Posted on 05/01/2015 11:55:37 AM PDT by wagglebee
April 30, 2015 (HotAir.com) -- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard what could be the defining case on whether marriage in America is legally restructured from a relationship between people of the opposite sex with an eye towards procreation to an “anything goes” system.
The media has responded as expected, with articles and reports brimming with support for changing marriage. Therefore, it is important to explicitly spell out a few realities of marriage and same-sex relationships.
Most importantly, marriage is between a man and a woman — no matter how much some wish it weren’t so. As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out yesterday, this has been the definition for millennia, and as such allowing same-sex “marriage” does not expand marriage, but instead redefines it.
Why is marriage between a man and a woman? For starters, sexual intercourse is a reality for the survival of the human species, and lifelong marital fidelity is the best environment for procreation. Sexual relationships between people of the same sex cannot propagate the species, and even immoral child creation practices like IVF — which treats unborn children like chattel and often results in death for embryos — that are popular among same-sex couples require the reproductive assistance of both a man and a woman.
Related, marriage benefits children. As researcher and priest Dr. Donald Sullins noted last week, social science has proven that no parental relationship is as emotionally beneficial to children as marriage. Additionally, no other relationship provides the same educational, financial, and spiritual benefits to children as marriage.
Moving into the Supreme Court’s realm of the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the U.S. Constitution. Marriage has always been left up to the states in this country — and the Supreme Court should continue to recognize this legal reality, as it did in the Windsor case last year.
A number of judges have purported that laws against legal recognition of same-sex relationships consists of “animus” against homosexuals. Not only have these rulings erred in using the legally-loaded word “animus,” the simple fact is that opposition to changing the definition of marriage is based upon love — not the hate or bigotry alleged by gay activists and the media.
Perhaps nobody has said it as well as LifeSiteNews co-founder and Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen. (Disclosure: Westen is my boss.) Last week, speaking on a panel in D.C., Westen said that marriage supporters have love for people with same-sex attractions — but animus against same-sex sexual relationships.
According to Westen, the difference is key. Like Christ, who showed love to the adulterer by forgiving her sins and admonishing her to “go and sin no more,” criticism of same-sex relationships is based on concern for the physically, psychologically, and spiritually damaging consequences of same-sex sexual relationships.
This point about animus is not just important for the Supreme Court to understand. It also relates to the many laws across America that are putting Christians out of business.
Consider: If it is assumed that someone has hatred for homosexual persons, it is easy to justify laws that restrict their liberty. It is easy to put someone who finds same-sex relationships objectionable in the same category as racists — even though the latter is based upon animus against innate, unchanging traits, while opposition to same-sex “marriage” addresses relational choices.
This is an area where pro-family, pro-marriage activists failed to convince the public of their sincerity. This is in part due to the well-funded, well-organized gay activist groups, and it’s in part due to media bias. But it’s also due to the unwillingness of social conservatives to talk about the damaging realities of same-sex relationships, such as the high propensity of HIV/AIDS among gay men. As Westen pointed out, there has been virtual silence in the pulpits for decades, which has led to a general social squeamishness that has spread to most of the political leadership in this country.
The love that causes someone to tell another person that their relationship is harmful is akin to that of an admonishing parent. No parent would say love is shown by simply affirming every decision a child makes, and likewise, those who know the physical, psychological, and spiritual harm of same-sex relationships would be remiss to not show love for people in same-sex relationships, their children, and society as a whole.
Finally, despite the media’s proclamation that same-sex “marriage” will bring social peace, historical evidence makes it clear this is not the case. We’ve already seen the curtailing of liberty in Indiana, Colorado, California, and other states, where religious freedom and property rights are limited because less than four percent of society prefers state-sanctioned discrimination over free speech and freedom to disagree.
Around the world, such problems have included imposed curriculums in public and even private schools. In the Canadian province of Quebec, it is even illegal to teach the realities of marriage for parents who homeschool their children — which makes sense, since if you want to corrupt how people view proper sexuality, it’s best to start young.
Interestingly, none of my arguments against redefining marriage have had a religious foundation. Despite popular rumor, marriage can be defended through recognition of social, physical, psychological, and natural law sciences. And redefining it cannot.
Very true! We need to stop focusing on just the moral aspects of homosexuality, we also need to realize how physically harmful or even deadly homosexuality is.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
bttt
"We're sorry, we're actually trying to push an agenda, it's got nothing to do with tolerance or equality..."
In other words, the truth...
This is false. The animus is against the pimps pimping the gays. It is obvious that the government wants to control drugs, guns, schools and now marriage. The Federal wants to make everything illegal and then dispense special favors on a case by case corruption basis, and that means the basis must be a promise of death: no potential children or free entrepize allowed, only sex.
The optimal arrangement for raising successful children has been proven time and time again to be a mother and a father in the house. But I guess The Party of Compassion doesn’t care about children.
They care only for power, and how to trick a bare majority of people into giving them more of it.
Frankly, no two heterosexual marriage is wpequal either.
Gay marriages fall in the “buddy buddy” marriage category, not real marriage with real love for children, marriage protecting the child. Buddy Buddy marriages are inferior and are fashion, looks, race and sex oriented, totally materialistics of car hobbies and what not.
Then you have the islamic 15 minute marriage in lieu of Prostitution... and it goes like that in the slippery slope of fraudulent representation of marriage as defined precisely in Judeo Christianity, the duties or contracts taken with grace and love within there of.
As Alitto said, why not 4 lawyers... I mean, why dilute the definition of words? Soon they will say the word marriage is racist because blacks do not marry, and the whole word will go down the Orwellian memory hole, along with families and depressed robot autistic children of institutions.
