Posted on 06/22/2015 4:34:18 AM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
It's amazing how quickly much of society seems ready to change the definition of an age old institution that has been at the core of its growth and development, without so much as a second thought. No societal institution has been as responsible for the growth and development of every individual, and of society as a whole, as has traditional marriage, the bedrock upon which stable children, stable families and flourishing personal and societal growth spring forth.
One must also ask whether we would be equally as unquestioning were someone to suggest changing the other age old definition that is also key to societal growth, the one that goes hand in hand with traditional marriage; namely, the definition of parenthood. If “who is a parent” is up for redefinition, might we not want to rethink the consequences of such monumental change and its effects upon children before tripping over ourselves to embrace some new found definition? Might we want to ask ourselves whether changing the definition of “parent” makes parenthood weak and meaningless prior running full speed ahead into an uncharted societal abyss?
Yet changing the definition of “marriage” is in fact an end run around changing the definition of “parenting.” In an article titled "How Same Sex Marriage Makes Orphans of Us All," Jeff Shafer of the Alliance Defending Freedom points out the clear fact that so many others want to brush under the rug; that same-gender unions automatically rob any children raised therein of at least one natural parent - purposely so. (Hat tip - My thanks and appreciation go to Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver, an articulate defender of traditional values, for having brought this crucial article to my and others' attention.)
Mothers and fathers bring very different skill sets to the table. Both are equally needed in the life of a child, and in profoundly different and crucial ways.
All would (or at least should) agree that mothers are absolutely crucial to the successful development of every child. If one is, Heaven forbid, not around, a substituting caring woman can try to fill that role. This may be noble. All would agree that it is not the ideal circumstance, just the ideal way to fill a real and profound loss. To rob a child willingly of a natural mother and substitute her with the natural father's boyfriend is a level of callousness unmatched in human history.
By the exact same token, fathers are absolutely crucial to the successful development of every child. If one is, Heaven forbid, not around, a substituting caring man can try to fill that role. This may be noble, but again, not the ideal circumstance; just the ideal way to fill a real and profound loss. To rob a child willingly of a natural father and substitute him with the natural mother's girlfriend is the exact same level of unmatched callousness.
This argument is not new. In debates about changing the definition of marriage a decade ago, when this conversation first began (it is worth noting that even radicals on the left never envisioned such a change beforehand and would have likely opposed it for all of the reasons mentioned herein), both France and Australia rejected the idea, primarily because of its negative consequences on children.
In parliamentary reviews in Canada, a different question was raised. It was clear that traditional marriage provided optimal conditions for the raising of children, enough to warrant governmental encouragement and tax benefits. Survivor benefits were given because the man and woman together formed a whole entity that was greater than the sum total than each of themselves. Man and woman equaled eternal life. And that was worth governmental sanction.
But if marriage was merely to be some rudderless expression of love, what role should government have in it? Is it worth societal financing? This was not lost upon the then Liberal led Parliament, which took note that a “redefinition” of marriage would likely give way to a debate as to government's place in any aspect of marriage altogether.
And this new definition of marriage has run roughshod over and weakened the institution as a whole. Marriage has been attacked and chipped away at for decades, but at a slow pace. Yet a new societal definition renders the institution all but meaningless in one fell swoop.
Consider just the difference in societal descriptions of marriage since the stormy winds of change first hit the anchored ship. A few etched lines should paint a whole picture.
The Old Definition of Marriage:
“A blessed union, sanctioned by G-d, who partners with the new couple, dwells among them and enables life. An eternal commitment and a bond in which each partner has set and defined responsibilities, coupled with love, loyalty and perseverance.”
Yes, the lifelong nature of the commitment was stressed from the very beginnings of its inaugural ceremony. And it was not without its difficulties. In extreme cases it could even be terminated. But to do so was equivalent to a parent expelling a child. It did not happen lightly, callously, or G-d forbid, often.
The New Definition:
Well, no one quite knows. But it seems to be “the rudderless expression of some form of love, generally commitment-free, commemorated by some antiquated ceremony that is devoid of any meaning beyond an expression of momentary and baseless fondness.”
This is true of even “traditional” marriages taking place today that are devoid of commitment. Is it any wonder that old marriages lasted forever whereas today, almost all of society is up in the air.
