November 28, 2006

Whenever my friends and I get into a discussion or friendly debate over the merits (or lack thereof) of gay marriage, the arguments they put forth in favor are always pretty much the same:

* Half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, so what’s the big difference?
* Why get hung up on sexual orientation? Better to have a child grow up in a loving same-sex household than a unhappy heterosexual union or one with only one parent;
* As long as its between consenting adults, what right does the government have to tell people how they should live?

And somewhere in the discussion, I’ll usually come back at them and say, OK, let’s say we allow any two people to marry or enter into a legal union, why stop there? Would you allow three or four people to do the same? At which point, they’ll usually fall back on the argument about unions of two people max being ideal, or better than one, or something along those lines, but to me that’s intellectually disingenuous.

The fact is, once you open the gates to “marriage” or “civil unions” between same-sex couples, it’s a very slippery slope to every out-there activist organization pushing their own bizarre agendas and employing the ACLU to sue for changing the law in their favor. After all, in a free and open society, why not three-person marriages or unions? Or four? Or ten? Or should there be a limit, and if so, why? How about unions with cars or trees? Or unions with animals? (My wife would like that – then she could leave most of her money to her rabbits instead of me! Just kidding, of course, but you get my drift…)

Don’t believe me? streiff at Red State notes that last week, no less than the esteemed Washington Post ran on concurrent days stories sympathetic to non-traditional relationships involving people seeking to hop onto the same-sex marriage argument that gay, lesbian, and transgender activists have been pushing without success over the last few electoral cycles as a way to further their own agendas. He writes:

For those who have ridiculed us traditionalists whenever we raise the usually disreputable “slippery slope” argument in the defense of marriage as understood by most cultures over several millennia these articles should serve as evidence that we are not exaggerating. When viewed through the mawkishly distorted prism of the arguments proffered by proponents of homosexual marriage their particular cases are compelling and if we accept the idea of marriage as some amorphous “human right” they are irrefutable.

My guess is that it’s just the Post’s way of firing its first salvo at soon-to-be-former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon who is keen to enter the 2008 Presidential sweepstakes, but you never know how these things can all of a sudden take off and become such a hot topic in the mainstream dino-media and the cable news channels that the idea actually begins to gain legitimacy.

To me it’s all ridiculous, and just another way the Progressive Left is trying to tear down anything that smacks of the basic fabric that holds this country and society together. Watch them try and turn gay marriage, and then polygamy, into a “civil rights” issue, invoking the ghost of Rosa Parks to try and put their pathetic warped agenda across. What they really want is Rome, and hopefully, more and more states will follow the dozen-plus states who have passed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to that between one man and one woman.

For this country to do anything less is to court both societal and legal chaos and disaster.

Filed in: Religion & Culture by The Great White Shank at 01:53 | Comments (2)
  1. I’m going to go down a different limb on this one, and ask a question.

    Why does it take an act of government to make a spiritual union?

    Isn’t marriage, first and foremost, in the eyes of God? If so, then why is there some kind of legalistic requirement for a marriage “license”, issued by a government, to make marriage legal? The obvious answer in these modern times is due to benefits sharing and in the division of assets in the case of divorce or death. But all that gets us is more government regulation over our lives and more money for the lawyers of the world. So much for a civilized world.

    All this nonsense about what is moral or legal has no bearing on our final disposition after we die. It is not for those of us on earth to judge each other, but rather how God judges us after we are finished with the mortal part of our lives. I, for one, am not worthy of judging whether someone is moral or not.

    Nor have I ever met another human who is.

    Comment by Dave Richard — November 28, 2006 @ 6:47 am

  2. Actually, marriage is both, in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the “state”. We can quibble over the cross-over between the two – me, I’ve long held the belief that civil unions – in whatever form, as long as they are between two people – should fall under the auspicies of “state” and the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should fall under “church”, and never the twain should meet.

    I’m uncomfortable with the “moral relativism” argument that only God knows what’s morally right and, as flawed humans, we are in no place to morally judge anything. Quite the contrary – there ARE ways in which people live their lives that are, and should be, subject to moral judgment. Morals are nothing more than what we inherently, as human beings, know to be “wrong” and “right”. And there is a difference.

    One of the reasons why marriage (or, I would add, “unions”) have been legislated by “state” the way they have been is the Judeo-Christian traditions upon which our society – and indeed, Western civilization, has been founded upon.
    I’m no sociologist, but my guess is that the reason why these traditions have hung on for so long is that civil societies have found they remain intact longer with a framework of laws that promote civil order, and societal health in general.

    You simply can’t have everyone doing whatever they damned please because someone’s afraid to make moral judgments on what’s right and what’s not. When societies “work”, everyone benefits, when they don’t, everyone loses. While I would never argue for a government that sticks its nose into everything everyone does as some kind of omnipotent moral judge, government does have it’s necessary place as a basic means of protection for laws that help keep our society healthy and in order.

    Comment by The Great White Shank — November 28, 2006 @ 1:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Search The Site

Recent Items


September 2021
April 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006



4 Goodboys Only

Site Info