Posted on 06/12/2003 3:26:20 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
The first line of yesterday's Associated Press story says it all: "An appeals court ruled that Canada's ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, and hours later two Canadian men tied the knot in the country's first legal same-sex wedding."
This is the beginning of a vast social experiment initiated by judicial fiat. Canadian Justice Harry LaForme wrote in his opinion, "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offence to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them. The result is they are denied the autonomy to choose whether they wish to marry. This in turn conveys the ominous message that they are unworthy of marriage."
The argument, you see, is that to deny homosexuals marriage is manifestly unfair. But it's not unfair. Gays and lesbians are not unworthy of marriage; they are incapable of marriage.
In his wonderful new book, WHAT WE CAN'T NOT KNOW, University of Texas professor J. Budziszewski states that the purpose of marriage is procreation -- the begetting and rearing of children. The future of the human race depends on marriage understood as the union of one man and one woman. Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage.
Budziszewski writes, "To call procreation the purpose of marriage is not arbitrary; alone among all forms of human union, the union of the sexes produces children . . . A legislature [or a court] can no more turn sodomitical unions into marriages than it can turn dogs into cats; it can only unravel the institution of marriage by sowing confusion about its purpose."
And that confusion is growing. Most people oppose or support homosexual marriage for sentimental reasons. Some can't stomach the idea at all, but they don't know why except for a feeling that it's wrong. Others have friends, neighbors, co-workers, or family members who are involved in long-term homosexual relationships. They enjoy the couple's company; they know that they're in love. Since marriage is all about love, they reason, same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.
Photos of happy gay and lesbian couples getting married as a result of this ruling only reinforce this sentiment. The negative sociological consequences won't be fully felt for years -- when, by then, it will be too late.
Christians must not fall into that sentiment trap, nor can we simply quote Scripture to deny homosexual unions. We need well reasoned arguments based on a biblical worldview. And BreakPoint is committed to helping you make those arguments cogently and winsomely. Call us here (1-877-3-CALLBP); we'll offer you some good resources.
J. Budziszewski is right: We and our neighbors can't not know that marriage by nature is about procreation. And only a man and a woman together -- two becoming one flesh -- can procreate. Same-sex relationships can never be marriage.
A second issue is that those who espouse sexual liberation have defined the issues in the debate. I'll address this on our next broadcast, so stay tuned.
What has occurred in Canada adds fuel to the same-sex marriage movement. Now more than ever Christians must make a well reasoned defense of marriage.
Are you sure you want to say that? The genetic objection to incest is based on science. The genetic objection to interracial marriage was based on bigotry. Race is a myth.
This is supposed to be the land of the free.
Freedom is not a suicide pact. Civilizations that have undermined the basic structure of the family have crashed and burned soon after. Gay marriage is the sociological equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
And please, don't treat me like a bigot because I included childless heterosexual couples. That's just silly. Apparently you didn't read the whole post and just went to the "marry my sister line.
Well, let me ask you this: If a pair of male bisexuals came to this Canadian judge and said, "We want to get married," would his response be:
A. "Sorry boys, you both are attracted to girls some, so go marry some women."
OR
B. "Sure, go get your marriage license from the city clerk."
This decision is not about correcting an injustice based on unfairness. It is about putting bedroom conduct on a high pedestal in a society's value system.
Technically, you're right, I didn't answer the question. But that's not because I'm reluctant to answer it, it's because I wanted to point out that your point is irrelevant to the debate.
So here's the answer to the question: that depends, is your sister the only person in the world you could ever be attracted to?
If my sister was the only person I was attracted to, I would be celibate for life. Just because avoiding a wrong is inconvenient doesn’t mean it’s not wrong any more. Now, let’s move on to men. If I woke up tomorrow and my intense interest in the lovely Rambette had transformed itself into an intense interest in men’s hairy buttocks, I would also remain celibate. Wrong is wrong.
By the way, you didn’t answer my question.
If I woke up tomorrow and my intense interest in the lovely Rambette had transformed itself into an intense interest in men’s hairy buttocks, I would also remain celibate.
i will take your word for it, but i believe very few people would be able to do so (no matter what their original moral conviction).
btw, i didn't answer your question because it was rhetorical. but i did think you brought up a interesting theoretical situation. *if* it were only bisexuals who were petitioning for the right to marry their same sex, you could make a much better argument for denying them.
but as that is not the case, my original analogy was a fair one.
Nope. They'll just go there to get "married", then return home and expect the U.S. to recognize their union.
Not to be sarcastic, I really don't know.
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.