Gay “Marriage” Harms Traditional Marriage
How does gay marriage harm traditional marriage? One might as well ask, “How does printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?” Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick. Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorkin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Although I am not exactly on one side or the other, I lean more heavily towards the side of "no" for legalizing marriage for same-sex couples because it is not Biblical. That is the whole reason that God made both male and female and for them to come together in Holy matrimony. I agree that gay marriage does in aa way "harm" traditional marriage (as it pertains to the Bible). In fact, there is no example in the Bible where, gay marriage was found to be acceptable in the eyes of the people, or for that matter God. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of where God showed that He was angry with the people for living a life that was not pleasing to the Lord. Many people were homosexuals. Therefore, God destroyed the city in the end. Although this is a significant example from the Bible, I also believe that because the U.S. gives people freedom in these types of matters, it is the decision of the person to marry whom they please, whether the other person is of the same sex or not. We should not cast judgement on them. He (God) alone will do that in the end.
My reason for not really wanting gay marriage legalized is the Bible as well. Though, the more I work with people the more I come to realize that the current way that we are going about it is not helping. Protesting doesn't make more people want to vote against gay marriage for the most part, it just makes them believe that Christians will never accept gay people and this is a very bad image for the church to have as Jesus never failed to accept prostitutes and others that society didn't. I want to play the devil's advocate for a moment though, I'm not sure that something being against the Bible, it should also be outlawed because how can we hold those who do not serve Jesus as their Lord to the standard that He gave only to those who served Him as Lord. There was no instance that Jesus before forgiving someone's sins, which seems like conversion to me, asked them to stop sinning. How far would we take this anyways because lying is against the Bible, but could we outlaw that, so is disobeying your parents and many other similar things. So in a sense it seems we should stop trying to impose our standards on those who have never chosen to become part of the rule of God by accepting Jesus as their Lord. Instead, we should be out there showing people the love of Christ in our everyday lives and being willing to use our time and money to love people and also being willing to share Christ with them. The bottom line in my mind is if there is not a heart change, than all the laws in the world wouldn't really matter. So I agree with you that we should not cast judgment on people, but I also wanted to bring up a couple more points
To the economical and building/carpenters metaphors: neither of those examples even remotely compare to marriage. every marriage is different, whether same sex or not. Yardstick? a yardstick for marriage? That's like having a standard of height or shoe size or hair color that every person is supposed to fit. Its not possible, and its certainly not ideal.
To the argument itself, it seems unlikely that legalizing gay marriage will harm heterosexual marriage any more than some of the heterosexuals who get married already have. What makes marriage sacred is the love and commitment between two individuals, which is what it represents. when two married heterosexuals are not treating each other with love and respect, they are altogether failing to uphold the promise they made, and the sacredness of their marriage is already broken. There are probably a lot of gays and lesbians who would do a better job of being married than some heterosexuals.
All in all, a marriage is something that is made or broken by the two people participating in it. There is no reason that anyone's marriage should have any significant effect on anyone else's marriage.
While it's true that every marriage is different, that's not what the metaphor was referring to. It wasn't saying that every marriage should stand up to a standard, but rather that what a marriage IS should be consistent. That is, imagine people building a house but not even being able to agree on what a house is.
But that's really a smaller point; more importantly, you say it is unlikely that legalizing gay marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. The author's claim, however, is not unsubstantiated. Rather, he cites a Harvard sociologist who agrees with his claim. We are not the first nation in the world to deal with this issue by any means, and we have other examples to draw on.
You also say that what makes marriage sacred is the love and commitment, but I disagree. What makes marriage sacred is the symbol of godliness it represents. The love and commitment add to the beauty, but what truly makes marriage so special is the way that it reflects God and His relationship with His church. Marriage is not something made or broken by two people participating in it, instead it is three people, the third being God.
Finally, we do not live in a vacuum. Other people and their actions do impact us. We tend to be like those around us which is why the Bible cautions us about the company we keep. If public opinion about marriage changes, the sanctity will gradually disappear. Imagine trying to raise children who believe the Bible and having all the child's friends disagree with the values you try to instill. I do not like the idea. In the hope of more effectively raising my children to follow godly standards, I believe that homosexual marriages should not be legalized.
that stated no facts. its entirely built upon theorys and oppinions. if you want society as a whole to believe gay marriage is wrong then provide us with facts
The argument that same-sex marriage contracts devalue marriage is useless. Gay couples should not be married in churches, but no argument (none that I have heard, at least) against legal recognition and marriage benefits for same-sex couples is enough to show that gay marriage should be illegal . In my opinion, something should only be illegal if it infringes upon, or threatens to infringe upon, someone's fundamental rights.
Marriage is only as valuable as the couple makes it. No type of marriage can devalue another type. People who marry for the wrong reasons or who are unfaithful to their spouses are the ones devaluing marriage. Don't blame the gay people. The only people to blame for the high divorce rate are the people who are getting divorced. I believe that, by far, the biggest contributor to divorce is premarital sex . True love waits, and that is statistically supported.
John
Looking at most arguments made by those against homosexuality , the common argument is marriage is made for a man and woman to have children , and marriage is part of the religouse institute. Well, first off, those who are of an elderly age beyond their child bearing ages or even those who cannot have children are not granted marriage liscense just because they cannot procreate. Even some people get married with no intention of ever having children, and they are not denied a marriage liscense.
Second, yes marriage is part of the religouse institution, but in countries like America, it means absolutley nothing unless you have that piece of paper from the government certifying the marriage. Government, according to our first amendment , may not create laws that establish a religion . By denying Gays the rights to marry based on certain religiouse doctrines that say it is wrong , is not constitutional and is establishing religouse beleifs on others. Last but not least, lets keep in mind that not every religion out there says homosexuality is wrong.
Explain how gay marriage has hurt other country's to us. Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and so on....where is the destroyed economy ? Where is the Hell fire and brimstone blasting them all to hell? You cant can you. How does two people who love and cherish each other hurt your marriage ? It doesnt does it. And the key word here is Holy matrimony...What is holy about divorce?
Canada has had legalized gay marriage since 2005 and in most provinces since 2003...it's 2009 and Canada is still standing. My straight relatives in Canada are still married and feel perfectly secure in their marriages. God hasn't consumed the nation in pillars of flame...and quite frankly they're doing quite a bit better than we are.
How in the hell can gay marriage harm a traditional marriage ? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. I think that people aren't secure with their sexuality and they're scared. Honestly, it's about them, not us.
According to the Family Research Council, "A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage". So because homosexuality was not allowed one hundred years ago and same-sex marriage was the only right way that makes it the "yardstick" of tradition? Tradition is not always best. In many cases, with time comes knowledge and we are able to reform our ways for the better rather than relying on the beliefs of the past. It could be possible that in the next twenty years a new invention will replace the yardstick, even though now we can't see that possibility.
On a philosophical viewpoint here is why homosexuality is seen Biblically as wrong. Under the strict beliefs of the Catholic church, the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong. This argument would be valid to an audience who takes a firm stance on religious beliefs. Biblically speaking Gen. 2:24 is the only text which makes it clear that marriage, as intended by God, is for a male and a female. All other passages either alluding or referring to this are commentary in one form or another and presume heterosexuality as the gender basis for marriage in God's plan. For example, Matt 5:27-32; Matt 19:1-9; there are parallel passages in Mark and Luke; Ephesians 5:21-33. When the prophets (especially Hosea) use marriage as a metaphor or symbol to describe God's relationship with Israel, the heterosexuality of marriage is presumed.
In his commentary on Romans 1:26b-27, Brendan Byrne writes: "With respect to both female and male homosexual practice, the text points to an 'exchange' of the 'natural' form of (sexual) relations for that which is 'contrary to nature'. The language reflects the conventional Stoic sense of 'nature' as the established order of things. Central to that established order was dominance of male over female as far as gender relationships were concerned. Where ancient writers condemned same-sex relations, what they found offensive was the fact that such relations blurred the all-important distinction of gender role, inducing males to act as females and vice versa. The 'reduction' of the male to the female constituted a 'shame' contrary to nature. In the Jewish adaptation of such ideas reflected in this text a more theological note may also be present: such behavior is contrary to the design inserted into the natural order by the Creator."
Byrne mentions in a subsequent paragraph that the Letter to the Romans and the world then made no distinction between a homosexual orientation and the free choice made by some individuals to engage in homosexual genital relations. So we shall not find in Scripture any commentary on the orientation of homosexuality itself; just homosexual genital acts.
There is also 1 Timothy 1:10 which refers to male homosexuality.
Here is a link to a section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on homosexuality: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm #2357. The Catechism is a book in the Catholic religion that explains the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Catechism, homosexuality is forbidden. The teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: "All the baptized are called to chastity" (CCC, n.2348); "Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence" (CCC, n.2349); "... tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... Under no circumstance can they be approved" (CCC, n.2333); This means that under certain religious beliefs homosexuality is seen as a disorder.
I believe that homosexuals should not be able to marry because God created male and female to become one flesh despite their opposite genders. The genitals of both man and woman were made specifically for each other, and it is in God’s creation that he made them that way for a specific reason: procreation. Man and woman are supposed to populate the earth and beget children. Man and woman cleave to each other to become one, and that is a very spiritual thing to many religious people. Catholics believe that sexuality was designed by God as a sign of the love of Christ, the bridegroom, for his Bride, the Church, and therefore sexual activity is appropriate only in marriage. Catholic teaching holds that: “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.” (CCC, n.2360)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/HOMO.HTM . This sight is another reason why homosexuality is deemed as incorrect for marriage.
( This was from an interview I had done over the break with A Catholic priest on his opinion which I paraphrased.)I found quotes in the Bible to back his argument. This is meant for a religious based audience only. )
While the teachings of the Church are clear that homosexuality is unnatural, to make blanket statements that “the followers of the Catholic Church believe that homosexuality is wrong” is not only false, but, as a Catholic, one that I take personal offense to. The Church is one of the largest religious denominations in the world, among Christians and among all faiths, encompassing over one billion people. There are many faucets of Catholicism unique to the faith, but, even though public deviation is not well tolerated, dissent does occur, even in the church hierarchy. As for the faith of the laypeople, it is often a personal matter and faith does not necessary lay contingent on complete adherence to dogma, but rather the belief of at least the core principles of Catholicism.
I believe that is the will of God that we should respect other peoples’ religious beliefs, and that to join Church and State at any level would be to force, in this case, the Catholic faith upon all people of the United States. I think it is un-Christian and un-Catholic to do such a thing, and so I invite you to give a logical, not theological, argument against gay marriage.
Dear Monk,
I hope you understand where I was coming from. I paraphrased an opinion from someone that had opinion I thought was worthy to display as it showed diversity, and of course allows for some debate! Thank you, and I am sorry Monk, I hope you forgive me. Kabunky
And I am sorry that you took offense, it was not supposed to be offensive. I was only the interviewer! I took down his thoughts and then paraphrased them. kabunky
Cool. Believe whatever you want to believe, but the First Amendment does not give any religious institution the right to enforce its ideas and actions upon any other individuals.
In other words, all arguments regarding God, Christianity, etc. are moot.
What is “holy” matrimony? What is it that makes it so “holy”? I assume that to be “Holy” something most likely derives from a religious purview. So then, matrimony must be in line with our religious beliefs at some level. But even if we could widen the net and make a definition of marriage that is conciliatory with every religion, what about those people who have no religion? I hope we agree that the government cannot impress religious dogma or interfere with the religious reestablishment—but if an idea cannot be rationalized through anything other than religious, then it might as well be religious dogma, and therefore it cannot be imposed on the People. Would the Protestants be happy if Catholics prohibited meat on Lenten Fridays? What if Christians prohibited Muslim girls from wearing a headdress?
What exactly is the “fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female”? Now, I understand that the penis fits quite nicely into the vagina, and that copulation is usually effective for producing children. And I would not think it unreasonable that this is the product of evolution , or the hand of God. Yet, these design elements serve to carry on the human race—to say that man and woman should be together just because their genitals say they should is reading morality from an irrelevant biological function. Marriage is about love and happiness, and the only way the idea of gender complementariness could dictate marriage is if marriage was meant to produce children. I know some people believe that is a purpose to marriage, but this wouldn’t be America if the government dictated what kind of marriage even heterosexual people should have.
I believe this to be true because there are more obstacles to overcome to get married. Heteros are *expected* to get married, and will, at times, even when not prepared. When barriers to marriage are removed for same-sex couples, then it will even out.
The exessive divorce rate degrades the principal of marriage much more than two same-sex persons making (and keeping!) a commitment to each other. Every day it seems I am bombarded by a co-worker who is now going through a divorce.
Not to mention, that it is none of our buisness, and doesn't bother or hurt my marriage at all. My psyche is much more damaged by the heterosexual couples murdering each other plastered all over the news, than the pictures of other couples getting married. We all deserve the same happiness, and joy where we can find it.
The FRC presupposes that gay marriage is bad because it is "fake," then uses this assumption to state that such "fake" marriages harm other marriages. Then he/she states that because other marriages are harmed, gay marriage is bad, and thus fake. Circular reasoning is a common logical fallacy.
My marriage is living proof that the argument is false. I have many married gay friends, and their marriages give inspiration and strength to my (heterosexual) marriage.
The FRC metaphor of gay marriages being counterfeit $20 is inappropriate. I propose that that a better metaphor would liken gay marriages to the currency of another country. Like currencies, gay and heterosexual marriages are certainly different (sexuality, anatomy, gender relations, etc) but still essentially the same thing. Does printing more Canadian dollars hurt my wallet? Of course not.
"...no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived."
The Roman Empire only fell after it banned gay marriage.
Native American cultures used to have gay marriage but no longer do as a result of practices like, oh, the Spaniards setting dogs on them. The cultures still survive today, just in tiny numbers. It has nothing to do with their marriage practices and everything to do with having someone else come in and build an empire on top of them. The first hit were the Aztecs and Mayans, who did not accept homosexuality.
It seems to me that most of the confusion here has to do with the usage of the term "marriage" in both a legal and a religious sense. When you write "the real thing" here, I think you fall into that same trap. What defines the real thing? You mean marriage as a sacrament, or at least marriage as sanctioned by your religious framework.
My question to you: how do you feel about people outside of your religious community getting married? Their rules for marriage are different from yours (some slightly, some vastly). Do you think that anyone with a set of expectations for marriage that differ from yours is cheapening marriage for you and those like you? If so, what you are advocating is a ban on all marriages of people with other faiths. If not, you disagree with your own argument. Christian marriage is no more harmed by homosexuals being married than it is by Jews or Muslims getting married. (I could just as easily have written Catholic marriage vs. Methodist or Presbyterian, for that matter.)
I'd like to hear more on this. I understand why you feel that government-licensed marriage for same-sex couples would be a departure from tradition. But would government-licensed "civil unions" for same-sex couples harm your institution of marriage? What about the non-licensed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples that happen every day in America? Are you going to try to stop those?
It seems to me that when most people are asked about gay "marriages" they simple will not give. its seen as an assault on traditional religious ceremonies, in that a homosexual couple cannot, in the eyes of god , join in holy matrimony. but when the issue of civil unions arise its ok. i believe if your are a homosexual seeking marriage in the eyes of god thats a mockery to all things most americans hold dear, but when its being sought in the eyes of the government i have no problem with it. i am opposed to gay "marriage" but not to civil unions. most people define marriage as man and a woman joining in matrimony under the eyes of god, by this definition gay marriage is simply an oxymoron, a contradiction in and of itself. there simply cant be gay "marriage".
I seem to be a bit more committed than you are in my stance in that I am committed to marriage being between a man and a woman. I believe this due to my faith stance in being a follower of Jesus Christ. My question does arise however when thinking about heterosexual couples who marry that are not Christians and have a different set of beliefs. Would you then question their marriage? Or, is marraige "under God" defined as any heterosexual marrying, no matter their religious belief?
I do agree with the fact that homosexuals should have the right to all the incentives that heterosexuals do; I think every human should be entitled to this. I do not think that they should have a lower standard of living, nor do I think life should be made harder for them because they prefer their own sex.
Religions, especially those that are Christians, should not judge, meaning condemn, those who do not follow Jesus' teaching. We should be more concerned with loving them and accepting them for where they are at. Just like Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman, he told her where she was at--living with a man that was not her husband, after her other 5 husbands she had previously.
Jesus did not use the "personal attack" fallacy, he dealth with the issue of telling her there is eternal water in Him. I think it is important to point out Jesus rather than point out "sin" (I put "sin" in quotes because this is a term used in the Christian language that those outside this faith don't abide by or may not even consider a word).
In closing, our governments job is to make sure everyone has equal rights, therefore, as I said before, in agreement with your statement carndaddy09, homosexuals should not be negated civil unions for the purpose of being treated equally.
Jacn, I want to first start off by saying that I am in complete agreement with your post. I understand that as a Christian, our religion is for heterosexual marriages, not homosexual, which can make it really tricky as to how we should view homosexual marriage. On the one hand, I know it is not part of God's plan, but on the other hand, I feel it is wrong to dismiss people who are gay, or treat them like they are of lesser value. But, if "homosexuals should have the right to all the incentives that heterosexuals do", then how do you go about the topic of marriage. Like I said, it is very tricky because as Christians we are not to judge others but accept them and treat them the way we would want to be treated-- so what is the solution? I would love to get married one day, as do members of the same sex, and in that case how do we treat them the same then?
If homosexuals wanting to marry somehow makes a mockery of marriage because it "cannot join in holy matrimony", why not prevent marriage by others that are at odds with traditional religious beliefs? For example, All Non- Christians are damned in the eyes of God to eternal Hell (rejection of Christ). With this reasoning, we should not allow Non-Christians to marry in this country. Those that do not believe in the traditional role of Christ should be subject to a Constitutional Amendment barring them from marriage. Therefore, Jews, Muslims , Atheists,etc., are not Holy since they do not believe in Christ and are therefore making a mockery of marriage when they marry. Your reasoning is flawed since it is based on the perception that if you are not "Holy", you cannot marry.
What about those Christian Churches that marry homosexuals?
It's not that gays are living together. It's not about taxes or health insurance . Its not about a license. All anybody wants is that when gays get a license the clerk marks out marriage and writes civil union.
I partly agree. I believe they should be able to file taxes together and get all the legal benefits in theory off married couples. But should not be allowed to wed. In theory, but i think that we shouldn't open the door for any advance of the homosexual society , I am completely against it and think that it is evil. But so is a lot of stuff in society.
And what makes those things you think are evil, truly evil?
His religion says its evil
I'm hoping there's more to it than that, but I hope that hope about all people.
I'm a bit lost. Where is your evidence that gay marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage? The point is stated but not backed up or explained. The link provided doesn't actually include any justification for this argument either. All I can see offered is the "yardstick" metaphor, which doesn't really make sense. Yes, changing the definition of a meter (not "yardstick" which is not a defined measurement) would be a problem. It would be tough to know how long a yard is.
I don't see how that extrapolates to marriage... are you suggesting that if gays marry, heterosexual couples who've been married for years will not know if they're married or not anymore?
If anything, I think traditional marriage is harmed by the high divorce rate, green card marriages, Britney Spears getting married for a weekend, etc. Even then, how is any traditional "sacred" marriage harmed? If your marriage is sound, it will not be affected by the actions of other people.
Anyone who feels that gay marriage harms traditional marriage is surely an insecure person. We live in a fluid ever-changing world. Surely we must come to appreciate and accept the differences within each and every individual. Bigotry has its roots in the fear of the unfamiliar. As the unfamiliar becomes familiar, fear and hatred will dissipate. It took an extremely long time for this country to finally eliminate the miscegenation laws. Why can’t we just move forward in peace and harmony? If each one of us would simply concentrate on making sure that our own lives were decent and productive without trying to disrupt others’ lives, this world would be so much more peaceful and harmonious!
"man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage"
this is simply not true, as is evidenced by the many, many wives of certain rulers of antiquity. that too was considered "time-tested" in its day. the ultimate failure of many appeals to tradition--which this is--is that it seeks to artificially define one point in human history as the golden standard against which all other periods must be measured, but ignore previous such periods, which are usually in direct contradiction to such a decision, as even a cursory review of biblical genealogy will reveal.
the argument as presented amounts to little more than simple fearmongering about some cataclysimic consequences never actually identified yet which are somehow supposed to be inevitable. this has some admitted rhetorical force, but no logical force, because all actions have unforeseen consequences. this is known in some circles as chaos theory.