Uh, thanks but no thanks

In an obvious sp*m email to random bloggers, a man named Joseph invited me to link to a list of the top 100 “marriage equality” blogs on his gay dating site.  Here is my response.  It also goes out to the people on Facebook with the red equal sign pictures and anyone else who abuses words like equality.  Remember, the warnings in Romans 1 aren’t just for those who commit the sins listed there, but for those that give approval to those who practice them.

And remember to point out that even if their lobby wasn’t wrong on both “marriage equality” and adoption by homosexuals, they can’t put forth both arguments.  If gender is absolutely paramount for sexual relationships, how can it be completely irrelevant for parenting?

And here’s a list of things to mention to people who insist that “same-sex marriage” won’t hurt you.

—–

Joseph,

I’ll be glad to link to your site if you’ll make my blog (www.4simpsons.wordpress.com) one of your top 100 blogs. But I don’t think you’ll want to do that, because I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I know many gays and lesbians and am friendly and kind to them all. I would never condone harm to LGBTQ people. I am against bullying of all kinds. And if you have issues such as hospital visitation or estate planning I would support separate solutions for those (i.e., you should be able to have anyone you like visit you in the hospital, and estate taxes are ghoulish — the government should never profit from your death).

Having said all that, “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron (“the same-sex union of a man and a woman”).

That isn’t unkind or hateful to say, it is the truth. Words mean things. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.

But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.

1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman.

2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.

Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages.

I realize the underlying desire of LGBTQ to feel affirmed and to silence any criticism of their lifestyles, but that is not a mature reaction.

Again, you are welcome to your relationships. You can get “married” in all sorts of false-teaching, anti-biblical “churches.” You can set up house together. I will never bother to get in the way of your lives.

But there is simply no reason for the government to get involved in your relationships. And government recognition of same-sex unions inevitably — and by design — leads to a loss of free speech and religious freedom and results in young children being taught things that are wrong.

You probably noted that the response above was free of religious views, which was by design. We don’t need religious arguments to explain why the government need not sanction same-sex unions. But out of kindness I should point out that there is a God who clearly and thoroughly revealed himself in the Bible. He is sovereign over all. He designed marriage and the ideal is one man and one woman, for life. Yes, heterosexuals break those rules too, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all the rules. Everyone has rebelled against God and his created order but they can be forgiven if they repent and trust in Jesus. I highly encourage you to consider that. You don’t want to spend an eternity in Hell regretting that you spent this life in active rebellion against your creator. There is a better way.

6 thoughts on “Uh, thanks but no thanks

  1. As I was watching the evening news with the stuff before SCOTUS tonight, I was struck with a thought. I need to be abundantly clear that I AM NOT OPPOSED TO GAYS AND LESBIANS GETTING MARRIED. I am fully in favor of everyone who wishes to to have the right to get married. Indeed, if a gay man wants to marry a lesbian woman, it might be a good thing. Of course, all of this is intended within the confines of the standard definition of marriage. I am opposed to the rights of a few ripping out the heart of society, redefining it, and suggesting this is the equivalent of “equality”. But I’m (almost entirely) not opposed to any man marrying any woman (within the bounds of law, of course — you know, excluding incest, etc.).

    (I wonder how the “marriage equity” folk can favor redefining marriage in their favor without calling, on the same basis, for “marriage equity” for cousins, polygamists, or polyamorists. Not working in my head.)

  2. I have been thinking that the civil union for everybody might be the right way to go with any government legalities, with “marriage” reserved for the church to perform as the sacred ceremony that it is. In other words, none of us would be using the word “marriage” in legal forms, but the word “marriage” would remain what it is. Why should government have anything to do with our religious ceremonies and commitments? However, your link to MassResistance gives me pause. They do bring up a lot of serious resulting problems that could occur even if we went with civil unions for all instead of calling it “marriage”.

    • Frankly, Texmom, I don’t think there is any difference between civil unions and marriage. If the state acted as you suggested, we are still left with the question of why the gov’t would grant any considerations for one form of union over another and whether or not they should. A civil union between a man and woman is what a marriage is legally. It is supported because of its unique characteristics and the benefits to society those characteristics bring, which are not present in other unions not of one man and one woman. In other words, it is simply using a different word to mean what marriage now means, and allowing other types of unions to qualify. It’s a backdoor to the same thing and has been used as one since the concept of “civil unions” came into common usage.

    • Civil unions will be just as costly to the federal, state and local budgets as they will if they use the word “marriage.” They will still be the same legalized union forcing punishment on those who refuse to give sanction. There should be NO legal sanction of the unions no matter what they are called. They give no benefit to society and only add to its destruction.

  3. Pingback: Marriage | Enjoyment and Contemplation

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s