close
Welcome to JBS.org
Login or create your account below.
| The Promise and Pitfalls of "Marriage Equality" |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Jack Kenny | ||||||||||||||||
| Friday, 06 November 2009 14:53 | ||||||||||||||||
|
Now I realize many of those promoting the homosexual agenda deny there is such a thing. But just as assurances from the henhouse that there are no foxes therein usually come from the foxes, so it is with the promoters of the agenda of which same-sex marriage is a part. Though they insist they only want to be left alone, each to his and her own “pursuit of happiness,” their goal is really a revolutionary transformation of the social order in which we all live, more or less peaceably. Or suppose you are a member of a religious body with a defined set of beliefs and the doors are suddenly thrown open to those who accept only, let us say, the even-numbered commandments and hold to no dogma at all about God, salvation, eternal life, etcetera. Now I will concede something pretty close to that appears to have happened, even in a body as hierarchical and doctrinal as the Roman Catholic Church, in which I am a communicant. But the fact that heresy exists inside its walls does not mean the Church has embraced or in any way legitimized it. But suppose tomorrow a directive issued from the Vatican said: “All of the dogma we have espoused and the heresies anathematized over the past 2000 years have been a vanity and a chasing after the wind. We now recognize that all beliefs have equal validity in the eyes of whatever deity or deities may exist and we refuse to choose among them. We affirm all of them, which is to say we affirm none of them. Our one doctrinal statement is, in a word, ‘Whatever.’ ” Now suppose the next day someone were to say to you, “I am a Catholic.” What would that mean? It could mean anything, which is to say it means nothing. The meaning of the faith in which you were baptized and schooled has been cheapened. It has become meaningless. Is it not the same true of marriage? It has already been cheapened by heterosexual couples simply bypassing it and treating their cohabitation as marriage. But neither the Church nor state calls it a marriage, although the civil law in some states recognizes a “common law” wife or husband. But while that is a sort of lawless marriage, it is not the kind of “anti-marriage” that a same-sex union is. A man wedded to a man or a woman to a woman is so contrary to natural law that one need not be religious to see it. As a friend of mine described with a blunt, but charming simplicity, some parts of the body are designed as entrances and others as exits. 'Nuff said. But my correspondent also said that codification of “gay marriage” will not result in the public schools teaching about “gay” marriage or “gay” sex. I’m afraid that train has already left the station and is a long way down the track. There may be some dispute about what is currently being taught in the public schools in Massachusetts, where the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth ruled in 2003 that the state’s constitution, ratified in 1781, mandated marriage equality for same-sex couples. Perhaps the teaching varies too much from school to school, classroom to classroom, and teacher to teacher to make a definitive statement about what is taught concerning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. But the ad campaign by the opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine claimed that teachers in the Bay State were giving very “explicit and thorough” answers to students’ questions about “gay” sex. Common sense would indicate that would happen in a legal climate where in marriage as in other things “gay is just as good as straight.” As much as one might like the state to stay out of it, public schools in America and the education establishment have been so long wedded to the idea that sex education is a state responsibility that any teaching about marriage would almost have to include “non-judgmental” information about “gay” sex. Parents have the option, if they can afford it, of sending their children to private schools that better reflect their core beliefs and values. But why must they suffer the injustice of having the schools they support with their tax dollars teach as natural and acceptable a view of marriage that both their reason and their Bible tells them is an abomination in the eyes of God? In short, the state may not be neutral on this. Either a state will support and retain in its laws the concept of marriage that has been accepted and understood for millennia or it will render the word and concept of “marriage” equally useless for all. The proponents of “gay marriage” muddy up the common waters and tell you it doesn’t affect your bathing or drinking. That fallacy in their reasoning was addressed indirectly by the late President Lyndon Johnson, who said: “Don’t spit in the soup, we’ve all got to eat.”
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)
RP
said:
|
I always receive some interesting e-mails after writing about legislation to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Some of them accuse me of bigotry and homophobia and some have largely to do with how this publication and I handle words and phrases like “gay” and “marriage” and “gay marriage.” Put quotation marks around any of them to indicate you don’t really think that’s what it is (another way of saying, so-called marriage) and you are apt to offend people who believe that what they are seeking for themselves and their respective partners is marriage, and damn the quotation marks. 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments |
Delusions of moral relativism Opponents of "gay marriage" believe there are absolute moral norms. Proponents of "gay marriage" believe there are no moral norms (moral relativism). The Law of Non-Contradiction dictates that only one of these views can be correct. There cannot be moral norms and not be moral norms. One contradicts the other. The Law of Excluded Middle means there is no in-between. One is true and the other false. Those holding to absolute morality claim their stand to be true. This is consistent with absolutism. Those holding to relative moralism also claim their stand to be true. This claim is absolutist in nature and contradicts moral relativism! For a moral relativist to claim that those holding to absolute morals are wrong is an admission that there IS a right and a wrong. Moral relativists say that there are disagreements between cultures. Disagreement indicates there is a right and wrong and actually supports absolutes. Moral relativists also claim that we should be tolerant and not judge other cultures. This stand is itself judgmental and absolute. Moral relativism is not compatible with rational thought. |
Lee Gonzales
said:
 |
Elvis Presley's confidant wrote a book about his boss and friend Elvis One of the chapters dealt about a fraud of a man who made his way inside Graceland under some pretext to meet Elvis Presley. The door swung wide open and Elvis shouted down to his friends down stairs,"Somebody throw this queer out of here!" Homosexuals, who are the last thing to "gayness," and are instead some of the most conniving and whinny bunch of humans, will use any excuse to get what they want. The ploy of "privacy rights" was followed up by "equal rights." Their objective is to destroy marriage and our culture and God's Ten Commandments. By the time Elvis Presley was a big name star tar and feathers were not being used to decorate unsavory characters as they ran them out of town on a rail. The Rock and Roll king did not appreciate being conned by a homosexual and got angry when the man's true intentions were made known. If the "king" can have a "gay" thrown out of his home, then we too can vote the lavendar lobby back into the closet. We'll let the one true King deal with them. |
DDW
said:
 |
Mr. Gonzales You just don't know how right you are. There is nothing gay about homosexuality, it is not a lifestyle but, rather, a death style and the "gay" "community" is neither. Take my word for it, please. |
AnKo
said:
 |
Re: I have found that I can not even joke about marriage equality. I joked that I think we should push for marriage equality across the board. I said that Paris Hilton should be allowed to marry her lap dog. I said it was unfair that this so called free country should prohibit a legal union between man and animal. I said that the girl in Mexico has been wanting to marry that donkey for years too and it is just so unfair. If someone wants to marry their lampshade they should be allowed to marry their lampshade. I can prove my lampshade is a consenting adult in this legal system of ours. I was told I was a bigot. |
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
