Posted on 06/29/2015 4:36:12 AM PDT by chajin
Call it a "Same Sex Sandwich"
Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has officially given gays in all 50 states the right to marry, Bible believing Christians and other social Conservatives have not one but two intense moral and political battles to fight in the years ahead. And as the abortion issue has amply demonstrated, language plays a large persuasive role in winning over people's minds to one viewpoint or another.
Take for instance the terms "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life". While "pro-choice" quickly sprinted into the lead, the falsehoods and contradictions inherent in the term eventually stopped it's momentum, leaving abortionists desperately searching for its replacement.
Likewise, gay marriage proponents have been quick off the blocks with the term "marriage equality", while true marriage proponents have yet to find the necessary nomenclature with which to counterattack. Indeed, even using the word "same sex marriage" is an implicit acknowledgement of the possibility of a same sex "marriage". Which is why I'm suggesting the use of the term "same sex sandwich". I know it sounds cheesy (pun intended), but consider the following:
~ one of the main problems in this debate is that gay activists are insisting on calling what is NOT marriage by the name "marriage". This is like calling a radish a "carrot" because they're both vegetables, or calling vinegar "water" because they're both liquids. So why not call what gays want to do or be a "sandwich", because it's two of the same thing coming together.
~ A sandwich is held together by a variety of inner fillings - mayonnaise, butter, jam, peanut butter, etc. Likewise gay sandwiches may be held together by gender identity, sex, loneliness, a cause, etc. True marriages are sometimes held together by similar elements, but the essence of a true marriage is a life-long commitment of two different but complementary individuals before their Creator - all things which gay sandwiches lack. With an average timespan of 2~3 years, gay sandwiches are anything but life-long, nor are the partners "different but complementary" in the same way as a man and a woman, nor are gay sandwiches acknowledged by the Creator to be "marriage".
~ Finally, a sandwich can be almost anything a person wants it to be, whether "open-faced" or "double-decker", hot or cold, or with any kind of filling one desires. Likewise, a same sex sandwich can be anything it's participating parties wish it to be, while a true marriage is clearly defined. Sandwiches are either consumed or end up in the trash. Their value is but temporary. Marriages are consummated, and have the potential of lasting a lifetime. A sandwich only benefits the ones who eat it, while true marriages hold the potential of blessing thousands of people over the course of many generations.
Critics will point out that calling gay unions "sandwiches" will be confusing to kids, who had no idea bread could look like people. But better kids be confused about what a sandwich is, than what a marriage is. In any case, the Supreme Court majority was obviously out to lunch when they legitimatized same sex sandwiches.
Marriages are consummated, and have the potential of lasting a lifetime.... would be better by noting that marriage has the potential of producing offspring and posterity. Mere friendships can last a lifetime.
Thank you; I’ll pass that on
No struggle to those who know thetruth. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Truth is truth. A lie is a lie.
...Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; and ... that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ...
Isaiah 5:20
“while true marriage proponents have yet to find the necessary nomenclature with which to counterattack. “
How about ‘Biological Marriage’?
The fudge packers and carpet munchers will have a hard time arguing that what they do is normal or natural.
I agree the Biblical definition of marriage is the only one that really counts and it’s certainly praise worthy that Mr. Cole is a missionary, but our side has to do better than the argument presented here.
Controlling the language is difficult when the media is largely skewed against our side. But I think we should admit to ourselves that we will never convince the other side by our logical arguments, because the other side was not convinced by logical arguments in the first place, but by feelings.
This is also why the other side doesn't attempt to provide logical arguments to us: it is essentially convert (to progressivism) or die, which is why, as I've written in other posts, the only options left to us are submission, a massive revival, or a coup.
In the meantime, however, we must attempt to control the effects of language upon the more vulnerable elements of our side, including and especially the young.
Sodomitic relationships are not, and can never be, marriage. Adam and Steve are not married to each other. They're committed to buggery, they had a sodomite ceremony. The queers can have the lengthy, heavily modified terms for their perverted conduct.
I agree with everything you wrote. We all know politics is war by other means. It just seemed to me that the idea of same-sex-sandwich was kind of, well, a little lame. If, as you say, we need to attempt to control the language then don’t we need something a little more powerful - something with an emotional kick to it? That’s all I’m suggesting.
The only language option I think we have is to stop calling Holy Matrimony “marriage.” Let them have the word, and call what God has commanded by some term that the same-sexers would never want to use. “Holy Matrimony” is probably the most accurate, though it isn’t, well, catchy.
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.