« Why Care about Marriage? | Main | When Does Life Begin? »

November 02, 2008

Comments

"Accept, support, protect, and subsidize something we have rational and moral objection to, isn't good for children or society, is a public contract and covenant as marriage not just a bedroom arrangement, and has no historical or moral precedent in human history."

Just playing a little devil's advocate so I am going to work through all of these points raised.

I understand that the difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriages are difficult to reconcile, but that's not my point when I bring up the example. I'm just going to focus on the function of the government and what it can or can't do.

Morality aside, the government was used to strong-arm its constituents to accept, support, protect, and subsidize what the majority considered repulsive- interracial marriage.

As for the children, because this new generation is already being brought up by corrupt philosophies, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both raising their children in ways that depend on medication, therapy, and counseling. So in recent longitudinal studies comparing the two, the differences are insignificant.

I'm surprised that Yes on 8 is doing so well because I can tell you this: a large portion of those voting Yes on 8 are not what you would call followers of Jesus Christ. Nor do most share our rationale or moral conviction. They just have this "I don't know, I just believe what I have been told," attitude.

Once again, I'm playing the devil's advocate. I know that most who frequent the STR website do not fall under the broad-brushed generalities that I just listed.

I'll end with an encouragement: I have used the STR approach to debate on this idea and it is very effective. Working with the concept of neutrality when it comes to morality is effective in bringing the debate into productive grounds of conversation. At that point you have "earned" your right to speak.

It's unfortunate, but it seems like in most situation where morality is in public debate, we have to educate people to the intolerance of tolerance.

hey Augustine,

I imagine that the justification for the legalization of interracial marriage against the will of the majority (although I'm not sure that actually happened) is that it was based on sound moral argumentation. I'm not sure if this comparison/objection can be understood with "morality aside."

The other objection about what is good for children goes much deeper than the idea of a good home environment. I happen to know a same-sex couple who provide a better home environment for their kid than some Christian families I know. This concern, rather, has to do with the deep need in the human psyche for a connection to our ancestry, especially parents. This need has even been recently recognized as a legal right, resulting in the repeal of privacy laws regarding adoption. Therefore, for the state to sanction a definition of marriage that includes relationships that cannot naturally afford children an ideal and natural connection to their ancestry, the state subordinates the rights and wellbeing of children in favor of those who would like the legal title 'marriage' given to their relationship.

Mijk V.

Another thing that people often will raise is this: They are going to give a personal experience to counter an idea. They will say, "I know many same-sex couples who care for their children," to counter the idea that same-sex marriage shifts the focus of marriage from the children to the two individuals. This is intellectually dishonest because it plays on the emotional appeal of caring parents rather than addressing the issue directly - the revision of an institution. Granted, the institution has already been redefined both socially and legally, but if we have the chance to change it back to its intended state, we should try our hardest to get that done.

At least, that's how I see it.

Hey Augustine, I think it would be better not to shift the focus away from parents and children, because that is essentially what this is all about.

A better response would be to acknowledge the good desire of any same-sex couple to care and provide for their children, and that they may even at times excel over heterosexual couples in giving care. Its just that certain areas of provision are naturally outside of their capacity, no matter how much they would like to provide it, and the state should not be affirming 'marriages' that are intrinsically missing a key component for the well being of children.

Same-sex marriages, by their very nature, do not and will never have the ability to provide a child with a home environment with both biological parents.

Mijk,

I suspect that argument will fall flat, as long as the government allows single people to adopt.

Practices of adoption actually have no bearing on the argument. It does not matter who the government allows to adopt children. Single people have to adopt for the same reason that same-sex couples have to adopt or go outside the relationship to concieve a child--**nature does not grant these relationships children.**
When the state affirms a traditional view of marriage, they are affirming what nature has deemed the best environment in which a child should be raised. Child rearing is the purpose of marriage as far as the government's interests lie.

So, if child rearing is the purpose of marriage as far as the government's interests lie does that mean that we should ban people from getting married if they don't want children? What about a man and a woman who get married and for some reason realize that they can't have children - should we tell them their marriage is meaningless?

Also, what is the intended state of marriage? There is nothing in the bible that states that marriage is solely between one man and one woman - in fact here are some interesting FACTS about "marriage" in the bible -

Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).

A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

Are those the tenents of marriage that you wish to get back to? How about when a king married off his daughter to settle a land dispute or end a war?

Finally I ask you this, what if, hypothetically speaking, you lived in an area that consisted of mostly homosexual individuals who for whatever reason considered it morally objectionable for straight people to marry. They put a proposition on the ballot to put a ban on heterosexual marriage - stating statistics of child abuse, infidelity, and divorce of heterosexual partners as their moral objections. Come election time the majority votes to pass the proposition and end straight marriage. It is the will of the people ("We the people"...does this sound familiar?). Does that make it right? How would you feel?

Giving a laundry list of Bible verses doesn't necessitate that you understand Old Testament law and its relation to the gospel. Your headings to these lists simply indicate you have NOT done your homework well.

The comments to this entry are closed.