And this new philosophy has permeated the religious world. I will address this aspect as People of the Book only can and indeed must, through looking into the eyes of Torah.
Since time immemorial, a key function of a rabbi was to bring peace between any quarreling husband and wife. This was a high duty and commentators on the Torah relate how while Moses was primarily mourned by the men, his brother Aaron was mourned by all, especially the women, because he had brought peace to thousands of households (ostensibly including many that had been on the brink).
This highest level of kindness was the highest calling of every religious leader, and even of a layman with regard to his friends. And this too was slowly eroded in recent decades. Yet only 15-20 years ago, virtually every rabbinical court pressed any couple that was, G-d forbid, about to divorce as to whether they had sought professional counseling. Many marriages were saved last minute, with the rabbinical court using all of its energy to urge reconciliation. Today, some self-styled modernist rabbis who work in clear violation of the Code of Jewish Law (see Even HaEzer 119 as to the obligation not to divorce hastily or recklessly), seek to raise high water and a cup of purgatory against any spouse insisting upon counseling as the sole precondition to divorce. Their actions contravene thousands of years of Jewish tradition and many rabbis are beginning to speak up against this travesty. Those who acquiesce to the dangerous demands of the pro-divorce ones and forego insistence upon counseling are acting recklessly toward themselves, their children and even toward to best interest of the other spouse. Divorce needs to be thought out slowly and rationally and jumping the gun is doing neither party any favors nor showing value to the family.
Yet even with regard to marriage, outside of the divorce debate, modernist rabbis speak only of love and nothing of responsibility. They again service no one and promote a worldview that is the exact opposite of Torah. Many do so out of a profound lack of education in this area, but the Torah's message is crucial for a fulfilled life and for stable families.
And what does Torah have to say about same-gender unions?
The Talmud in Chullin (92B), states that there are three merits that the nations of the world have that sustain life. They honor the Torah, they do not openly practice cannibalism and they do not formalize a union of a man and a man with a contract. The Midrash Rabbah in two places, (Genesis Ch. 26 and Leviticus Ch. 23) cite such ceremonies as the final act of societal destruction that brought about the flood. We do not pray for retribution, rather against it. And I hope that our Infinitely Merciful G-d will lead people back in complete mercy. Yet it is seen as something that attacks society at its core.
Judaism has no bones to pick with anyone. It is the only religion that stresses that all people have a place in heaven and in the heaven on earth eternal resurrection of dead. A Non-Jew attains this according to all Jewish sources by keeping 7 universal commandments that connect the person with G-d Almighty. The Lubavitcher Rebbe made it his life's mission to bring every single person to G-d, not to become Jewish; rather to connect with G-d because we are all created by G-d and G-d's presence must rest among all of us.
The Torah seeks the best for every person. And for that very reason, it decries same-gender marriage with greater fervor than almost any other societal misdeed.
Voices of glorious modernism, that throwback to the base hedonism of Ancient Greece and Rome (our liberation from the former is celebrated annually as the Holiday of Chanukah, the suffering brought upon us by the latter has been marked in annual fashion as the Fast of Tisha B'Av), have run roughshod over marriage and in so doing over parenthood itself. One wonders what else such disregard for the best interests of anyone has to offer.
Educate we must. And in so doing, we partner with our Father in Heaven, at a time that counts most of all.
The New Definition:
Anything creature that can slide its peepee into another creature should be allowed to be married according to the LGBT’ers because its all about feelings and has nothing to do with a holy institution set up by a sky fairy (their thoughts not mine).
Not just marriage, but also the very definition of men and women.
Having grown up in a hothouse of divorce and the spiritual/emotional chaos it brings, I love the simple beauty of “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,”
The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been intact for millennia, and for good reason, as the author of the posted article points out. It's worth noting that with very few exceptions (those groups which permit polygamy), the traditional concept of marriage has been the standard everywhere around the world, from the most enlightened modern nations to the most backward and repressive, even in atheist cultures.
It would be sheer folly if the greatest nation on the planet changed its legal system to accommodate a perverse view, promulgated by radicals of the last decade, to the effect that homosexual liaisons should have the same legal standing as heterosexual unions.
