Search This Blog

Monday, June 29, 2015

The Fiction of Traditional Marriage.

Christians opposed to marriage equality are just another example of Christians trying to control everyone else's lives.  "They can't even run their own lives I'll be damned if they'll run mine" as was said in the song lyric. It is an attempt to assert dominion over the rights of people of other faiths or of no faith at all. After all this is what the Church does. It is what the Church is for. They have a long history of doing just that. This is why the first colonists braved the open sea for weeks to get here and away from the actual persecution of the Church. Those people eschewed the authority of religion over their lives and fought a war of independence from England to make it permanent.

So today we have a people who claim the rights of definition of what "marriage" is and shall be. They claim that anything less than their interpretation sullies the notion of Traditional Marriage by extending it to two people of the same gender. It was not so long ago that people of the same ilk objected to inter-racial marriages, specifically between Caucasians and the other races. Black and Asian marriages were not so big a deal it seems. 

The claim that allowing marriages between two men or two women is spurious in its contention that it somehow denigrates the value of "traditional marriages." Where is their fierce objections to divorces and remarriages? Where is their ire when Hindus and Buddhists claim that their adherents are married and did not invoke the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in their ceremonies and subsequent lives? And how about the atheist couple who seek a marriage license from the county clerk? Has any clerk, judge or cake baker ever refused to provide their services to people in any of these above examples? No? Maybe it is because, first their State Legislature didn't explicitly set out to discriminate based on Christian assumptions of superiority. Second, they don't a have ready-made profile to identify people as with a same gender application. Third, no one has cranked them up and told them to not do it

No religion has a lock on such definitions as who is GOD, what is marriage, who can marry, at what age, in in which configurations, who goes to heaven, who goes to hell or who "is all dressed up with nowhere to go." No religion completely agrees on that is okay to do and what is sinful. While there is agreement on many thing, actual practice appears to be largely a matter of personal interpretation and local denominational discretion. Christian sects even killed other Christian sects over the matter of the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (excuse me, Spirit.) The other Abrahamic religions have similar disagreements, as do religions which were founded centuries before Abraham.

So here we have a social authority that has been updated to be more inclusive and less discriminatory. We the People call it the U.S. Constitution. Its defenders and protectors have informs Us the People that we are going to go in a different direction now.  Like it or not, marriage confers two distinct classes of rights. One, it confers the right to be "of one flesh" in the eyes of a god. This aspect may easily be denied by clergy of any religion. Two, it confers a multitude of legal benefits and responsibilities too numerous to discuss here. These are the domain of the U.S. Congress as upheld or rescinded by the Supreme Court of the entire country. There was a time that traditional Christian marriage made a woman into a slave and property of a man and entailed a multitude of egregious conditions that we no longer accept in America. We did away with THAT notion a long time ago. Let's not revisit that any time soon. 

Captive virgins, polygamy and sex slaves: What marriage would look like if we actually followed the Bible      by 

Here is just a little something to think about while pounding the Good Book and spewing vitriol.

"He can't even run his own life I'll be damned if he'll run mine" ~ Sunshine by Jonathan Edwards (1971)

Tweet This Post

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Rebuttal: 10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Rebuttal: 10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed

This rebuttal is prepared from the original text on the website at:

The text from the site is normal font and my comments are in-line Bold and [bracketed]. Not every paragraph has been included here or commented.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage [correct: saying you're married makes you married irrespective of any overarching authority. Those authorities do not have to recognize it though.]. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman [which is a false statement. Biblical descriptions of valid marriages between many partners consenting or not may be found in Scriptures.] which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses [this has never been true in biblical times and not any time since until the 20th century. Children were property as have been wives for many centuries. While the church has always wanted to control people's lives and behaviors, it has rarely been concerned with anything than what inures to itself.]

