"Gay Marriage", Christianity and the ACLU
Tim at Christ Matters was a participant in the lengthy and fascinating comment thread on "gay marriage" which is found here. He has been inspired to write his own excellent posting. Here is an excerpt:
"The heterosexual union of a man and a woman in monogamous marriage is the rightful context for procreation. When reproduction is severed from marriage, the society reaps the breakdown of both kinship and parental responsibility. Put most simply, even secular historians are aware that marriage is what explains why a father remains committed to the care of his own children. Societies that devalue marriage provide an automatic incentive for young males to act irresponsibly, fathering children without ever assuming responsibility as father."
Read the entire post here.
The original post on Radaractive, "Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous" is here in case you missed it. Between that thread and the one at Christ Matters there should be plenty of discussion to sink your teeth into.
At issue in the discussion was whether the 14th amendment guaranteed the "rights" of homosexuals to establish "gay marriage". I hold that it does not. Nevertheless I contend that if the 14th were to be applied to this issue and a rational reason to discriminate against homosexuals was required, it was obvious that a rational reason was at hand. Three of them, in fact:
"IF the current marriage laws are discriminatory (I don't believe that they are) there are nevertheless good reasons that this is so:
First: It is beneficial to society to encourage loving unions that produce and nurture offspring. - It requires extraordinary means for homosexual couples to bring children into the world and no matter what is said, a man and woman are both required. Homosexual unions tend not to produce children. When a society doesn't produce offspring it dies from the inside out.
(Side note: Watch what happens in China in one more generation. All these years of forcing couples to either have one or no children will result in a work force that reaches retirement age without enough younger workers to support them and keep the country productive.)
So, heterosexual marriage benefits society while a homosexual union does not. In fact, it is detrimental because it would decrease populations.
Second point. Homosexuality is generally considered an aberrant behavior. Nothing personal, but it is true. Note that early in the discussion, bostongaydad accused me of being a closet gay. Why? Because he knew I would associate shame with that. There remains a stigma on gay behavior in society. It is true (look it up!) that violence, drug use, and STD occurence is higher statistically among homosexuals (Yes, Tucker that is more because of the men than the women). For society to approve of homosexual relationships makes those relationships more likely to occur and therefore increases the likelihood of increased violence, drug use and STDs in the general population.
Third: Although some of you won't like this, the homosexual population is more likely to be involved in pedophilia. The Catholic Church has massive problems with this, as homosexual men found a refuge in "the cloth" and then preyed on young boys. It has happened in every good sized parish you can think of in this country and overseas as well."
STOPTHEACLU chimes in with point four: Once you allow begin to allow changes to marriage, almost anything goes - "Here in America there is a saying, which is
“As California goes, so goes the nation”
and the reason this saying has come about is because California has a long history of passing legislation that the rest of the country seems to follow. A scary thought since California is home to San Francisco and Berkeley, both hotbeds of non-sensical liberalism.
People that have stood against gay marriage have stated, among many other arguments against it, that first it will be gay marriage, then polygamy.
Well, perhaps the new saying should be
“As go the Dutch, so goes the world”
as the Dutch government has granted a civil union to a man and two women.
As Ric over at RTH so succinctly puts it,
“if two people love each other and want to have their commitment recognized through marriage, society has no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so, on what basis could you prevent adult siblings, parents and children or three of more persons from “marrying” each other.”
Read the whole post here, and also another related posting here.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a slippery slope.
"The heterosexual union of a man and a woman in monogamous marriage is the rightful context for procreation. When reproduction is severed from marriage, the society reaps the breakdown of both kinship and parental responsibility. Put most simply, even secular historians are aware that marriage is what explains why a father remains committed to the care of his own children. Societies that devalue marriage provide an automatic incentive for young males to act irresponsibly, fathering children without ever assuming responsibility as father."
Read the entire post here.
The original post on Radaractive, "Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous" is here in case you missed it. Between that thread and the one at Christ Matters there should be plenty of discussion to sink your teeth into.
At issue in the discussion was whether the 14th amendment guaranteed the "rights" of homosexuals to establish "gay marriage". I hold that it does not. Nevertheless I contend that if the 14th were to be applied to this issue and a rational reason to discriminate against homosexuals was required, it was obvious that a rational reason was at hand. Three of them, in fact:
"IF the current marriage laws are discriminatory (I don't believe that they are) there are nevertheless good reasons that this is so:
First: It is beneficial to society to encourage loving unions that produce and nurture offspring. - It requires extraordinary means for homosexual couples to bring children into the world and no matter what is said, a man and woman are both required. Homosexual unions tend not to produce children. When a society doesn't produce offspring it dies from the inside out.
(Side note: Watch what happens in China in one more generation. All these years of forcing couples to either have one or no children will result in a work force that reaches retirement age without enough younger workers to support them and keep the country productive.)
So, heterosexual marriage benefits society while a homosexual union does not. In fact, it is detrimental because it would decrease populations.
Second point. Homosexuality is generally considered an aberrant behavior. Nothing personal, but it is true. Note that early in the discussion, bostongaydad accused me of being a closet gay. Why? Because he knew I would associate shame with that. There remains a stigma on gay behavior in society. It is true (look it up!) that violence, drug use, and STD occurence is higher statistically among homosexuals (Yes, Tucker that is more because of the men than the women). For society to approve of homosexual relationships makes those relationships more likely to occur and therefore increases the likelihood of increased violence, drug use and STDs in the general population.
Third: Although some of you won't like this, the homosexual population is more likely to be involved in pedophilia. The Catholic Church has massive problems with this, as homosexual men found a refuge in "the cloth" and then preyed on young boys. It has happened in every good sized parish you can think of in this country and overseas as well."
STOPTHEACLU chimes in with point four: Once you allow begin to allow changes to marriage, almost anything goes - "Here in America there is a saying, which is
“As California goes, so goes the nation”
and the reason this saying has come about is because California has a long history of passing legislation that the rest of the country seems to follow. A scary thought since California is home to San Francisco and Berkeley, both hotbeds of non-sensical liberalism.
People that have stood against gay marriage have stated, among many other arguments against it, that first it will be gay marriage, then polygamy.
Well, perhaps the new saying should be
“As go the Dutch, so goes the world”
as the Dutch government has granted a civil union to a man and two women.
As Ric over at RTH so succinctly puts it,
“if two people love each other and want to have their commitment recognized through marriage, society has no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so, on what basis could you prevent adult siblings, parents and children or three of more persons from “marrying” each other.”
Read the whole post here, and also another related posting here.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a slippery slope.