How does gay marriage damage 'marriage'?

crosswalk ^ | April 13, 2004 | Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker

[Eastbound]

"Instead of seeking after truth and justice they try to eliminate war by eliminating everything worth fighting for."

Heavy -- and worthy of book-length expansion. I'd like to know if it is accidental/consequential or deliberate/conspiritorial?

[Eastbound]

conspiritorial = conspiratorial.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Limits upon [individual] sovereignty are justified only insofar as they infringe upon the rights of others. -spunkets,#125

To what moral philosophy are you appealing? -NutCrackerBoy,#138

Both God's and man's. They are the same.

Please be more specific. I may not debate the point, but I would like to know.

[xrp]

Yes, this straw man is old. Before the Church, there was NO marriage, certainly not in Rome or Greece or Ancient Egypt.

[cpforlife.org]

It was my friend who wrote it.

It was deliberate in order to call attention to the evil for what it is.

[Dimensio]

You assumed that only gay people would enter into sham same-sex marriages!

Where did I say that?

[Dimensio]

A church BUILDING is a physical structure. A church is a group of people who share a common religous belief.

And I'm not sure that the government recognizes a "group of people who share a common religious belief".

Something tells me you aren't married. If by chance you are, try telling that to your spouse.

So marriage is more than an abstract concept? That means that it has physical properties that can be pointed out. Please, point out a physical property of marriage.

No, marriage existed before any formal government, but it is definitely in the best interest of the state to promote and protect marriage as a matter of social policy.

I probably agree with this, but I'd like to hear you justify this position.

Legal, tax, and other benifits are merely ways of implementing that social policy and not a constitutional right of married people. Government is well within it's power to do that, or if they want, to withdraw them altogether. It would be extremely foolish, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Right. Now what's your objection to same-sex marriage again?

[spunkets]

A moral code is a set of rules designed to protect something. In the case of the absolute moral code, it is the individual and their sovereignty of will that is to be protected. It was said that man was made in the image and likeness of God. That means both God and man are to be treated as the sovereign individuals in question and that any one particular individual can be left out in order to demonstrate, or test, the universal nature of the concept of rights and the moral code that protects them and the essence of the individual that has them.

Men such as Hayek, Friedman, Lao Tsu and the founders of this country amongst others, have elaborated on the nature of Freedom, rights, what the nature of man is, what rights they have and what moral code protects their existence. The Bible is the only place where the code can be found in a rather complete form.

From all of those sources a consistent and rational picture emerges of a moral code that protects the nature and will of each individual equally and rejects anything that promotes and advances the destruction of the nature of individuals in favor of any one, or group of them in particular. Such as occurs with socialism, or other such communitarian imposition.

The 10 commandments were given in the Bible. If one individual is left out, 3 commandments regarding not bearing false witness can be dropped at the same time. The rest are elaborations regarding protection of rights, sovereignty of will and truth. The 10 commandments were summarized by God into 2. To love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. If one knows God and themselves the commandments are all summarized in one.

A particular point of relevance that God elaborated on was that if what was said to someone was not believed and followed, that those speaking in His name were to shake the dust off their feet and move on. That is an element of Freedom and unlike what is held by Islam, or any other authoritarian scheme.

Of course I don't believe in fallen man, or original sin. That denies the fact that man is the image and likeness of God and denies God is just. No man's children are guilty of their father's sin and each are free to choose to determine their own destiny.

[spunkets]

" Before the Church, there was NO marriage, certainly not in Rome or Greece or Ancient Egypt."

I recall Jesus attending a wedding before He began His public teaching. Moses also gave rules for divorce a long time before that. The native Americans, who were stone age folks, had wedding ceremonies. The idea of marriage is ancient and universal. It was for procreation and always referred to man and woman, not to anything else. All else was perversion, including the ancient Greeks that did homo acts while they were away from their families.

[KingNo155]

How does gay marriage help 'marriage'?

[Grig]

"If your argument was correct, then that same magistrate that can perform the marriage sacrament, can perform a baptism. Can he? Of course not."

Apples and oranges. Baptism and marriage are two very different things.

[thefactor]

well then i guess we shall have to agree to disagreee. we differ on the very core of this issue so there seems to be little hope. i do not believe in religion. not one bit. the bible is filled with so many contradictions and silly rules. i enjoy people who only take seriously the parts that suit them. and unless you follow the bible to the letter you may also be guilty of this.

i oppose much of the homosexual agenda in terms of the way they disseminate their information. their in your face tactics annoy me. all i am saying here is that if they want to have the same rights as legally married people have in the eyes of the state, what is the big deal? and to answer your question, yes. moral rights and wrongs absolutely change over time. how could you think they don't? are you saying we have the same moral code we had 100, 50 or even 30 years ago? i don't think so.

and by "courtesies" i simply mean the benefits that married couples have in terms of inheritance, tax breaks, etc. legal stuff that heterosexuals take for granted.

basically, you and i differ in that you are focusing on the ACT and i focus on the PEOPLE. you talk of deviant sexual behavior and same-sex sodomy. you are focusing on what these people are doing in the privacy of their own homes. i am trying to focus on a specific groups ability to be accepted into the society in which they live and work. i believe if they acheive a certain level of equality, they would stop some of their incessant grandstanding.

[Grig]

"And I'm not sure that the government recognizes a "group of people who share a common religious belief"."

Sure they do. How can a church issue a income tax reciept for donations if it isn't recognized by the government?

"So marriage is more than an abstract concept? That means that it has physical properties that can be pointed out. Please, point out a physical property of marriage."

Excluded middle fallacy, the world is not divided into physical objects and and abstract concepts. A marriage is many things, it's an oath, it's a relationship, it's an institution etc. etc. It has properties that can't be measured objectivly (like strength) and other properties can can be measured (like duration)

"I probably agree with this, but I'd like to hear you justify this position."

Why? if you agree. It's pretty obvious how the state benifits from traditional marriages.

"Right. Now what's your objection to same-sex marriage again?"

In a nutshell: marriage is a religous institution, and ssm is a desecration of it, a violation of freedom of religion.

If government wants to implement a social policy that treats gay couples the same as traditioal marriages, they can do that, but to respect freedom of religion it would have to be done outside the institution of marriage, like in a civil union for example. Weather such a policy is wise or not is another question.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"i believe if they acheive a certain level of equality, they would stop some of their incessant grandstanding."

Do you really believe the push for gay marriage by avowed homosexuals is about legalizing homosexual marriage?

It is about destroying heterosexual marriage and relationships between heterosexuals as well as the family unit.

Nothing is ever going to be enough to appease the militant gay culture. They will not rest until everyone else becomes just like themselves. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexuals have acheived almost everything they have wanted, aside from same sex marriage, plural marriage, and elimination of the age of consent. (These are also goals, as they have stated themselves.)

Are they quieter now? Are they less divisive, agressive, manipulative, threatening, and lying? No. How many "hate crimes" have they deceitfully perpetrated on themselves, to make it look as though "homophobes" were "gaybashing"? Many, I tell you.

How about the fact - since you mention that I focus on what they DO - that what they DO is the only thing that gives them any special identity? How about the fact that there are thousands of EX-"gays"? The fact that people can and do change their sexual behavior and attractions attests to the fact that homosexuality is not an inherent identity, it is a malfunction, a personality disorder, and when promoted in society at large, a social evil.

When I speak of moral absolutes I am not referring solely to the Bible. Every single monotheistic religious tradition - and some that are not monotheistic, such as Buddhism and Taoism - share the same basic spiritual values and moral principles. Moral absolutes do not change over time. Did it used to be right to murder, and now it's not? Or did it used to be wrong to murder, and now it's right? Of course not.

Similarly, the moral codes governing sexual behavior are the same, barring some cultural acceptance of polygamy in ancient times, in every theistic system in history. If you don't like moral absolutes, that's your choice, as we all have free will. But in the meantime, you are enjoying the remnant of a civilization based on those moral absolutes you disdain.

In a world devoid of moral absolutes, each person can decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. You like that idea? What about the famed German cannibal and his volunteer human dinner? Supposed the human dinner decided partway through he didn't want to be slaughtered like an animal? (It actually happened that way.) Is cannibalism okay? The German cannibal and the whole homosexual cannibal cultists think so.

What about pedophiles? There is a growing acceptance among many university professors and psychologists that child/adult sex may not only be harmless but actually beneficial for children. Some people think it's right and moral - do you allow them that space to think so?

I don't think you would like to live in a world where all moral absolutes have gone down the drain. In fact, I know you wouldn't.

If you dare, you should read scripter's index of articles about homosexuality, and then you could have something in your mind besides your fact-free (and therefore worthless) opinions.


P.S. If they kept their sexual practices private, neither I nor most conservatives would care what they did. But they make a point of flaunting - nay, shoving - their behavior down society's collective throats in every way imaginable. If you don't see this, your eyes must be taped shut and your ears filled with wax.

(Pinging the experts for a link or two, when you have a second, and if you want!)

[Eastbound]

Food for much thought. Thanks for posting it.

[Dimensio]

In a nutshell: marriage is a religous institution, and ssm is a desecration of it, a violation of freedom of religion.

This is where I cannot see your argument as anything more than appeal to emotion.

Your religious beliefs are offended if same-sex marriage is allowed. However, not every person will be offended in such a way. Moreover, the government already allows marriages that some find offensive to their religious sensibilities (interracial marriage, interfaith marriage).

If allowing same-sex marriage is the government "desecrating religion", then that's an admission that the government is already entangled too far in religion by allowing marriage in the first place. You're trying to argue that the government has stated that a certain subset of religious beliefs are "correct", and that it cannot allow an "incorrect" subset of religious beliefs to receive recognition.

[little jeremiah]

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us ... to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” -James Madison

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping. Matthew 7:6 comes to mind. Wisdom reminds me that since time is a luxury of late and with the profoundly ignorant statements made about the Bible, passing on this one seems the wise thing to do. The index, as you pointed out, is the place to start.

[little jeremiah]

I'll read the verse you mentioned! Please excuse me for pinging you, I need to carry my own weight!

~~hard enough these days, gotta start excercising! :-)