What is marriage? As traditionally defined:
mar·riage – [mar-ij] – noun
“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Mark 10:6-8
Throughout history marriage has been something that is considered an important part of society. It is the binding of two people of the opposite sex. This couple has plans to share their lives together and in most cases, raise a family.
The discussion about same sex marriage is not a battle of equality, but a fight for control. There is no such thing as perfect equality– it is impossible because nothing in this world is ever perfectly equal. To say perfect equality exists is an emotional argument. What we will see should same sex marriage be legalized is the injection of same sex marriage into our society with a strong force behind it.
Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Anything more or less is a different kind of relationship and not marriage. Two female electric plugs will never fit together and two male electric plugs will never fit together. You can tie ’em together, but the fact will never change that they were not made to be together. Even two non-working electric plugs (male and female) join together because they were made to join. Everyone identifies him/herself as one gender or the other from birth. Though some may not have the ability to have offspring, all are either from one sex or the other. The joining of two opposites to create ONE.
While some who live these alternative lifestyles are kind and good people, others are on a course to redefine our society and every point of life which is (or once was) focused around the traditional family and the home. Take children for instance and the life of our kids. While in today’s culture there are many single parent homes and kids who do not know what having a father means, imagine what it will be like when a significant portion of our children are going to school with kids who have ‘two moms’ or ‘two dads’ and the public school system is encouraging our kids to live and accept this lifestyle. Another form of inadequate home life will not help. If I am going to bake a cake, but keep the dry ingredients separate from the wet doubling the dry will not help solve the problem because the other important ingredients are still missing. We still do not have a cake! While religions often grow by having kids, the chemistry doesn’t work right for homosexuals who are forced to recruit, often at the expense of forcing us to accept their behavior and lifestyle as normal and even a good choice. They see what we have and wish to destroy.
After childhood abuse led Lisa Miller into a dysfunctional life of addictions and homosexuality, she experienced a change of heart, converted to Christianity and left the homosexual lifestyle, in which she had lived as “spouse” to another lesbian woman, Janet Jenkins. During their same-sex “civil union,” Miller had given birth to a daughter, Isabella, conceived through artificial insemination. As a new Christian, Lisa Miller’s all-consuming focus in life was to be a good mother to Isabella. However, after a Vermont judge demanded that Lisa allow her former lesbian partner, Janet Jenkins, to have unsupervised visits with little Isabella, Lisa’s nightmare – which continues to this day – got its start.
According to the testimony of experts and eyewitnesses, the court-ordered visits were severely traumatizing the child, and Isabella’s court-appointed advocate said Jenkins was “turn[ing] her world upside down.” A clinical therapist testified Isabella appeared “traumatized” by her visits with Jenkins, and that “unsupervised visits … could cause permanent damage to normal development.”
A social worker testified the little girl “suffers from sleep disturbance and nightmares, having difficulty sleeping through the night,” adding that “Isabella also talks about death, and has expressed fear that if her mother Lisa dies she will be at risk. Without prompting, Isabella has said she is afraid that Janet Jenkins may take her away from Lisa.”
Worse, Lisa Miller told the court her child had referred to being forced to bathe naked with Jenkins, had begun to touch herself sexually and appeared disturbed and unhappy following visits, according a report by LifeSiteNews, which links to four court affidavits by social workers, therapists and others.
Do we want the above to be ‘normal’? Do we truly need complications such as this where child is used as a pawn to control and push an agenda?
Things that are different are not the same. If we want government out of our lives and out of our bedroom do not seek or support the redefinition of marriage. It will only lead to a society filled with chaos. There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, therefore the government has no authority to change what has been a definition since our nation’s founding.
I am not trying to speak against individuals who hold these beliefs or live this lifestyle. I am simply stating some facts that should be considered. There are some great people in the LGBTQ community and showing compassion should be a part of every person’s outlook. We can and must get along with them. There is simply a disagreement on choice of lifestyle. We are all free to do what they will in their homes, nobody wants to change that. Rejecting the chosen lifestyle of members of the LGBTQ community does not mean one is rejecting them as persons. It is possible to both disagree with them, but interact and seek to encourage these people to return to nature’s design.
2 thoughts on “Marriage: Pillar of Society? Or…”
You state that you don’t believe the government should “legislate morality”, but they do so every day. When the made the law that punishes murder, robbery, rape, etc., that’s legislating morality. The Bible first said it was wrong before any of our laws were written. “Thou shalt not murder” is in the Top Ten List from GOD Himself; thus it’s a moral law. Lying (i.e. perjury) is against the law, and that’s against GOD’s laws, thus it’s legislating morality. In fact, any law that says that you cannot do “X” action is a law that legislates morality. It tries to force a certain kind of “good” behavior. Embezzlement (“Thou shalt not steel”), speeding (“render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”), abortion (whether condoning or condemning: both are legislating morality — or rather, immorality). There is no such thing as a law that is written to control actions that does not legislate morality when you think about it.
Some people pushing for “same sex marriage” are using the legal argument. I heard on Rush today someone who called in and said that they had to have “same sex marriage” because of the fact that right now they couldn’t inherit, nor could they visit their partner in the hospital. There are ways to fix those problems via estate planning and a legal advisor can file legal documents.
Living wills and powers of attorney will fix the visitation problems: a hospital cannot prevent a legal representative of the patient from visiting, will they? The inheritance problem is fixed via a living trust. Our house is in our living trust and our boys will get it when we’re both gone: without paying inheritance taxes on it. So their legal excuses are nullified and voided via a visit to an estate planning attorney and some paperwork.
What the supporters of “same sex marriage” (note the quotation marks) don’t seem to realize is that theirs will never BE a “Marriage” as per se. Their union will be a fraudulent, mockery of; a mere mimicking of marriage, but it will never be a marriage because GOD defined marriage long before the U.S. of A. was ever even dreamed of by man. That means GOD defined marriage — as you pointed out with your Genesis quote — and no matter what MAN says about it, nor how they try to change it, it will still not be the same. As you so elequently pointed out: the dry ingredients doubled don’t make a cake.
I believe that that is the point for the homosexual world, though. If they wanted marriage they would choose to marry someone of the opposite gender. They, instead, force the issue, demanding that we accept their faux version, their weak immitation, and that their manmade (or womanmade: humanmade?) definitions be applied to something they have no jurisdiction over. Take something from GOD and it becomes dust running through the fingers; not even a mirror image of what HE has created. For a mirror image is just that: an image, not the real thing. It is no more capable of producing happiness for “same sex couples” than the mirror image is of showing an image of a person without the person in front of it. Only GOD can create what HE has created and man’s weak, smoke and mirrors imitations will only lead to more dissatisfaction.
Maybe that’s the point. Maybe in demanding “marriage” if they receive that definition and get to live with it for a while the dissatisfaction will set in and then they’ll demand the end of the institution altogether. Maybe marriage will no longer be the an option any of us will be able to choose after twenty years of “same sex marriage” because after they find out it doesn’t make them happy, they’ll want to end the whole thing. Will they go to the SCOTUS for that, too?
What they forget — or never realized in the first place — is that homosexual rights were not infringed upon (as stated above, there are estate planning actions they can take to ensure them), and their “happiness” does not come from being “married“. Happiness comes from GOD and knowing and serving Him. If they want to be “married” to be happy, then they’re barking up the wrong tree and serving the wrong GOD. Marriage — no matter to whom — does not guarantee happiness, nor any other blessing. As a woman who has been married to the same man for over thirty-five years, we’ve seen our fair share of good and bad times and stuck it out through thick and thin. So I know a little whereof I speak.
What the homosexual community needs to consider is if the SCOTUS does not grant them the right to have a legal “marriage” what is next? Will they be happy with “Civil Unions”, or something similar, and use estate planning to solve their inheritance issues, or will they try to force the too big foot into the Cinderella shoe another way? What will be the next step? And as they’re planning their next step, the heterosexual world needs to be prepared for all hades to let loose. If I know anything about liberals (and most homosexuals are admittedly liberals), it’s that they don’t give up after one defeat. Gird thy loins.
Thank you for the reply. I truly agree with you– excellent points made regarding the ‘legislate morality’ term. If SSM is legalized we shall never be the same.
God help us!