Posted by
Oyarsu on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:26:03 AM
I have assumed for many years that if someone calls him or herself a christian that they would automatically know how God would want them to stand on the issue of Gay Marriage. Unfortunately, from the way things are going in our governement apparently many christians are voting for politicians who endorse a behavior that God has warned mankind not to participate in. What I found have found is that there are many christians who go to church, and when the service is over, all they walk away with is three steps on "How to over come the blues" or "How to be a positive person", or insert whatever psychobabble title. One of the tools lacking in many christians in America is "How to discern Right from Wrong". A person may think, "That's easy". They would be wrong. If you were the devil and were trying to deceive people wouldn't you want to dress up a lie so that it would look similar to the truth? Discriminating against others based on benign chracteristics (i.e. skin color) is wrong. Discriminating against others based on behavior(i.e.homosexual activity) is essential to being a logical successful human being. We may not know what thought process lead to a certain behavior, but we can reasonably predict the consequences of behaviors. I am going to divide this response into two parts: A secular response to homosexual marriage that does not require an individual to rely on the scriptures because obviously not everyone is a christian, but if God is a God of logic than even the unbeliever who uses reason should be able to grasp the illogic of gay marriage, and the second part will be for the christian who claim Christ as Lord.
The Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage
The Only reason for a government to monitor and regulate what we call "marriage" is because it allows (or did allow) a somewhat reliable method of overseeing the next generation that would succeed the current one. Thus a way to manage and hopefully protect the nations's future. There is no other purpose for a goverment to "recognize" a non-familal realtionship. A man and a woman, in principle, are the only means possible by which a child can be conceived. Neither a man-man or woman-woman realtionship will result in any offspring. By a governement recognizing that only Man-Woman relationships can result in children is simply recognizing a biological fact. By creating a method by which a man and a woman could enter into a unique legal realtionship the State could then place safeguards in place so that the parents of children could be encouraged to meet certain onbligations in the raising of their children. Of course, someone is going to say "What about adoption?" or 'What about in-vitro fertilization?", or "What about couples that can't have children?". When it comes to making laws we must operate based on certain principles, and make some generalizations. The vast majority of children are conceived and raised by their biological parents without the aid of modern science. Therefore we should make laws that govern the circumstances that the majority find themselves in. You may find a worm in your apple, it doesn't mean that every apple has a worm, and to throw out all your apples based on an isolated incident would be a waste of time.
Once we, as a society, have decided to no longer recognize the biological uniqueness of the man-woman relationship, we must decide by what other standard will we decide which relationships are granted certain benefits by the State? Do we want the goverment to just arbiturarily choose? Are we going to decide that all it takes in two individuals? If the new standard is based on simple math, 2 is the officical number of the state, will anyone be able to argue why the number "two" is favored over any other number? Why not three? or four or five? or whatever? Do you see what has been done? The state has chosen a method that has no real concrete reason for its existence.
Why only recognize romantic realtionships? How about friendships? Some people claim that their friendships are stronger then their romantic relationships. On what basis does the government want to recognize and discriminate out certain relationships? Why shouldn't there be benefits to having friends? Why do you have to have a romantic relationship with someone to receive state benefits and recognition? Why not be rewarded for being friendly? The more friends you have, the more tax deductions.
Out of the resulting chaos that will inenvidably result at some point it will dawn on politicians that it will be much easier to simply not recognize any relationship. Unfortunately the damage to the nation's children will be devastating. Without the state providing incentives for non-religious individuals to safeguard the nuclear family you will have an ever increasing number of children being raised without knowing or being safeguarded by their biological mothers or fathers. With the nuclear family deemed irrelevent it will become pure happenstance for a nation to pass its bleesings to the next generation.
What is happening, while the public has been asleeep at the wheel, is that we have been told that the government is simply expanding the definition of "marriage". This is a lie. What is happening is that once we, as a society, decide that "marriage" can be "re-defined' to whatever we want it to be , what we have really done is made "marriage" absolutely meaningless. If marriage can mean whatever we decide than it means NOTHING. It's just a word. Like the word Smurf in the old cartoon. It becaomes a waste of time to even argue over it.
The culture war is, and always has been, a WAR of the mind. Wheverever dictators have been they first had to conquer the rationale of their fellow man. They craft their words so as not to awaken the critical thinking in their fellowman. Once a man's ability to reason has been disarmed, then it is only matter of time before he will believe anything that a man with a stronger personality says.
Later on this week (hopefully), I am going to explain the christian resonse to gay marriage.