« Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed to Adopt? | Main | Motivations »

May 11, 2012

Comments

Why must it be two people? Why not three?

No one seems to disagree.

“[T]his is not a dispute featuring ‘bigots’ on one side, any more than it has ‘perverts’ on the other. It is a debate of reasonable people of goodwill who disagree about the nature of the most basic unit of society.”

I disagree with their statement above. The whole point of why we're having this debate is that the debate is being fueled by un-regenerate, un-repentant sinners.

Calvin would argue it this way: since prior to conversion we are dead in our trespasses and sin, we are by our very nature "perverted". Now, not in the sense of how they mean it, but in a very much more true sense. Our entire being is perverted and distorted by our sinful nature prior to God saving us from our sins.

So, yes, one side of the debate is made up of "perverts"; not perverts in the mode of spending hours on the computer trolling the internet looking for deviant sexual fantasies, but perverts in the sense of the un-regenerate heart that is perverted by sinful nature against God's will in all areas of life, not just sexual immorality.

This is important because the real issue here isn't society's definition of marriage. Society can define it any which way it likes and it doesn't make it true. The real issue is how do we as Christian believers use this challenge as an opportunity to demonstrate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to disobedient sinners on the "other side" of the debate in such a way as to reflect both Grace and Truth.

Alex

"Why must it be two people? Why not three?"

Why not the whole country or the world? Let's just make it where every individual can marry the whole planet and be done with it.

That's just using mockery to avoid answering the question.

If three people want to be in a loving relationship, who are you to tell them otherwise?

Since when has the government ever cared whether the 2 people love each other as a prerequisite to marriage?

The State's interest in recognizing marriages doesn't include the "love" aspect.

Alex

"That's just using mockery to avoid answering the question.

If three people want to be in a loving relationship, who are you to tell them otherwise?
"

Far from it. I am a proponent of such an arrangement. A mother, a father, and a child in a loving relationship is a wonderful thing. It is called a family. Hear...hear...for the FAMILY!

Alex

Look, the point I was trying to make is that if you start with three, why not four, if four, why not five, if five, why not five million? It seems to me that not only is age just a number the number of marriage partners is getting to be just a number and how many doesn't seem to matter. So, that a couple may as well mean a crowd of two hundred if you are going to play a numbers game with people's lives. One social experiment leads to another and when it comes to raising children, subjecting them to this kind of social experimentation in rearing, you are looking for trouble of the kind that leads to a bunch of social misfits causing no end of trouble for society. Human beings should not be lab rats in this kind of human experimentation because it can ruin young impressionable lives and that is something worthy of protection by the government through protecting what we know makes well adjusted stable human beings as a rule. That structure is a family with a father, a mother and one or more children. What kind of human being would want to turn their kids into lab rats with his social marriage experimentation? I just don't see that kind of a human being as a loving and caring one. At least not for the most vulnerable members of our society...our CHILDREN, who have been shown (and I can tell you from personal experience just how devastating any other model is) to be the BEST WAY TO RAISE CHILDREN.

Part of the problem here is that they are purposefully defining the revisionist view in order to purposefully weaken the definition in the second view so that it can be contrasted with what is viewed as a stronger view in the first point. Who is saying that gay marriage is purely emotional and will run out when the emotions "cool." That is simply part of what the author of this blog has done time and time again. He tries to redefine positions he does not agree with so that they don't make as strong an argument. This does not mean that his definition (or the one he has cherry-picked) is the correct definition. The second definition is definitely lacking in that it does not acknowledge that the marriages would be the result of a spiritual commitment that is beyond simple emotion.

The comments to this entry are closed.