by STR.org
Today, we’re going to take a look at a controversial policy issue. As Christians, we believe it’s our responsibility to stay informed about our faith and understand how our views translate into not only our personal lives, but also our culture and government. One of the most debated topics in our country is same-sex marriage, and we think there’s a respectful, loving and logical way to address the subject. So that’s what we’re going to do.
Before delving in, there are a few things we need to consider.
First, is the language we use. We are addressing same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. The government isn’t concerned with sexual preference. It cares about gender.
Where marriage is defined as a man and a woman, there is no “ban” on same-sex marriage; there’s simply no legal provision for it.
Secondly, we are raising principled objections to same-sex marriage. This is in no way related to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, or arrogance. It doesn’t have to do with intolerance whether or not we think adopting same-sex marriage into our culture is a positive policy decision.
Now that we have discussed our approach, we can talk about the heart of the issue: Marriage.
Marriage is not defined, it’s described. It’s a fixed feature of the natural order, not invented by people. Marriage relationships produce the next generation. In fact, families that consist of a father and a mother are the building blocks of our society.
So what does that mean for same-sex couples? Well, it means that changing language or laws doesn’t change the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is a modern contradiction.
There are many arguments for and against same-sex marriages. It’s our goal to give others reasons before rules. So, we thought we’d take a closer look at a few major arguments.
Different kinds of relationships serve different purposes, and the government has no obligation to give every kind of relationship the same entitlements. Heterosexual marriages have a unique role in society, which is to sustain civilization through procreation. This is why the government automatically grants related benefits like inheritance rights to a married man and woman. It’s not unfair to treat different kinds of relationships differently.
The circumstances are not the same. Skin color is morally trivial, while there is an enormous difference between a man and a woman. Race has no bearing on marriage, but sex is fundamental.
Plus, same-sex marriage is not an attempt to include those wrongly disenfranchised from an existing institution, but to abolish that institution and substitute a radically different one under the same name.
Spousal rights and marital traditions have changed. However, marriage has always been between males and females because of the unique function they perform in society.
Marriage can’t be a social construction because cultures emerge when humans reproduce.
This means that cultures cannot be the constructors of the marriages that make culture possible in the first place. Bricks make the building, not the building the bricks. Culture does not construct marriage. Marriage and family construct culture.
Some marriages are barren, by choice or by circumstance. Even so, the natural marriage & procreation connection is not nullified because in some cases children are not intended or even possible. The state protects conjugal marriage because of its institutional importance to culture.
This sentiment reflects a common misconception: Same-sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals.
Same-sex couples can express love, have weddings, share home ownership, have sex, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend their lives together. Same-sex marriage grants no new freedom and restricts no liberty.
What does this all mean?
By equating same-sex unions with heterosexual unions, it changes culture at its core. And with that change, two things rapidly follow.
First, anyone continuing to make the gender distinctions dictated by nature will come into conflict a law dictated by men.
Second, the boundaries of marriage will continue to expand as the state continues to tinker.
As our culture equates same-sex and heterosexual marriage more and more, we are ignoring the very roots of the world we have today. Adoption legislation, rights of association, religious practices, freedom of speech, and issues of conscience will all suffer harm. Marriage, family, and parenthood will continue to be redefined.
To sum things up, same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It actually boils down to validation and social approval. It’s an attempt to push people to accommodate a lifestyle they might find morally wrong. Today, homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country, though it isn’t universally accepted. Homosexuals have the liberty to live as they choose without fear of backlash.
Redefining marriage is contrary to nature, socially destructive, and will be used to infringe on the religious conscience of those who disagree.
We’re not intolerant and it’s not bigotry. We have rational reasons based on nature that cross history, cultures, and religions. Favoring a “live and let live” attitude toward a lifestyle doesn’t justify redefining an institution that has served humanity well since the beginning of time.