Yep, we need to be ready to point out uncomfortable truths about homosexuality, such as how it is spread by sexually abusing minors, who get tossed aside once they become adults and then start abusing minors themselves. Or how homosexuals routinely prey on runaways and drug addicts who are prostituting themselves.
Marriage is a word going down the memory hole. As we know, if you do not have words precisely defined, you do not have life but robots manipulated. There is no story, but institutionalization and death.
As Christ said, a guillotine or a stone around the neck thrown at sea would be preferable. A human life is inferior in value to the words it abuses, because the words (or lack thereof, because of Orwellian “sensitivities”) continue in the culture and destroy it all.
I find it amazing that legal scholars of the Supreme courts are not appalled by how the law dictionary and texts are getting butchered that way. These people have not done their job or are senile.
Isn’t there any one in these law schools capable of seeing it? Or did they just blocked, paid lip service and just wanted a job?
I was perusing about Obama’s bizarre poem with sexual undertones of stains when with Frank Marshall Davis. A kid would not do this without the blessings of his mother. i think she pushed the kid that way and now he is all FUBAR and empowered (even mysogisnist) cuz her guilt meant that she could not unpraise him.
The horror of a mum-dad” coaching a little adopted kid in relativist thinking, diluting meanings and faults, just disgusts me.
Some might call what you say, “hyperbole”.
Some might call it “reductio ad abursdum”.
I call it “slippery slope”...
“A kid would not do this without the blessings of his mother. i think she pushed the kid that way ...”
I’m not so sure about that. Remember, this was a young, single mother, abandoned by the father, who had basically handed over parenting of the kid to her parents at one point. I think she wanted, like many “feminists” at the time, to pursue her career, her dreams, and little Barry was a burden that she probably wasn’t too concerned about.
The grandparents may have meant well, I think they probably wanted him to hang out with Davis, so he would have at least some exposure to the other half of his heritage. If anything unseemly went on, then Davis is surely the one who took advantage of parents/grandparents that were too trusting with a “family friend”.
If anyone dares to mention the link between gays and HIV, he must be shut down at once. Clearly, such a person is a “hater,” even to the point of suggesting that God is punishing homosexuals with this disease that is really caused by Reaganomics or something. (I have heard this OVER AND OVER . . . )
By this do you mean that you acknowledge the empirical fact that same sex marriage does not and cannot exist? Well! You must be a hater. So says the well educated nitwits.
Also not mentioned is the physical problems the elderly men have with fecal leakage as the rectal muscles are destroyed. No one talks about the physical downfalls of homosexuality
Is that why butt plugs were invented?
There was a book c. 1993 called ‘’The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS’’ by Michael Fumento. It has largely been banned; I suspect, but haven’t checked, that most libraries won’t carry it.
The words below were taken from a comment posted at Life Site regarding this article.
” EnemyoftheState • 8 minutes ago
I think the key to understanding “equal marriage” is to understand that it has nothing to do with marriage, nothing to do with homosexuality, and nothing to do with equality. When you understand this, a lot of mysterious aspects about this legislation are answered.
Marriage is, among other things, a statement. Marriage is a normative statement about reality, the human person and society. It says that people are created male and female, male and female are positive and healthy realities, men and women are are different and complementary, men and women need to co-operate for the common good, and because society contains men and women, children need a mother and a father. It says that men and women create families. Marriage sets a place for us at the table of life, as men and as women. It is the very institution that acknowledges the sexes, that protects the idea of the sexes, and acknowledges us all as men or women.
What is on the table is not “same-sex marriage”. It is “genderless marriage”.
“Genderless marriage” is a statement that contradicts and denies that. At its heart is the notion that gender is a construct, an artifice, a façade for a subtext of oppression that needs to be eradicated. It is, fundamentally, nothing to do with ordinary men and women that happen to be homosexual, and everything to do with radical feminism. It a statement that asserts a radical new normality. It is a new, competing, normative statement about the human person and reality.
In those countries where “genderless marriage” is introduced, the issue of “gay rights” almost evaporates and the law becomes a weapon to use against male and female. First to go is “mother” and “father”, replaced by “parent”. Next is “husband” and “wife”. Then, “boy” and “girl”. A basic aspect of human identity and relationships is denied.
Ask yourself a couple of questions. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, indeed, of equal value to society, and that the state should recognise them equally. Why doesn’t the state just get out of the marriage game entirely, create “civil unions”, and open them to all? Then, people can get married extra-legally, enter into civil unions, or both. No problem. Well, that’s not going to happen, because it is essential for the “gender project” that marriage is appropriated and perverted to assert this new reality.
This analysis also explains another mystery: why are we at this point at all? A decade ago, we created “civil partnerships”. Using Stonewall’s statistic that 10% of the population are homosexual, only 1.5% of homosexuals took them up. If they’ve exaggerated the numbers tenfold, it’s about 15%. Nobody wants it. Many MPs haven’t received a single piece of correspondence from homosexuals demanding “marriage equality”. There are indeed some prominent gay activists demanding it, but really, they are speaking as radical feminists first and foremost.
It also explains the speed at which it is happening. If this was a genuine proposition, we would have decades to debate it. But it is being done by fiat.So if gays don’t want it, someone must. So who? The public? But most members of the public that want it only want it at all because they think that gays do, and because they think there’s an issue of fair play at stake. The people actually driving this are the people who have taken the long march through the institutions. Radical feminists - Marxists - have graduated from academia to the civil service, insinuated themselves into the parties, and are pushing this agenda, this new reality where there are no men and women, and the family resides in the mind of the state, not in natural law. Because this is a lie, it will have to be enforced.The French recognise this. They can see where this stuff comes from and where it is going. They know it is an attack on their humanity as men and women, on their liberties, on their natural rights. We’ve been conned into thinking it’s about being fair to gays. We’re mugs.
COMMENT IN LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH APRIL 2013”
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.