Since the judges in California overstepped their boundaries and allowed homosexuals to get married, much has changed in the culture. It is foolish to think that legalizing same-sex marriage stops there. If only that were the case. The redefinition of marriage allowing homosexuals has two dangerous aspects that we must recognize. Dire
First, whenever culture starts to redefine anything, it struggles with defining it. In other words, if we redefine marriage to allow homosexuals, why not other sexual lifestyles? Why stop at homosexuality? Can't the same arguments be made for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia? Why can't we lower the age of consent like other countries? What is to stop us from sinking lower and lower into the abominable filth of sexual confusion?
Here's one that neither I nor most would have suspected, what about giving civil union rights to...
friends? The argument is being made that the same civil rights of married couples (both heterosexuals and now homosexuals) should be given to close friends. The argument goes that it is unfair and, if we could use the word, bigotry that only romantic couples have the right to use the Family and Medical Leave Act which allows one to take off work to take care of their sick "loved one," share legal rights involving things like mutual rights and privileges, and also tax benefits.
Are these not the same arguments being made by homosexual activist? They argue that it isn't right for a homosexual couple to share the civil rights of heterosexuals. Therefore, civil unions become one of their major mantras. To be denied civil unions is a form of discrimination. Why can't the same argument be used for other sexual (or even nonsexual) lifestyles? Why can't friends who share everything with other not be able to take off work to take care of their sick friend? Why can't couples currently considered pedophilia, be allowed to exercise the civil rights of heterosexual couples?
Dinesh D'Souza made this argument in his book, "
Letters To A Young Conservative." While a college student at Dartmouth, the university refused to stop funding a gay society at the college. The conservatives at the Dartmouth Review didn't respond by complaining, they rather went on the offensive. He writes:
...we decided to test the consistency of the administration's policy. e founded the Dartmouth Bestiality Society. We appointed a president, a vice president, a treasurer, and a zookeeper. we wrote up an application an developed a budget. Then we went before the college committee on funding and made our case.
The administrators were appalled, of course. "There is no interest in, ahem, bestiality at Dartmouth," one said. To which the president of the Bestiality Society gamely replied, "That may be true, Dean Hanson, but it is because of centuries of discrimination! Those of us who are included toward animals have been systematically excluded and ostracized. Our organization will provide a supportive atmosphere in which people of our particular sexual orientation are treated with respect. At Dartmouth, if not in society, let us put an end to beastphobia."
No, we didn't get recognition or funding. But we did make our point... -pages 28-29
You can get his point. The problem with our politically correct society is that it doesn't have the stomach to say no. It can't. For to say no means that someone will be left out. And heaven forbid that that happens. So though the conservatives at Dartmouth heading the Bestiality group were comically serious, why didn't the administration allow the funding of their group? Same arguments, same proposals, same purposes, same benefits. Are they not persons with needs too?
Whenever we begin to redefine marriage, it becomes impossible to give it a final definition. Now, at least in some states, homosexuals have been able to redefine marriage to fit their sexual lifestyle. But why not other sexual lifestyles? Should society not end the centuries of bigotry and include them? If we follow the logic, the answer is no.
Notices the following argument from the article arguing that friends should have legal benefits:
Over the past few decades, the laws governing marriage and family have shifted. In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of landmark reforms made marriage a radically different institution: women were granted equal rights within marriage, "illegitimate" children were granted legal rights, and no-fault divorce made dissolving a marriage much easier. More recently, a number of states have created civil unions and domestic partnerships.
By tracing the evolution of marriage in our culture, things like no-fault divorce have made "dissolving" marriage much easier while the creation of civil unions have allowed many to take advantage of the benefits of marriage without actually being married. As a result, marriage becomes a certificate from the government rather than a covenant made before God.
But it doesn't stop there, notice where this argument leads in the next paragraph:
In the view of some analysts, though, the reforms haven't gone far enough - the law now needs to catch up to the society it helped to shape, in which many more people live outside marriage. The reforms made marriage fairer and less compulsory, and they have even begun to recognize committed romantic relationships between members of the same sex. But for the most part, the law hasn't acknowledged the other types of important relationships that people can form.
"If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that similarly involve care and support?" asks Washington University's Rosenbury. "What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships - that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"
If we follow the logic that begins by redefining marriage, one must admit that they have a point. Why can't friends enjoy the benefits of civil unions? But why stop there? Why not other sexual and nonsexual practices?
The point is, once we start rolling down this hill of redefining marriage in the name of equality and ending centuries of prejudice, we will quickly land at rock bottom in an age of utter chaos and confusion. Until our culture grows up, there is no telling where our culture might end up.
