The Same-Sex Marriage Experiment
Good read from Fox News.
"I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who donít believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?
On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history."
I would fully expect one who argues for legalization of same-sex marriage to do so in the same manner as those who argue that abortion is okay. They will side-step the science behind it and wait for someone to bring God into the discussion, and proceed from there.
On the same topic.
I do believe that the following is a preview of a society that rejects moral standards and absolutes.
We donít like Godís wayÖ.but frankly we donít have a better plan.
Its a boy...or a girl....we'll let it decide
If he has evidence in "reams of social science data and thousands of years of history" he didn't present it in this article. The writer sets us up as if there were some hard facts to support his claim, but unfortunately he is just trying to make connection with other issues that go against traditional church teaching.
I don't think he's made a very good case against same-sex marriage.
While I am not in favor of same sex marriage, his comments about no fault divorce are either ignorant, or intentionally dishonest. New York basically had fault divorce up til very recently and it certainly did not make any difference in the divorce rate compared to no fault states, it just served to enrich attorneys.
Good pointís gents.
I will say that the lack of documented evidence in the article doesnít bother me to greatly.... I think the article is simply to be taken as an opinion piece not so much as a exposť o the subject.
I do like the fact that while he does point out social consequences he is quick to point out that the real problem for him is simply the abandonment of Biblical principles for marriage.
Iím no fan of mandating Christian morality on a society and history has proven that religion having ultimate authority over state is at least as damaging and dangerous as an agnostic based culture.
What we do see if a trend in the culture of simply throwing out all formally accepted morality that has any base in the Bible.
But we can't forget that The Bible changes cultures because it changes mens heart.
Men who respect God and His laws make for a good nation.
Those who reject them don't.
You can't mandate "Christian" morals on a culture that rejects their source.
Of course history points out that this is to be expected.
We do like to go our own way.
"For the best interest of the common good" is hardly a better justification for banning something.
Gay marriage isn't about religion, it's about government benefits. If anything, marriage should be completely severed from any government authority if it is a religious activity. I don't expect the church to accept homosexuality amongst it's members, but leave everyone else alone in that case.
If it was up to me, the state wouldn't "marry" anyone. It would simply recognize civil unions between consenting adults. Want to get married? Go to a religious institution of your choice. Or, just call yourself married. Either way, stop by the courthouse and get your certificate of a civil union.
I'd like to change this obsession over the word marriage but I can't. Too many laws use the terms 'married' or 'spouse' to not grant a gay marriage. 'Marriage' has just too many connotations and spouses have many legal rights that partners don't.
For me personally, 'marriage' is between one man and one woman; but I don't expect everyone else to hold to my definition in a secular society and I don't want anyone to be denied rights that marrieds have. As much as I don't believe that gay marriage is okay, the thought of a gay partner being denied access to a dying partner in a hospital because "relatives" say no is just wrong.
Marriage was created for the legitimization of offspring from that union of man and wife. Period.
If you are looking for the term "civil union"- then there is no problem.
Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word "marriage." This means that it is just a legal contract. Technically, anyone can join into a civil union depending on purpose and scope. I don't have a problem with this.
Marriage between same sex partners? No. God says that is an abomination (their union). Not in a church. Legal union yes- this would have nothing to do with God or church.
Now do I think that same sex partnerships are wrong? God says so. I can love and care for them but not like what they do. This is my responsibility. God still loves and cares about their soul- I cannot judge. Argue away here if you wish.
Unfortunately, government has co-opted the words "married" and "spouse". It has used the words thousands of times in legislation regarding property rights and inheritance, etc. So unless the Feds and all the states legally equate "civil union" and "marriage" with yet another piece of legislation, there is legitimate concern that one would not equate the other as far as rights.
As much as I dissaprove the gay life style, or for that matter, anything other than a christian lifestyle, I don't have the right in this secular nation to impose my religious views on anyone else. Just as importantly, my views are protected as well. Therefore as a citizen I cannot endorse any treatment of anyone that thisn't equal. Making one group for example, to go through the expense and trouble of creating a will to protect the rights of a survivor or even to establish visiting rights in a hospital over family members' objections is wrong. Especially when a "married" couple has those rights guaranteed.