Over the next couple weeks, I know we'll get into all manner of
angles on the topic of same sex marriage, be they philosophical,
theological, and biblical. But first, I'd like to wonder aloud about
the role of the state in defining marriage. (This will drive many of our commentors to drink, since they seem to think that all Christian reasoning begins and ends with the biblical argument. But, nay, there are several ways to approach this.)Our government does, indeed, define marriage. This didn't happen overnight, nor did it happen with, say, an amendment to the Constitution. Instead, it happened as do most items in our legal code, over time. There have been campaigns for and against polygamy and miscegenation, but these now lie decades in the past.
At local and state levels there have been various strictures on who can marry whom and what kinds of sexual acts are legal and illegal. And, as with so many laws, those have changed over time. Interracial marriage is no longer banned, and most local anti-sodomy laws have either been dropped, ruled unconstitutional, or simply not been enforced.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Tony, I just spent about 15 minutes reading through comments related to the blogologue... hang in there man. Please don't be discouraged. I'm really looking forward to what's in store for this discussion.
A Walker,
I really feel like you have been cutting and pasting your replies again and again for each post, perhaps you would like to share your perspective from a different angle. It isn't really getting through to people like I think you hope it might.
In a previous post, you said that gay marriage makes marriage into a dissolvable romance contract. I argued that this is what marriage already is for straight people. You came back and just said the same thing again (and again). Now your tune is changing and you are saying it is a sex contract designed to protect helpless women that are seen in your fantasy as babymakers.
Most women leave the home and work and have careers. Women are CEOs. They own property and vote. Your posts come off as if your view of marriage is more like real estate, the trade of a woman from her family to a man, with a buyout clause just in case the man doesn't like his purchase in order to protect it. Perhaps to you marriage is sort of like a lease or renting an apartment where you have to pay a deposit, if you screw it up too badly you are going to have to pay. I can't tell to what extent you are anti-woman along with your anti-gay views. (I would be happy to hear clarification on this).
You have cited statistics repeatedly that contain figures like .00000001% without citing any sources. Are these statistic correct, or are you (as I suspect) making these up. This is another way of telling a lie (bearing false witness).
You continue to ignore the very real and imminent question regarding children of gay parents. You repeat again and again that gays have not been tasked by nature to raise the citizenry. I don't know what else parents are tasked to do, gay or straight. What about infertile couples? I want you to give me sources with studies and statistics, not just the same rhetoric again and again.
You position yourself as a champion of democracy; will you pitch a fit when the constitutional amendments start peeling away by popular vote and a boy and his two dads move in next door because of the great democratic process?
If your reply is more of the same I will very happily ignore it and let you continue on your own path.
panthera, You comment on the process of inheritance and care should something happen to you. But, as far as inheritance goes, there isn't, and never will be, a law against bequeathing your estate to whomever you see fit. The catch: you have to make a will. Yes, if you were recognized as "married" by the state then this would be a simpler process, but so it goes, this is still not something that is undoable as you make it seem.
Also, the comment was made by someone (I've read so much I've forgot who now) that the state should be trying to promote committed relationships. This again is a poor argument towards allowing SSM, as the fact that these people are supposedly "in love" should be enough motivation to be committed and not some legal recognition from the state. In fact, as we know all too well from hetero marriage, legal recognition of marriage is no catalyst to a committed relationship, particularly in the days of no-fault divorces.
An argument appealing to the state, particularly in the American democracy, has to appeal to the "social contract" of our citizenry, and as I stated at the beginning, this means that for a Christian the issue comes down to voting our consciousness from what is revealed to us in Scriptures; and thus Scripture, not social pragmatism, should carry the day for Christian opinion in this matter.
Colin,
My posts get through to people, especially to those who falsely argue that traditional marriage is simply a religious preference. Marriage has never been a "religious preference," but rather is rooted in the biology and anthropology of heterosexuals, which cannot ever change.
I will answer your very specific points. First, you are right that easy divorce laws adopted in the 1970s made marriage a dissolvable romance contract. But that legal blunder has devastated women and children. For while the law indeed changed, the biological reality for heterosexuals didn't. We still reproduce billions of children worldwide---only now we no longer have any strong legal obligations to raise them. And that hurts women and children.
Second, heterosexual couples are undeniably "babymakers." There's no way for us to undo our biology. We can't help but produce billions of tiny helpless citizens worldwide who require life-long care, which the parents---and not the neighbors---are expected to provide.
Third, your analysis of the economics of women and children is fantasy, and feminists agree. College-educated women *who have multiple children* do NOT have the same career and economic outcomes as men, and this is because they have to raise their babies for large chunks of time of each day---time they would otherwise be working for a company and climbing the career ladder. Since they cannot do both, they and their children rely heavily on the other spouse to provide significant income and childcare, without which they face severe economic consequences. For non-college-educated women, single-parenting is synonymous with poverty and permanent dependence on welfare. So, you're the one living in a fantasy.
Fourth, marriage is about how we order society for the best economic and educational outcome for babies. You may want it to be about something else, but all throughout history it has been little about "romance" and more about the "family enterprise." For heterosexuals, marriage and long-range family responsibilities are inseparable.
Fifth, no one in their right mind could accuse my view of being anti-women! To the precise contrary, I am the one advocating that we strengthen their legal recourse against males by reinstating stiff economic penalties for spousal abandonment. Your view is the one that leaves women economically exposed and vulnerable. My view ensures that any male seeking to get out of the contract *will by law be forced to provide the same economic support for the spouse and children* as if they had never left the contracted partnership.
Sixth, gays don't produce babies, nor are gays obligated to long-range contractual living. So, it's harmful to children to place them in such a legally unstable society. We need to repeal no-fault divorce and place babies in those legally stable contractual societies.
Finally, I AM INDEED a champion of democracy. If this country wants the legal stipulations of gay marriage to be the law of the land for all, then let the people decide. It is utterly undemocratic to have a handful of judges impose their opinions one way or the other on the rest of the American citizenry against their consent.
Gay marriage won't work, period. Not for just Biblical reasons, though, but for physiological reasons. Say, for instance, every GLTBQ couple moved to a large island the size of the United States and were faithfully monogomous in their male-male, female-female relationships. After one generation, what would happen? Well...the sad news is that all would be DEAD with no offspring. Hmmm...
This sad yet honest truth here is that homosexual marriages cannot reproduce. So from a Darwinian perspective, they are self-selecting a dead-end. I can see why gay couples insist on having the right to adopt babies, which were produced by non-gay couples, so they can brainwash them into the homosexual lifestyle. For gays to perpetually "feed off" straight couples amounts to a parasitic relationship, putting homosexuals completely dependent on non-homosexuals to continue to have babies that THEY can adopt.
Maybe this why God made it explicitly clear in Romans 1 what the "unnatural use" of the bodies would lead to...and stripping away the sugar-coating of homosexuality, it is unnatural, anti-God (we were made in His image, thus we are defiling Him and His nature), anti-Christ (we were bought at a price, and our bodies are NOT our own!) and will open the door to more perversion, ungodliness, wickedness, lewd and licientious and immoral behavior.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.