10.31.2006
10.25.2006
10.24.2006
10.20.2006
"Homosexual" Marriage
[The following is a carryover from the debate at Pastor Neil's blog at http://www.craigan.typepad.com/]
I guess I'm having trouble understanding something...How exactly is something "mean-spirited and punitive" when all it does is positively affirm something that's been true in every society-than marriage is between a man and woman? It's not as if this law takes away some existing right of two women in a platonic relationship to live together and apply for some sort of pseudo-marriage benefits. The law does not say people of the same-sex cannot live together (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual). It just says that society will not confer some sort of special legal status on them.
Marriage is about much more than material benefits. Society confers upon marriage a special status: when we affirm the natural and God-given law that marriage is between a man and a woman, we're telling society that it is the preferred environment in which to raise children. That does not mean that it's a perfect environment, that people never get divorced, or never have affairs. It simply means that the starting point, the ideal, is for a child to have a mother and father.
One point about marriage I think some of us are missing-it was actually instituted before the fall! Some of you seem to be arguing that because we're in a fallen world we should throw all sexual mores to the wind. People commit all sorts of crimes in our broken world; we don't legalize bank robbery just because it still happens!
We started off debating the merits of this particular law, but clearly we have centered back on the core debate: should homosexuals be allowed to marry?
For that matter, why not allow two men to marry three women? Or a brother to marry his two sisters? The
The simple fact is, once you change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, you have no moral or logical basis to restrict it to that arrangement.
I am sure that Kelly's friends are wonderful people and I hope that their children grow up healthy and well-developed. But what do as a society say to our children if we legalize gay marriage? Set aside the theological arguments for minute and consider: How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt Children?*
If government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender, regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for bearing and raising children. Marriage will be seen as nothing more than coupling. In fact, that’s exactly how many see marriage now.
If homosexual marriage is legalized — many more couples in our society will forgo traditional marriage and have more children out of wedlock. That will hurt children because illegitimate parents (there’s no such thing as illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those parents who simply live together break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents.
Are these just the hysterical warnings of an alarmist? No. We can look at the results in Norway, a country that has had homosexual marriage (without legal sanction) for about a decade. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared. In Nordland, more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock and nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock! Across the entire country of Norway, the out-of-wedlock birth rate rose from 39 percent in 1990 to 50 percent in 2000.
Social anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” Homosexual marriage is probably not solely responsible for this growing problem, but it is certainly a contributing factor. “Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage,” says Kurtz, “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples, the perception of marriage will also be weakened; marriage and childbearing will just be considered incidental. That’s one reason why the number of illegitimate parents is exploding in Norway and it’s a major reason why we shouldn’t bring homosexual marriage to America.
I further submit the following: homosexual marriage isn’t really about civil rights, it’s about civil acceptance. Legalizing homosexual marriage is the one law that will legitimize homosexual behavior in general.
The law is a great teacher. Many people think that whatever is legal is moral and therefore should be accepted. One only needs to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence behavior and attitudes.
I guess I'm having trouble understanding something...How exactly is something "mean-spirited and punitive" when all it does is positively affirm something that's been true in every society-than marriage is between a man and woman? It's not as if this law takes away some existing right of two women in a platonic relationship to live together and apply for some sort of pseudo-marriage benefits. The law does not say people of the same-sex cannot live together (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual). It just says that society will not confer some sort of special legal status on them.
Marriage is about much more than material benefits. Society confers upon marriage a special status: when we affirm the natural and God-given law that marriage is between a man and a woman, we're telling society that it is the preferred environment in which to raise children. That does not mean that it's a perfect environment, that people never get divorced, or never have affairs. It simply means that the starting point, the ideal, is for a child to have a mother and father.
One point about marriage I think some of us are missing-it was actually instituted before the fall! Some of you seem to be arguing that because we're in a fallen world we should throw all sexual mores to the wind. People commit all sorts of crimes in our broken world; we don't legalize bank robbery just because it still happens!
We started off debating the merits of this particular law, but clearly we have centered back on the core debate: should homosexuals be allowed to marry?
For that matter, why not allow two men to marry three women? Or a brother to marry his two sisters? The
The simple fact is, once you change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, you have no moral or logical basis to restrict it to that arrangement.
I am sure that Kelly's friends are wonderful people and I hope that their children grow up healthy and well-developed. But what do as a society say to our children if we legalize gay marriage? Set aside the theological arguments for minute and consider: How Would Homosexual Marriage Hurt Children?*
If government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract between consenting adults of any gender, regardless of procreative realities, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for bearing and raising children. Marriage will be seen as nothing more than coupling. In fact, that’s exactly how many see marriage now.
If homosexual marriage is legalized — many more couples in our society will forgo traditional marriage and have more children out of wedlock. That will hurt children because illegitimate parents (there’s no such thing as illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those parents who simply live together break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents.
Are these just the hysterical warnings of an alarmist? No. We can look at the results in Norway, a country that has had homosexual marriage (without legal sanction) for about a decade. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared. In Nordland, more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock and nearly 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock! Across the entire country of Norway, the out-of-wedlock birth rate rose from 39 percent in 1990 to 50 percent in 2000.
Social anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” Homosexual marriage is probably not solely responsible for this growing problem, but it is certainly a contributing factor. “Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage,” says Kurtz, “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” When the entry standards for marriage are weakened to include same-sex couples, the perception of marriage will also be weakened; marriage and childbearing will just be considered incidental. That’s one reason why the number of illegitimate parents is exploding in Norway and it’s a major reason why we shouldn’t bring homosexual marriage to America.
I further submit the following: homosexual marriage isn’t really about civil rights, it’s about civil acceptance. Legalizing homosexual marriage is the one law that will legitimize homosexual behavior in general.
The law is a great teacher. Many people think that whatever is legal is moral and therefore should be accepted. One only needs to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence behavior and attitudes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)