> The Supreme Court would be out of its collective mind if it declared that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution’s “equal protection” and “due process” clauses mandate that every state in the union must allow “gay marriage.”
Gays don’t respect God, history, property rights, constitutional rights, common sense, etc...and the goes on and on. Like a spoiled child, they want what they want and don’t care anout the end effects on society. They just want it because you said they can’t have it. And they will engage in sodomy and unsafe sex because its what they do. Most sure seem to be sex addicts and whatever they need to accomplish the task of sexual satisfaction will be used even if it includes your children on a scouting trip. They are sick and twisted individuals.
“The definition of marriage as one man and one woman has been intact for millennia, and for good reason, as the author of the posted article points out.”
I have a question for the group. If they called it a civil union instead and had their “wedding” at City Hall and they didn’t violate the sanctity of the religious bond between a man and a woman, would that work?
Seems to me the issue is the word “Marriage.” I get that once again the left is playing with semantics to raise awareness to their voting block without regard to those of us offended by this.
However in saying that, if they called it civil union, partners forever or whatever, and did not use the word “Marriage”, if they kept the Church out of it, why should we care? If they are not practicing religion and doesn’t demand that the Church marry them then why does it matter to us?
If you are Godless, frankly I don’t care. That’s their issue not mine.
>>It would be sheer folly if the greatest nation on the planet changed its legal system to accommodate a perverse view
What does Romans 1:25+ say about when created things [like nations] become objects of worship?
>>Gays don’t respect...
...Biological FACT.
Nature selected Sex (the genetic exchange between male and female) because it increases fitness of species.
What homosexual activists have selected isn’t Sex, but the hedonistic (soon to be state-established) worship of mutual masturbation and themselves.
Supreme Court would be out of its collective mind
therein lies the rub
COLLECTIVE MIND!!
collective..or communal...?
How do created things like state-established definitions fit in the context of Romans 1:25+?
Neither side seems willing to acknowledge the self-evident Truth regarding why/how Nature selected Sex in the first place.
And because of this...
” the very definition of men and women.”
thats the card that the post modern camp...should not have played....
its seen as monumentally ludicrous by people all over the political map...and as the “left” has gotten behind all this inane gender HOOEY..they have painted themselves as they are....EVIL and FOOLISH.
this can and Must be used as a TOOL to TRANS-OUST the whole lot of them!!!
>>collective..or communal...?
Or corporate.
They all refer to the observable nature of humans to tend toward a hive mentality/organization.
In the Old Testament it was named Ba’al, a Hebrew word meaning Owner, Lord, Master, Possessor — typically rendered via theocratic state-establishment in which some fraudulent (Tzar/Ceasar/Kaisar/Pharaoh/Ne bu chad ne Zarian) man-god gets perched atop the state pyramid by the temple eunuchs [who being the brain-works of the farm deserve all the milk and apples].
No society in the history of the world, to include Pagan Rome, ever legalized same-sex marriages. But Obama and US Supreme Court think they know more than all the great civilizations since the beginning of recorded history.
“And they will engage in sodomy and unsafe sex because its what they do”.
And during any “Pride” march, they will dance naked in the streets and simulate acts of sodomy just to show the world how perverted they really are, and how “in love” they are. Sick, demented bastards, the whole lot of them.
Very well said - and blessings to you. You can learn the lessons from your home of birth and use them to establish a true and great home as man and wife.
So true. Hopefully G-d will help that Justice Kennedy sees it that way. He mentioned these key points in oral arguments.
The good news is we have G-d Almighty, and our own goodness (which is also created by and relies upon G-d) to rely on, fight back and educate.
> And during any “Pride” march, they will dance naked in the streets and simulate acts of sodomy just to show the world how perverted they really are, and how “in love” they are.
Unfortunately in DC I had to drive right through the middle of one and there were gays wearing nothing but net bodysuits that showed everything. There were also tour buses WITH children on them and I was wondering how many people were telling their children to close their eyes. I’m sure there were proably a few Lena Dunham types telling their kids to look and shake hands with their future role models though...I despise the LGBT activists. If they tell you they don’t want your children too they are lying. They are extreme perverts.
Be sure to stay out of downtown Chicago next Sunday, the day of the annual queer parade.
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.