Oh, Canada!: Marriage Gets a New Definition

BreakPoint ^ | 12 June 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Marriage should be a lifetime, exclusive commitment between a man and a woman. Any laws that undermine or contradict this are inherently bad for a civilization.

[Mr. Silverback]

I am not saying that heterosexuals who can't (or choose not to) have children are any "less married" than the rest of us, I'm just saying that society must maintain in its laws and traditions that the primary purpose is providing a stable environment for kids to grow up in. If some honor that union but choose not to raise kids in it (and that's always a choice, the infertile can adopt) then that's great, but viewing marriage from a sentimental point of view is what got us into this mess.

[Mr. Silverback]

There is the genetic issue, of course. But that was surely addressed when it came to inter-racial marriages.

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.

[Mr. Silverback]

Exactly. You put it much better than I did.

[Mr. Silverback]

that depends, is your sister the only person in the world you could ever be attracted to?

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.

[jethropalerobber]

you didn't answer the question.

[Mr. Silverback]

you didn't answer the question.

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.

[jethropalerobber]

i appreciate your honesty in answering the 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.

[peteram]

This could be good for U.S. if homosexuals move to Canada !

Nope. They'll just go there to get "married", then return home and expect the U.S. to recognize their union.

[patton]

If a morman has three wives, are the wifes married to each other?

Not to be sarcastic, I really don't know.