Marriage may facilitate a religious purpose but it also serves a legal purpose that is completely aside from sex and procreation. Men and women have never been denied marriage even when both partners are in excess of child bearing age.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing. [this is incorrect since for a marriage to be legal in the USA it must pass the municipal test of possessing a properly file and recorded piece of paper that is duly signed and witnessed by a state authorized agent. States usually permit clergy to act in this role. Indeed two married people do not need the church or clergy at all. Think atheists. ]

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. [These two statements are correct but assume the meaning of "Natural Law". Homosexuality is common enough in both human and other species to demonstrate that it is indeed natural. Love is something we ascribe only to the human species (we could be wrong) and has no dependency on gender or reproductive organs. Human nature appears to include instance of homosexuality.]

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. [This statement is patently wrong. It is best that a child be raised by one or two abusive "natural fathers or mothers?" Is it in the best interest of a child to be raised by drug or alcohol addicted parents?] This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. [Many of the difficulties of children raised in single parent, foster parent or by a relative stem from the prior conditions that child endured with his or her "natural family". Foster care children are predominantly those children who were removed from their living conditions for their protection. In some cases the foster or alternate home is just as abusive or damaging.]

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests. [The instances of same-sex parenting are still so rare that making the above statement is pulling an opinion out of a dark place and labeling it a fact.]

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. [This is correct except for the cryptic implied meaning of "whole homosexual lifestyle". There are many behaviors that two people may engage in prior to becoming married and wanting to raise a family. Those things are part of the lifestyle on both side of the "I do vow." After marriage there is no "bisexuality" practiced or it is no different than heterosexual infidelity.]

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. [Civil laws are just what the marriage equality movement is all about. They govern inheritance, parental rights, property ownership, survivor rights, medical decisions, and a whole lot more. Civil law is governed by the Constitution and is periodically modified to meet societies needs.]

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality. [So you say. I call BS on this one entirely. This statement needs examples.]

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false. [The statement and the assertion that it is false are both false. The struggle for marriage equality is not one of who has sex with whom or how. If is a struggle to have legal rights to all the other benefits of marriage that man-woman couples enjoy. Things like joint income tax filing, survivor Social Security benefits, pension claims, employer paid family health insurance coverage and many other things. Marriage has had to be expressly allowed between people of different genetic races. In that respect it became a civil rights issue, but only because some group of people opposed it or their own reasons.]

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. [The assertion that many families are purely the result of fecundity belies the fact that married couples of higher income and higher education tend to make a plan for a family rather than relying on unrestrained copulation.]

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. [or they adopt a child who needs a family. In any case, the cost of making a family is a cost of love rather than an accidental new mouth to feed.] The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. [Some same-sex couples want children and some don't. The now former prohibition on marriage did not result in two other heterosexual unions that did create a family. Many newly permitted couples have waited decades to have the state recognize what is in their hearts.]

Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. [Call it anything you want to, but be polite about it. Now it does get the same benefits as do ALL marriages.]

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. [While this is mostly true, adoption of children in need of parents also meets this goal and removes from the public welfare system children who otherwise would be a burden on the State.]

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. [The State also calls murder and rape crimes even if a person's religion says it's okay. The State forces all citizen to adhere to the morality of not murdering or raping.]

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. [The marriage and family relationships of people buying cakes and renting homes are no business of the business owners. The same battles were fought in the 1960s over segregation and inter-racial marriages.]

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality. [Then a Christian must resist serving murderers, rapists, pedophiles, usurers, divorced people, remarried people, heterosexual married sodomites, con artists and thieves too unless they want to be complicit and enabling of those lifestyles.]  

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” [I hesitate to point out that there are tens of thousands more heterosexual married sodomites than homosexual ones. Bakers better make sure that are not frosting a cake for two of THEM.]

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations. [First, marriage equality is not all about sex, on which many opponents seem fixated. Incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior(?) are not specific to homosexuals. Statistically, most people who do such things are heterosexual. At least the population statistics would support that statement.]

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. [Says you.] Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. [Let God speak for himself. Don't rely on a contradictory text written centuries ago and modified by dozens of religious zealots of their times.] Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. [Unless of course, God spoke to their hearts and says Love is Love.]