The Supreme Court has finished hearing arguments on California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It’ll be weeks before a decision is released to the public, but regardless of their decision, a full-fledged discussion will continue. Nearly everyone has an opinion. Facebook and Twitter are abuzz with armchair activists on both sides.
Admittedly, my Friend’s list bleeds with the symbol of marriage equality.
So I feel somewhat lonesome in my opposition. Supporters tell me it’s not my business “how other people love,” and aside from the overwhelming odor of moral relativism such statements convey, I agree. But I can’t understand what one has to do with the other.
Love is not a requirement for marriage. It’s obviously preferable that couples love one another, but that’s not why the institution is under the purview of government. Society has an interest in promoting, from a social point of view, procreation and the traditional family unit. Love does not enter the equation as far as government is concerned. They’re interest lies in promoting relationships that provide stability and replenish the native-born population.
So there is no reason for government to recognize, and therefore promote, same-sex marriages. Such unions are not merely incidentally incapable of procreation, as might be the case with an infertile opposite sex couple, but incapable in principle. It is impossible for same-sex unions to accomplish any of which government wishes to promote. Which means that changing the definition to include same-sex marriage completely undermines the very reason government involved itself in the practice to begin with.
Furthermore, if the definition is altered to suit homosexuals, what about polygamists and incestuous couples? Don’t they have rights too? Of course, this is your classic slippery-slope argument, but its relevance is indisputable. Legalizing same-sex marriage would set a precedent that courts would be forced to consider before ruling against other “marriages.” So it is not hyperbole to say that same-sex marriage will destroy marriage. It certainly will.
Thoughts?
Sifting Reality 
It’s not slippery or farfetched. Pansexuality is next, with marriage between 2 or more objects. No joke. As I said in the other post, duck and cover, share the love of Christ and use the armor of God(Ephesians 6).
zanspence,
Yeah. I can’t believe how far society has sunk. But Bible believers knew this was going to happen. He is not of this world, right?
Since the vote last fall opened the door here, the pro gay marriage folks are starting the assault already. Some of what I’ve seen indicates that the tactic is to endorse marriage equity for everyone. As I’ve seen, everyone doesn’t really mean everyone, but it will be interesting to see how long they continue with this line.
As I was listening to the news on the radio, this quote caught my attention.
” Everyone, no matter who you are, should have equal rights measured by the same yardstick.”
Sure sounds like they mean more than gay marriage to me.
I think we need a whole bunch more of those graphics. Ones with + signs (polygamy), / signs (no-fault divorce dividing the family), – signs (single parenthood by choice), X (cross-species/pansexual marriage), etc. We can all have fun with math symbols! It would also illustrate that the argument of “equality” is not really about equality at all.
A quote from a PCUSA pastor.
“Regarding civil law, the full legal rights of marriage should be guaranteed for all Americans. This is an issue of civil rights and there is no good reason to deny such rights to any American.”
I’m guessing that he really doesn’t mean it.
Just another of the many lies, Craig. Those rights are not denied anybody now, haven’t been before this nonsense was taken up as a legitimate issue (as if it is) and never would have been.
When asked if he really meant all he replied, “I’m pretty sure I mean all.”. He’s got more guts than Dan, anyway.
MA, I understand the arguments that rights are not denied to anyone. Where I find the hypocrisy is that they say things like, ” the full legal rights of marriage should be guaranteed for all Americans.”, then when pressed are quick to exclude everyone except homosexuals. Dan, when pressed (and to his credit), admitted that he really didn’t mean “all” when he said “all”. It just sounds better to say all. It sounds loving and inclusive, unfortunately it is either a mis-ststement or a lie.
“… then when pressed are quick to exclude everyone except homosexuals. ”
Homosexuals have always been free to marry because the same laws – and conditions – applied equally to them as anyone else. We can all marry whomever we wish, within those confines. If one of those restrictions – gender – can suddenly be struck down in the name of “equality,” then there is no logical reason to maintain any of the other restrictions, such as age, consent, number or even species.
Marriage, whether civil or religious, has ALWAYS has restrictions on it. It is necessarily exclusive and discrimantory (words that have more positive definitions than negative ones). That’s why it is not a human right, but a privilage.
http://gottagetgoing.blogspot.ca/2012/03/marriage-debate-why-marriage.html
OK, so the gentleman in question, now appears to be against marriage equity for polygamous folks.
Update, I misunderstood the pastor in question. After he courageously is taking the stand that he sees no problem with polygamy (from either a biblical or legal perspective) and that he is at least pretty sure that he’s ok with incest on some level. I have to say that while I find his positions problematic, his willingness to be consistent is much more impressive than most on his side. Once, you hang your entire position on people should be able to marry whoever they love, than there is no logical place to draw any lines.
Wrong, yes. Heretic, probably. Lying, possibly. But at least he’s willing to be consistent.
I had to follow up about pansexuality. Here is a blurb from an article from today’s CNN.com:
“There’s been a lot of work done on how LGBT youth is more and more frequently rejecting labels altogether, blurring the lines between sexual orientation and gender, creating new labels and identifying as gender-queer, gender-fluid or pansexual, to name a few,” said sex therapist Margie Nichols. “The very term ‘LGBT’ is too confining now, which is why I prefer the term Gender and Sexual Diversity, or GSD.”
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/health/kerner-youth-sexual-identity/index.html?hpt=hp_bn13