Today, we’re going to take a look at a controversial policy issue. As Christians, we believe it’s our responsibility to stay informed about our faith and understand how our views translate into not only our personal lives, but also our culture and government. One of the most debated topics in our country is same-sex marriage, and we think there’s a respectful, loving and logical way to address the subject. So that’s what we’re going to do.
Before delving in, there are a few things we need to consider.
First, is the language we use. We are addressing same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. The government isn’t concerned with sexual preference. It cares about gender.
Where marriage is defined as a man and a woman, there is no “ban” on same-sex marriage; there’s simply no legal provision for it.
Secondly, we are raising principled objections to same-sex marriage. This is in no way related to bigotry, narrow-mindedness, or arrogance. It doesn’t have to do with intolerance whether or not we think adopting same-sex marriage into our culture is a positive policy decision.
Now that we have discussed our approach, we can talk about the heart of the issue: Marriage.
Marriage is not defined, it’s described. It’s a fixed feature of the natural order, not invented by people. Marriage relationships produce the next generation. In fact, families that consist of a father and a mother are the building blocks of our society.
So what does that mean for same-sex couples? Well, it means that changing language or laws doesn’t change the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is a modern contradiction.
There are many arguments for and against same-sex marriages. It’s our goal to give others reasons before rules. So, we thought we’d take a closer look at a few major arguments.
“Homosexual couples are not given the same benefits as heterosexual married couples”
Different kinds of relationships serve different purposes, and the government has no obligation to give every kind of relationship the same entitlements. Heterosexual marriages have a unique role in society, which is to sustain civilization through procreation. This is why the government automatically grants related benefits like inheritance rights to a married man and woman. It’s not unfair to treat different kinds of relationships differently.
"They said the same thing about interracial marriage."
The circumstances are not the same. Skin color is morally trivial, while there is an enormous difference between a man and a woman. Race has no bearing on marriage, but sex is fundamental.
Plus, same-sex marriage is not an attempt to include those wrongly disenfranchised from an existing institution, but to abolish that institution and substitute a radically different one under the same name.
"Culture has a right to redefine marriage."
Spousal rights and marital traditions have changed. However, marriage has always been between males and females because of the unique function they perform in society.
Marriage can’t be a social construction because cultures emerge when humans reproduce.
This means that cultures cannot be the constructors of the marriages that make culture possible in the first place. Bricks make the building, not the building the bricks. Culture does not construct marriage. Marriage and family construct culture.
"Not all marriages have children."
Some marriages are barren, by choice or by circumstance. Even so, the natural marriage & procreation connection is not nullified because in some cases children are not intended or even possible. The state protects conjugal marriage because of its institutional importance to culture.
"We should have the freedom to love who we want."
This sentiment reflects a common misconception: Same-sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals.
Same-sex couples can express love, have weddings, share home ownership, have sex, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend their lives together. Same-sex marriage grants no new freedom and restricts no liberty.
What does this all mean?
By equating same-sex unions with heterosexual unions, it changes culture at its core. And with that change, two things rapidly follow.
First, anyone continuing to make the gender distinctions dictated by nature will come into conflict a law dictated by men.
Second, the boundaries of marriage will continue to expand as the state continues to tinker.
As our culture equates same-sex and heterosexual marriage more and more, we are ignoring the very roots of the world we have today. Adoption legislation, rights of association, religious practices, freedom of speech, and issues of conscience will all suffer harm. Marriage, family, and parenthood will continue to be redefined.
To sum things up, same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It actually boils down to validation and social approval. It’s an attempt to push people to accommodate a lifestyle they might find morally wrong. Today, homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country, though it isn’t universally accepted. Homosexuals have the liberty to live as they choose without fear of backlash.
Redefining marriage is contrary to nature, socially destructive, and will be used to infringe on the religious conscience of those who disagree.
We’re not intolerant and it’s not bigotry. We have rational reasons based on nature that cross history, cultures, and religions. Favoring a “live and let live” attitude toward a lifestyle doesn’t justify redefining an institution that has served humanity well since the beginning of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment