Posted on 07/18/2003 10:12:51 PM PDT by new cruelty
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
COMMENTARY-
My 3-year-old daughter has decided that she will marry her baby brother in a few years. She feels love toward her brother and wants to live with him forever, which, in her mind, means getting married. This makes sense to a 3-year-old. But at some point, my husband and I will explain what marriage is and what it is not.
When I don't condone my toddlers' getting married, am I toddlerphobic? Bigoted? Am I denying them equal rights under the law? No, I'm just explaining the facts -- marriage is a sacred and legal covenant between an unrelated man and woman. It may be understandable that a gay or lesbian couple wants legal recognition, but that couple cannot be married. Because no such state exists.
Marriage is the oldest institution in the world, and I would argue, exists outside of any temporal definition of it. Because of this, with few exceptions, every society down through history, and every major world religion, has recognized the same one-man, one-woman parameters. No court, no legislature, can change the fundamental structure of marriage. Only its Creator can change it, and it doesn't look like He is doing that any time soon.
All we as a society can do, then, is change our definition of marriage. And that would be a mistake. We would be trying to make marriage something it isn't, would be violating the conscience of millions of people for the sake of a small minority, and would be setting ourselves on a slippery slope to disaster. If we change our definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples today, what is next? Bigamy? Adult-child unions? I'm not being facetious.
If we don't hold an objective, unwavering line on what marriage is and is not, what grounds do we have for objecting to any type of marriage union? I happen to think that bigamy is sexist, abusive and demeaning to women (even women who choose it), but if society tries to make marriage something it is not, why shouldn't a patriarch be allowed to take three teenaged wives if he and they so choose?
The conservative opinion on this may seem unjust to some, but it is not. It is protecting the traditional definition of marriage against an onslaught that would undermine our society.
My heart goes out to my gay friends who may struggle with feeling unequal under the law, but compassion should not result in destroying the fundamental definition of society's most important institution. I believe the gay lifestyle is morally wrong, but a gay citizen is entitled to civil rights and a free choice of lifestyle like anyone else. Some may say, "Well, then I have the right to marry." Yes, of course you do. The only qualification is that you marry someone of the opposite sex.
REBUTTAL-
Shaunti is right. Marital unions outside of heterosexual unions do not truly reflect the spirit of marriage. Marriage is based on male property rights and commerce. This power structure can only exist between a man and woman. Or to use the very words of the Christian church -- words that aptly identify the power imbalance -- marriage can only exist between "man and wife."
Yet same sex partners still want to marry. Their desire to reap the same financial and social benefits of marriage, as their heterosexual counterparts, upsets the conservative community. Conservatives fear a deterioration of their traditional values and a precipitous decay of morals that will inevitably plummet down the slippery slope toward pedophilia.
It's only a slippery slope if your definition of marriage begins and ends with conservative Christianity. I can draw conclusions about the dangers of religion that the devout draw about same-sex marriages: If we give those Christians free rein what's next? Male superiority and female subservience? Oh, wait. That already exists. I blush. I should try to pick a more outlandish example. Sorry.
The reality is that other religions and lifestyles exist. As hard as this concept may be to understand in the state of Georgia, it is nevertheless true. The United States was formed based on free speech and self-determination and the separation of church and state. It wasn't based on the question: "What would Jesus do?" Does everything have to inevitably revolve around Christian ethics? If that's the case, I think we should consider revising our Constitution to better reflect New Testament ethics.
But in the meantime, I think it is fair to say that same-sex unions can't topple an institution that was never firmly grounded. Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage was originally an arrangement devoid of love, a monetary transaction that extended a couple's social network. It was a matter of survival. Women had babies and men foraged for food.
Marriage = Economics, b.c.
If conservatives are upset about sullying the original meaning of marriage let's go back even farther and talk about ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. Let's talk about dowries, about transferring property right between father and husband. Let's talk about the husband's surname as a cattle brand. The definition of marriage as a heterosexual union was only recently adopted by the Church as a holy union between 'man and wife'. And this is only a single chapter in a long history of marital 'bliss'.
If the concern is that we satisfy the "majority's conscience," despite a vocal minority, this argument isn't convincing. Women couldn't own property or vote when they were a minority voice, does this make it right? (Do I need to mention slavery, too?)
Church and state were separated for a reason: to respect all religions and lifestyles, not just the dominant one. Same-sex couples should be afforded the legal and financial benefits equally under the law, not to mention the emotional rewards of being recognized and affirmed as equally valued and contributing members of a society that they helped create.
The problem comes when people confuse the civil law with God's Law. Look at divorce. It is a simple matter to get divorce in this country. Just show up at court with the papers signed and the man forks over all his money for the rest of his life, and the civil marriage is over.
But this does not and should not mean that the two people are no longer married. Unfortunately, for most folks, the civil law and moral law are equivalent, and the marriage is over when the court says it's over. Since our courts will always be permissive, since we will always vote to be allowed to do whatever we darn well please, having the courts decide on divorce can only weaken the institution of marriage.
Similarly with expanding the definition of marriage. Absent judicial intervention, the great mass of people will continue to think of marriage as the traditional joining of a man and a woman. A small minority may take a different view, but if there is no need for a judicial definition of marriage, then the view of the minority need not be imposed on the majority.
Thus if marriage truly is a durable societal archetype, it will continue as before, without governmental recognition or sanction. However, if government is involved, it can only destroy the institution.
Government can never create. It can only destroy.
So you think it's impossible for two people of the same gender to enter into a loving, committed, long-term relationship?No, that is entierly possible. However, that's not a marriage!
Marriage is a three way committment between a man, a woman and the community (church, village, tribe, government or whatever) that sanctions the marriage. I discussed this in more detail in post #146 on this thread. Same sex couples cannot honor both a committment to remain faithful to eachother and a committment to the community to produce children to assure the community's survival and growth.
Answer me this. If same sex couples are given the same benefits and treatment as traditional married couples, will traditional married couples be expected to produce children as is currently expected of them.The trick question circulating from homosexual apologists is, 'How will allowing homosexuals to marry harm heterosexual marriage(s)?'It won't.
If Jimmy and Joseph are a married couple, with all the benefits, but they are given a pass on creating the next generation of taxpayers to support us in our old age and soldiers to protect us, why the hell should Dick and Jane go to the trouble, pain and expense of having children?
Any community that sanctions the fraud of same sex marriages deserves a quick extinction.
I stipulated in my post that the individuals in the relationship were two men or two women. How does that constitute "hiding" anything?
And it sounds like you think that what two people do in their bedroom nullifies every other aspect of their relationship, not sure if that's what you meant.
They can't. They can live together if they want. Next question.
Sin and perversion are being hidden behind the nice terms of relationship. I thought that was clear from what I posted about my best friend. All the niceness of our relationship becomes perversion if we were homos.
And it sounds like you think that what two people do in their bedroom nullifies every other aspect of their relationship, not sure if that's what you meant.
Yes, that is exactly right. The same could be said about a man with a beautiful relationship with his daughter, once they go to bed together. Or a man and his dog. You seem to ascribe no moral or spiritual significance to the act of sex, is that what you meant to do?
So they can be handed over to the homosexual couples to raise?
hear hear, biblewonk. Agreed heartily.
Why not? If they want to be "married" then they should have to take everything that comes with it--higher income taxes, community property and scumball lawyers who specialize in "gay divorce."
And those steps are working their way through Congress right now, with the boisterous support of most FReepers, a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.
We are pushing to grant the Federal government jurisdiction to forever define marriage, giving away the right of the separate States to do it.
It seems to me that you are using children as the only justification for the definition of marriage.Not at all. On the contrary, the "same sex marriage" crowd are trying to use a committed relationship as the only justification for the definition of marriage. They are trying to get a free ride on the other requirements.
If you read my earlier post, children are only one of many elements to a marriage. Children are an important part of the comittment and the contract. A strong, faithful relationship is another requirement. A willingness to raise your children with respect for the laws and customs of the community is yet another requirement. Failing any of these requirements is a serious problem for a marriage. Asking for a marriage when you know that you can't meet all of the requirements is fraud. That's why same sex marriage should never be allowed. It's fraud, plain and simple.
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.