Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Gender Identity and Marriage
Charisma News ^ | September 25, 2013 | Rob Schwarzwalder, senior vice president, Family Research Council.

Posted on 10/01/2013 9:41:34 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Men and women are different.

This self-evident and clichéd claim is no longer as uncontroversial as, historically, it would have been. According to the American Psychological Association, "Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics. ... Transgender people experience their transgender identity in a variety of ways and may become aware of their transgender identity at any age."

This statement, which includes a reference to an undefined but apparently defining "internal sense" and the concurrent argument that one can recognize his or her transgenderism "at any age," has stunning implications for the way law, society and family all function.

So, what's the deal with exclusively male-female unions?

Human biology and physiology make it plain that men and women are to mate and reproduce. This is a self-evident claim; no explanation of such things as heterosexual intercourse, conception or birth is necessary to vindicate it. Such manipulations of the reproductive process as heterosexual surrogacy and physician-conducted implantation of sperm from two male partners into a single womb only make the point that the natural sexual relationship is inherently heterosexual.

As Dr. Andreas Kostenberger observes in his Family Research Council (FRC) booklet "The Bible's Teaching on Marriage and the Family," "Marriage is a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God and normally consummated by sexual intercourse."

FRC's senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg, makes a similar but more specific case: "Marriage has always been defined as a male-female union for two simple reasons: Society needs children, and a child needs a mom and a dad. Only the union of a man and a woman can naturally produce a child, and the marriage of a man and a woman is what is most likely to provide a child with a stable home shared with both the child's mother and father."

Yet procreation is only one side of the marriage coin. Complementarity is the other.

Organizations like Freedom to Marry, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign argue that same-sex marriage is a matter of justice: If two same-sex partners (1) love one another romantically and (2) volitionally choose to wed, there should be no legal impediments to their doing so. They assert that such impediments imply some combination of ignorance, religious bigotry or sheer homophobia.

The claim of injustice is itself unjust. Because people want to do something that does not adversely affect those immediately around them (e.g., neighbors or co-workers), that does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Society is organic and, thus, so is harm. Same-sex unions do not threaten any healthy natural marriage, but rather they threaten the institution of marriage and, thereby, the well-being of countless families.

Similarly, we have laws against myriad "victimless" crimes (substance abuse, prostitution, etc.) not only because they harm individuals who engage in them but also because they degrade society. Consensual homosexual unions might cause no apparent distress to persons proximate to them, but they diminish an institution—marriage—without which civilization will erode ever more quickly. And in case one hasn't noticed, natural marriage in the United States is in enough trouble as it is.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that if affection and consent are the only criteria for a marital relationship, then logically any kind of consensual union should be permissible. This opens the door to polygamy, polyamory, polyandry and other types of marital relationships. This is not an aspersive comment but an obvious deduction.

The clear teaching of Judaism and Christianity is that the only divinely sanctioned sexually intimate relationship is that which exists between a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage. This means all other sexual unions, heterosexual and homosexual, are prohibited. (See, for example, "Leviticus, Jesus and Homosexuality: Some Thoughts on Honest Interpretation.")

No one is required to accept this belief; religious liberty is foundational to the American republic. However, when those who advocate for same-sex "marriage" claim an umbrella of biblical support, they are upholding a chimera.

Sociologist David Popenoe, of Rutgers University, in his classic book Life Without Father, underscores why children need both a mom and a dad: "The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child's overall development ... fathers express more concern for the child's long-term development, while mothers focus on the child's immediate well-being. ... While mothers provide an important flexibility and sympathy in their discipline, fathers provide ultimate predictability and consistency. Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and humane childrearing regime."

This is an eloquent restatement of the folk wisdom that has governed family life for millennia, also known as common sense. It no longer has the cultural purchase it once did, but it should.

So what, then, must we do? As Christians, our job is not only to advocate for natural marriage personally and politically, legislatively and in litigation, but to model it. Are we?

TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: gender; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 10/01/2013 9:41:34 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

My wife says men in prison and boys in Junior and High School thinking of transgendering to ogle them. May be a bit more painful than they think.

Bradley Manning is the tip of the iceberg for prisoners wanting to get out of dangerous men’s jails. Wait for all kind of legislation to make us pay for this foolishness.

2 posted on 10/01/2013 9:49:03 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is no such thing a s a Transgender.

They are people who are mentally ill.

They should be treated as such and no having so-called Doctors going around cutting off their genitals and trying to remake them. If these Doctors want to make something they should take up Carpentry.

