A Twist on the Gay Marriage Debate
In response to an interesting debate. Marriage is for the purpose of procreation, but it is also a symbol of Christ and the church played out in everyday life. This second part is something not pointed out in many of the debates on this subject. When a man and women get married the man is to treat the woman as God treats the church and the women is to submit to the man as the Church submits to Christ (talk about challenges for both male and female…tough). This is a play in the daily life of married Christians and it is the institution of religion that seeks to enable this holy action to be carried forth. The state has supported marriage to strengthen society. As man forgives his wife he grows and as a wife submits to her husband she grows. The union grows stronger and the couple are a stronger part of society.
Homosexuality corrupts this institution by corrupting the natural tendencies of strength and holiness found in matrimony.
I agree though however that at the Federal level their shouldn’t be any attempt to legislate morality. Roe V. Wade or whatever case that will create mandated “gay marriages” have little place in the federal side but are a state issue. And even at a state level who is it that should decide who can get married and who can’t get married – who should legislate morality? We’re talking about a marginal group of individuals here. Why not just let them get married it will give them one less thing to gripe about. While the “corruption” of our society should be dealt with at a society level. To me this is the same for pot and alcohol. Just because their are alcoholics doesn’t mean we should make drinking illegal.
To me this is the antithesis of a “hate crime” I mean what kind of crime is committed with love – “gay marriage”? It’s all silly. It’s a way for the Republicans to stir up their base while still getting away with putting 40% of the earmarks on the last spending bill. As a BaldMan put it it’s a hill of beans. It’s a distraction.
As for the theft and killing those are moral issues but they are also legal issues stemming from natural law and as pointed out previously often times a matter of degrees. While I think natural law (absolutely) favors same sex-marriage I think the degree to which same sex-marriage threatens our society is not as egregious as other issues.
I admit our society is sick, it is sick to the point this issue is even being discussed. The healing though is not in man made laws or the halls of power. An individual that is gay should be confronted as the individual and not in an oppressive way (for example, because murder exists we don’t outlaw guns). In fact, gay marriages as a state convention will be public information and can allow the church and society the opportunity to reach out to these individuals more so then they are able to reach somebody that may be “in the closet” so to speak. So there is opportunity here. There is opportunity to witness, to reach out, and to deal with the individuals at an individual level when they more openly express themselves.
I say don’t be swayed by the Republican’s desire to turn the eye from the main issues facing our society and second look at “gay marriage” as an opportunity while still maintaining a proper moral outlook on it.
“To me this is the same for pot and alcohol. Just because their are alcoholics doesn’t mean we should make drinking illegal.”
-Just because there are potheads we should not make weed illegal either?
Thanks for stopping by my site.
Yes I think pot should be legal. Sickness and addiction should be treated as sickness and addiction not illegal activites. Some people over eat to a point of gluttony they get a “high” from feeling full (myself included), some people may sit in front of a TV day-in-day-out watching MTV (being sedated from real life). I don’t think these things should be illegal the same as pot, alcoholics, gays, cigarette smoking, MTV, obese people, atheism, sexual promiscuity etc. I know a lot of my friends in the right might disagree with this. Remember though now in Muslim contries many of these things are illegal. They legislate morality. It’s the ole’ can’t have your cake and eat it too concept. If we open the door to legislate morality this can bite us in the rear down the road.
Theocracies have a heard time properly interpretting the “Word of God”. And often in history have corrupted His message. God came for the individual not for the State. If He had come for the State He would have already established His kingdom on earth instead of ascending to His throne in heaven.
Now gay adoption of kids, or alcoholics as parents, or drug addicts as parents? This to me should be illegal. Just as abortion should be illegal.
“If we open the door to legislate morality this can bite us in the rear down the road.”
Is legistaltion against pro-choice (which may also be deemed a freedom) something that may also fall in this cateogry? Being that people who opt to have an abortion may not neccesarily be those categorized into “sickeness and addiction”.
“Now gay adoption of kids, or alcoholics as parents, or drug addicts as parents? This to me should be illegal.”
I agree with a part of this. Naturally parents who are alcoholic or that are addicted to drugs do not foster a safe home. Adoption of a child must consider the finacial resources of the adoptive parents, safety and security of their home, educational opportunities for the child and the ability of the child to grow and thrive in the home environment through love and nuturiing. Gay couples are able to provide these needs as easily as straight parents. If a child is wanted and will be loved and cared for why force these children to stay in the foster system which can greater increase their chances of being abused and neglected? Parenting has nothing to do with sexual orientation. To deny a gay person the right to adopt is denying them their freedom for no other reason than prejudice.
Pro-choice is to me no choice they must label it a sickness because if not they are taking a childs life. They have something like a tumor or cyst that needs removed. In fact this is how the pro-choice wins the debate. Pro-choice debate focuses on a different issue then sickness and addiction which is the question when does life begin? Does life begin before birth? At conception? One trimester, two trimesters, etc.? If life begins before birth (as I believe) then their are two freedoms to consider the mothers and the childs. Pro-choice must advocate sickness if not then it is murder and the choice of the childs is ignored.
As for denying a gay person the right to adopt as being prejudice then your missing the point of being gay. Being gay means not having children as a natural (nature) oriented choice. Their is no natural gay pregnancy. Their is natural straight pregnancy. Why would we protect a child from an alcholic parent, or a drug addicted parent, and not protect a child from being forced into a home with confused and gender sick parents? It has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with protecting the child and caring for the sick.
Gay attempts at child raising (not parenting), parenting is mothering & fathering, lack one half of the equation by the nature of the union. How are two women supposed to teach a boy how to be a man or a girl how to relate to a man. How are two men supposed to teach a boy how to be a gentleman to ladies and or how to be sensitive to a womens needs? This can be as damaging to the child as an absent alcholic parent or drug addicted parent. And probably much more confusing then single parenting as the child recognizes one is missing in that arrangement and can later compensate. The gay child raiser will most likely not admit to the child that a parent figure is missing because then they would be forced to admit their own sickness and seek a remedy.
You might find it interesting to know that The American Academy of Pediatrics disagree with you. I’ll visit this site soon. I have been trying to handle this and work and well…work wins.
Yes and no, they agree that a child with two parents should be adopted by the second parent so it has all legal rights to that second parent (whether straight or gay). I don’t see where they disagree with my point that it isn’t natural or that a gay couple shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Now if for example a child is already in that situation then the child should be the focus and what is the safest for the child already in that situation with two parents versus one (more is better then less) is different. I can’t find where they disagree though on a gay couple being allowed to adopt from the outset as being psychologically equal to traditional mother and father rolls.
Are you trying to say that a child doesn’t need both a mother and father that either one is equal to both? Or that a mother/father is capable of supplying both?