Posts
5 comments:
Do you think you could possibly try some new arguments of your own, rather than trotting out the tired, old, dispensed with crap that everyone else has been using for the past decade?
If your going to do "commentary" at least make it original.
Hey,
This is Evan (Knappy42)...we used to discuss stuff on Xanga.
I would agree with the above comment, in that, who are you talking to on here? It doesn't seem like many people are reading these rantings you post. Are you doing it to sort things out in your own mind, or do you have a target audience in mind? I understand the need sometimes to just write down your thoughts, or what you've been reading...however, I find it troubling when folks make the large-sweeping and cliche judgments that your writing all-too-often projects. I'm your brother in Christ, so I say this out of inquiry and love...not to bash you or belittle you.
I would ask you another question as well. When we sit on our Christian "pedestals" and throw around harsh words and judgments, are we really reflecting the love and compassion of Emmanuel (God WITH us)? I'm saying this because it's too easy to sit and talk about homosexuals, abortive mothers, the poor, immigrants, etc from our nice comfy church pews and computer screens. It's a whole different thing to go out and meet and to display the love of our Savior to them. What do you think works better? Condemning from a distance or going to these folks and healing hurts and hearts through solidarity and the love of Christ? Do you believe that anyone besides those who already agree with you will even read more than a sentence of what you have to say? Again, these are thoughts not meant to attack you, but hopefully that you can respond to.
Peace of Christ,
Evan.
"Why stop at homosexuality? Can't the same arguments be made for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia?"
Let's start with bestiality. Civil marriage is at its heart, a contract. Animals don't have standing and can't give consent.
Same basic thing with pedophilia - children can't enter into contracts. The age for this varies between states and adjusts somewhat with parental consent, but basically, they can't legally be part of the marriage contract.
Incest is tougher. A brother and sister, provided they are of age, COULD enter into the contract. However, states have determined the genetic risk of close relatives breeding is too great. If thousands of incestuous pairs began suing for the right to marry, we could look at that, but so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Polygamy is an easy one. Polygamy creates an inherent inequity. Multiple partners means multiple people looking for the privileges of marriage, primarily Social Security survivor benefits, insurance benefits, etc. Same-sex marriage creates no such inequity. In fact, it FURTHERS equality.
In terms of your argument about extending these benefits to friends -- they already have that benefit. If the two friends are male and female, it's available to them in all 50 states. If the friends are of the same gender, they can marry in Massachusetts and California. No one says you HAVE to have sex once you marry. In fact, from what I hear, the frequency of sex declines once the "I dos" are said.
Of the three comments left so far, only 1 is intellectually honest. One simply attacks me for not having original arguments and yet offers none of his own. The second is someone I know and have discussed a wide variety of issue doesn't necessarily bring anything up in contrast to what I have said, only questioning my approach as a Christian (of which, though disagree, can respect).
The third is at least an honest response to the above post. He does, I'll admit, bring up some interesting and good points. At the same time, he is willing to conseed to some of the points I raised. I can respect honest disagreement, but please explain why.
And so the argument remains. The same arguments that can be made for homosexuality can, and are, being made for other sexual issues such as polygamy and others.
This might be an old argument and nothing original, but it is a good argument. If you do nt like the argument, refute it.
Kyle -
Not sure exactly what you're saying here.
I agree that people are raising the polygamy, incest issues, etc. -- but I refuted the polygamy stance and the bestiality stance pretty completely. So if you have a rebuttal, let's hear it.
The only one that stands is incest. I think a case could be made that if a brother and sister wanted to share a household and expenses and avoid inheritance taxes and receive Social Security survivor benefits, they should be allowed to.
Thing is, you only get ONE civil marriage at a time, and it shouldn't be easy to get out of, so I think such instances would be rare. It's probably more likely that a pair of elderly sisters might want to enter into this contract.
Personally, I think the best way to handle this is to make ALL couples enter into a civil union contract and leave marriage to churches. But that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, and it creates tremendous inequities for same-sex couples.
Here is a true story: I had an uncle-in-law who lived with another man for 35+ years. They did all they could legally to formalize their union. Still, when my uncle-in-law died, his partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, because of estate law, he could not inherit the house without paying significant tax. Plus, the tax basis on the house changed and rose significantly. If they had been married, he could have inherited the house tax free and the property tax would have remained the same because there wouldn't have been a change in ownership. He also would have received survivor benefits.
But because they were legally prevented from marrying, he was unable to afford to stay in the home they shared for over three decades.
That simply doesn't seem equitable to me. Does it to you?
Post a Comment