a lick at one point-
[[The brain is a funny thing and can sure make life interesting. Hope I didnt embarrass you.]]
Not at all- infact you were very civil about it and I thak you- Just ran into several imamture poeople who felt it their duty to hurl one insult after another at me in another thread- beleive me, discussing hte issue with you in a civil manner was very pleasant- and yo’re right, the brain is very complicated and mysterious-
[[Allowing government to define marriage for purposes of taxation and others was fine when government was not inherently hostile to marriage.]]
And that’s a good point- now that gay marriage is goign to be passed- it IS goign to cause massive icnrease in debt- paying out benifits to peopel that will NOT reproduce adn who raise adopted children in environments that are unhealthy for a child- we are now paying gay people to put kids at risk- and we are payign peopel to NOT reproduce top create future geenrations of taxpayers-
We’re in economic hardships, and what do do gay peopel want? Yep- more govenrment money and benifits and they want hte gobvdnrment to rule that they have a ‘right’ to this benifit that was traditionally meant as an investment to heteroesexual couples to create and raise healthy tax patying children
The problem is not what I want to do, it is that those who seek to redefine marriage are now in sufficient control of government that they have already set out to do just that. For example, in Kalifornia, public schools teach that same sex marriage is “normal”.
In light of the recent legal developments, it was a mistake to allow government to have any power in that private area. Marriage as an institution exists outside of government. People on a desert island with no government at all can marry. People who went beyond the limits of organized government in the US, say in the early 1800’s when parts of the west where not yet states, were free to marry without any State law whatsoever. People who escaped (or were exiled) from Jamestown or Plymouth colony were free to marry without having any government intrusion in their private affairs.
In my opinion, I would rather return to that condition rather than where supporters of government-sanctioned same-sex “marriage” can force me to acknowledge a relationship that God defines as immoral.
I don’t know what you mean by all those hypotheticals being “free to marry”, either they were legal marriages or not, Common Law marriage is still allowed in many states, as long as it is legal.
None of this has anything to do with people just getting to decide for themselves what marriage is.
Your condition did not exist, government or authority has always decided on marriage.
Lets take the above out of the equation for a bit. When did govt start the social engineering (tax code, benefits, etc.)? 1910? 1930?
For the federal government it was 1780, with legislative updates in 1794, 1798, and 1802, and so on.
[marriage] License, approval from govt to that which otherwise would be illegal.
"Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns (a different type of public formality) to be waived"
Thomas Jefferson bought his marriage license in 1771, George Washington purchased the marriage license for his nephew in 1799.
In Virginia--"By the 1670s marriage licenses could only be issued in the county in which the bride resided."
"Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts"
When did the Church start giving up its role in the matter?
Which church? The church that made Greek marriage law, Roman marriage law, Apache Indian marriage law, the church of New Guinea headhunters (who of course, also had marriage laws), which church or Mosque would you have make American marriage law?