3 posted on 10/01/2013 9:54:18 AM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is part and parcel of the RATs ANARCHY and rejection of laws of the land.


The DemocRATs and their party platform that they originally approved last year are all about ANARCHY and evil and rejection of all that is good.

4 posted on 10/01/2013 10:01:48 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We need to step up the fight for traditional marriage to include not only the homosexual attack on traditional values but also the attacks that come from heterosexuals who engage in sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, and any sex that is not within the bonds of matrimony. There is no shame anymore in a young unmarried man or woman not being a virgin on their wedding night, and we have totally lost the battle against the sin of masturbation. Add to that the ease of no fault divorce and the societal and even church acceptance of re-marriage—we are in a quagmire that only gets worse as time goes on.

5 posted on 10/01/2013 10:18:56 AM PDT by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; sr4402; Venturer; petitfour; Burkean; ReformationFan; xzins; little jeremiah; ...
Thought question for y'all:

There was a news story just days ago about a husband and wife, married 20 years with a couple of kids, who both decided they were "really" the other sex, and both have become trannies. You can read it here, if you can stand it.

That got me thinking.

Now my question is this: in your opinion, can a transman (as the call themselves) marry a transwoman?

(I know my answer, but I want to know yours.)

Also, can these two par-TICK-ular in-DUH-viduals licitly have sexual relations?

(I DON'T know my answer, so opine away!)

6 posted on 10/01/2013 10:49:40 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Bible has no general prohibition of polygamy (for a specific prohibition, see: 1 Cor 7:2). Having said this, polygamy is associated with numerous problems and can be said to be discouraged.

7 posted on 10/01/2013 10:51:19 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m going to be a Rottweiler. Who in the hell says I can’t be a Rottweiler I will sue their ass off. Roberts will side with me.

8 posted on 10/01/2013 12:43:04 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Male “transgender”, i.e., drag queens, are fags...nothing else. Women trannys are dykes.....nothing else. Just mentally confused people that need God in their life. Ever wonder why 100% of dykes are pro-abortion? Just wondering.

9 posted on 10/01/2013 12:48:01 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I agree.

Don’t know why such women are Pro choice, it’s not like they will ever get that way.

10 posted on 10/01/2013 2:33:36 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

IMO they are both fruitcakes.

There are probably thousands of cross-dressers married to women, and living fairly happy with their secret life.

Sick individuals.
Sexual relations?? Obviously they had the at one time.
If they love each other they could role play that each is the other, Maybe buy some sex toys and experiment. Maybe they already have.

As for an operation to change their plumbing, I don’t know too much about it , but I imagine that a home made penis or Vagina loses a bit of its kick when it come to Orgasms. IMKO they are mere attachments and not really working models./I cannot imagine a finger turned into a penis having much of an orgasm without a good set of testes to go along with it. and I doubt a hole dug by some jackass Doctor has much feeling inside it.

11 posted on 10/01/2013 2:42:35 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
It is unbiblical mutilation any way you look at it. One may be doing it to try to hold on to a relationship, but it's bad news.

I understand it is a lot of painful surgery and none if any pleasure (usually pain).

Only a wicked generation would consider it OK.

12 posted on 10/01/2013 2:47:55 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Venturer; sr4402
I think the trannies are --- on top of everything you said -- victims of medical malpractice.

There are more kinds of "dysphorias" than just gender dysphoria. There are people who have the morbid and entirely medically unjustified feeling that their perfectly legs should be amputated. Serious business. And others who think, similarly without therapeutic justification, that they should have a normal, functional eye or an ear removed.

Such afflictions --- just like an unfortunate man's conviction that he is "really" a woman, and ought to have his genitals cut off and a fake vagina installed ---- should be treated by psychiatry, because they are mental illnesses.

To maim a person by removing healthy sense organs, or sex organs, or limbs, simply because they have an abnormal aversion to their own body-identity, should be classified as a crime.

Maiming of a mentally ill person already IS a crime, I think, but in the case of the medicos it is not enforced

13 posted on 10/01/2013 4:16:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("OK, youse guys, pair off by threes." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Some Doctors have no ethics.

Abortionists and Doctors who cater to these sick people are among them.

Let’s not forget Doctor Zeke Emmanuel who wrote Obamacare.

14 posted on 10/01/2013 5:13:33 PM PDT by Venturer ( cowardice posturing as tolerance =political correctness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson