Posted on 07/06/2014 12:39:59 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The arguments in favor of same-sex civil marriage are well known. Thrown into the ring are the buzzwords of “equality” and “discrimination”. So the typical argument goes: Discrimination is bad, and equality is good, so our government should give homosexual couples the recognition and subsidies reserved for heterosexual couples.
But there are problems with those. For one thing, discrimination and prejudice are innate to our psyche. If I have a soccer ball, for example, I will only intend to use it for soccer, because that is its purpose. Since I refuse to use it for basketball, does that mean I hate the latter sport? No, but I discriminate between the two. Moreover, whether they recognize this or not, people of all political persuasions have their own interests in preventing the catastrophe that is same-sex marriage.
Conservatives need to stand up. Christianity has always opposed it. The Jews rejected it, too. Even the Greek thinkers despised it! What could be more conservative than protecting something so sacred to the Abrahamic religions and Western philosophy in general? This is not only a moral concern, though, but a major political one, too: members of broken and “non-traditional” families are more likely to vote Democratic. And another thing: Conservatives are not “hateful” for wanting to preserve an effective, proven institution. The sorry truth, in fact, is that most conservatives are no longer conservative enough. We must never forget that same-sex civil marriage is similar to abortion, in that enabling it makes it more likely to occur. Could our nation bear it on its conscience?
Libertarians should be outraged over this, also. Do libertarians really want humanity to return to the days of de facto sex-slavery, like that of pagan Rome, in which the only classifications that matter are “penetrator” and “penetrated”? Nothing could dehumanize or undermine liberty more! Do they really believe, like Barack Obama believes, that the Constitution contains “a rejection of absolute truth” (The Audacity of Hope)? Or, do they instead share the mind of John Adams, who said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Civil marriage may seem, even in the very first place, to be an encroachment on liberty, but traditionally, it has facilitated social health and promised fairer child custody decisions. The point is that, once we change our essential institutions – and civil marriage has been with humanity for many centuries – we become a substantially different society, one of which the Founding Fathers could have never dreamed, opening the door for any number of unsettling developments.
And, liberals, you’re not off the hook, either. If equality is your desire, you must then demand these benefits for not just homosexual couples, but for polygamous couples, child couples, and single people, as well. On the first, it is true that polygamy causes social incohesion and much detriment [1, 2]. But so does homosexuality [1, 2]. On child couples, there is an argument to be made from contract law and ages of consent. But, historically, they and their parents have been capable of handling these types of decisions. And if singles were to be approved, too, then no one would be exempt! Hooray for “equality”! But then, no one would have a benefit, because the term demands exclusivity, and that would undermine the modern liberal’s favorite thing: the coercive power of government, which rests on its ability to discriminate. Simply put, if liberals are to support homosexual couples in this endeavor, they need to find a unique incentive from homosexuals that justifies the continued exclusion of others. The problem for them, of course, is that there is not even one.
So, everyone should oppose same-sex marriage
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
BTTT!
I don’t oppose same-sex marriage but do oppose marriage between other than one man and one woman.
It is, truly, intrinsically and objectively disordered.
I agree with this article.
Unfortunately, the left has successfully so far, defined the debate in terms of “equality” and “discrimination” against homosexual couples. And in leftist world, “discrimination” is the original sin they cannot tolerate.
So to prove they don’t discriminate, the left has demanded that we allow homosexual marriage.
To be truly liberal and non-discriminatory, we will eventually have to allow polygamy and group marriages, which will contain any number of partners, any gender of partners.
And to be truly equal, other changes may be coming. For example, I would expect court challenges to issues such as tax exemptions for dependent children. The childless homosexual will argue that all couples are not being treated equally, if those with children get a tax break. When put before a liberal judge, I would not be surprised to see issues such as these litigated and granted by courts.
Genesis 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Ping
Well said and well reasoned.
I’ve really had it with this.
I saw video of some Christian men protesting the Seattle Pride Parade last weekend. A transvestite came up to them and utterly demolished the man who was speaking by using obscure passages from the OT (about things like not wearing different fabrics and selling his sister as a bride for two goats) against him and demanding he “live out what his book says.”
The Christian shut up in the face of this freak’s argument.
What I want to see is someone, full of the power of God and His Holy Spirit, showing up to one of these events. When confronted by one of these unholy freaks, I want them to look them square in the eye, point their finger straight at them and clearly say, “In the name of Jesus, DEATH to thee!” And then the freak would scream and fall, graveyard dead. I want to see this applied again and again and again until the mere sight of this man or men like him will cause these perverts to either run screaming from the area or fall down and repent instantly.
Is that too much to ask?
“Is that too much to ask?”
Certainly not! Unfortunately, part of the problem is the whole notion of sola scriptura. Lucifer’s always been able to cite scripture. Nothing new there.
Another problem is that non or unbiblical sources are as adamant in confronting homosexuality (forget homosexual marriage!) as the bible. But academia has thoughtfully ripped out of preChristian literature all the pages dealing with ethics, logic and aesthetics. Aristotle’s deader than God, but the moderns get full coverage. Arguments aren’t even possible under these conditions. No winners because there are no universal, timeless rules.
“In the name of Jesus, death to thee”.....errr not gonna fly. Jesus came to bring life and light. For those rejecting the truth their fate is sealed unless repentance happens. Let God be the giver and taker of life. This earthly life is temporary and God allows such willful nonsense for a season but a corruption of His word will not make it too far into eternity without consequences upon final judgement. The wicked prosper for a season but then its gone forever for them. That’s scary indeed and the “no fear of God” is dangerously stupid but yet many choose it. Yikes....
Is that too much to ask?
If half of the men turn queer they will need to allow polygamy to replace the husbands lost to queers.
Certainly not! Unfortunately, part of the problem is the whole notion of sola scriptura. Lucifer’s always been able to cite scripture. Nothing new there
Homosexual marriage is like a man claiming he is a farmer but burns both the hay and the seeds to keep his living quarters cozy. It is a potemkin fraud.
Scripture is far from alone in condemning sodomy. Every western society since the beginning of societies has condemned it, many before there was any scripture at all. Condoning it, of course, is another story; but even then, only the elite got away with it. And apparently condemning sodomy (even as only part of the natural law ethic) works: western civilization outpaced the rest of the world in every measure of progress.
Scripture is far from alone in condemning sodomy.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.