A recent poll in New Zealand asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Most (60%) answered yes. Strictly speaking, I might answer yes as well - but if I were allowed to clarify, I would say that any man or woman ought to be able to marry as long as we're talking normal definitions where man marries a woman and vice-versa, otherwise it's not marriage.
However, if the question included the words "each other", I'd then have to say no instead, as the question would then become oxymoronic rather than just ambiguous. Marriage is not marriage unless it is made up of a man and a woman, so two men or two women could never marry each other, because then it's not marriage
So now we get into major difficulty. In order for marriage to occur between two people of the same-sex, marriage as we know it would have to be abolished and replaced with something different, such as maybe just a union of romantic partners. I wonder how many people would have said yes to a different question, such as: "Should marriage be abolished and replaced with a romantic partnership agreement?" I would guess that many would be left scratching their heads at such a question, maybe wondering why such a thing should be done when we have civil unions already.
Why indeed. Archbishop Fulton Sheen answered that question - evil needs company. Those who promote something that is evil never feel completely right about it by themselves, they need everyone else doing it too. Mere tolerance isn't enough, it needs to be total acceptance to the point where the intent of marriage in this case has to be destroyed and replaced with something counterfeit. And those who suffer disprotionately will be children who are no longer going to be an implicit result of marriage, and women who will be left with the children by men who tire of them because the romance has gone. Men will no longer be expected to look after their families for life. Oh wait, that happens now...
This poll result wouldn't have been possible if the majority of people in New Zealand knew what marriage was for. But sexual liberalism has been running rampant for decades now, and done it's dirty work of changing minds and hearts, which has now paved the way for the abolition of marriage. Given that politicians need to prove their liberal credentials with a sacrifice at the alter of sexual libertinism, I guess this won't be far away.
One of the problems we have in the West right now is that we think we can define our own reality. We say, marriage is no longer between a man and a woman - it is between two people of either sex, and we think we can make it so. Our Post Christian nationas have abolished God and seek to act in His place.
Enter "same-sex marriage", it takes out both Christianity and family in one strike.
What will happen if marriage is abolished? Will the world end? No, but the State that does so effectively signs it's own death warrant, to be executed in a couple of generations as everything slowly disintegrates, looking a bit like that scene in one of the Star Gate episodes when everything was being pulled ever so slowly into a black hole. Only we won't know that we are trapped in the black hole's gravity field until it's too late, and then the State won't be able to save us anymore because it was the first thing pulled into the black hole, and then we'll go back to God. So, I suppose it will end well, just creating a lot of unnecessary casualties along the way.
Related links: Same sex marriage ~ Kiwiblog
The Audacity of the State ~ Touchstone
Essential reading: Sex and the Empire State ~ National Review
However, if the question included the words "each other", I'd then have to say no instead, as the question would then become oxymoronic rather than just ambiguous. Marriage is not marriage unless it is made up of a man and a woman, so two men or two women could never marry each other, because then it's not marriage
So now we get into major difficulty. In order for marriage to occur between two people of the same-sex, marriage as we know it would have to be abolished and replaced with something different, such as maybe just a union of romantic partners. I wonder how many people would have said yes to a different question, such as: "Should marriage be abolished and replaced with a romantic partnership agreement?" I would guess that many would be left scratching their heads at such a question, maybe wondering why such a thing should be done when we have civil unions already.
Why indeed. Archbishop Fulton Sheen answered that question - evil needs company. Those who promote something that is evil never feel completely right about it by themselves, they need everyone else doing it too. Mere tolerance isn't enough, it needs to be total acceptance to the point where the intent of marriage in this case has to be destroyed and replaced with something counterfeit. And those who suffer disprotionately will be children who are no longer going to be an implicit result of marriage, and women who will be left with the children by men who tire of them because the romance has gone. Men will no longer be expected to look after their families for life. Oh wait, that happens now...
This poll result wouldn't have been possible if the majority of people in New Zealand knew what marriage was for. But sexual liberalism has been running rampant for decades now, and done it's dirty work of changing minds and hearts, which has now paved the way for the abolition of marriage. Given that politicians need to prove their liberal credentials with a sacrifice at the alter of sexual libertinism, I guess this won't be far away.
One of the problems we have in the West right now is that we think we can define our own reality. We say, marriage is no longer between a man and a woman - it is between two people of either sex, and we think we can make it so. Our Post Christian nationas have abolished God and seek to act in His place.
Western society has done away with Christian theology (I do not say, all theology) as a matter of public and political relevance. And so it has. But that has opened the field to would-be saviors and utopians of every stripe. It has made possible the return of the savior state—the audacious state that aims at building a kingdom of God right here on earth.Rather than God saving us, our Government (who knows no limit) will save us instead. But only when the last bit of interference is removed.
Tyranny can nowhere succeed without pulling down the two most prominent pillars of political freedom, the pillars that have always provided for a roof or shield over the individual and his conscience. One pillar is the natural family unit; the other is the religious community. Of course, these pillars are not everywhere equally strong or upright. They may themselves be transformed into instruments of tyranny by this or that form of idolatry. But they are pillars for the simple reason that they do not concede to the audacious and immodest state the total authority it craves.
The natural family unit confronts the state as an entity that claims rights not granted by the state but brought to it—rights the lawful state is obliged to recognize and respect. The religious community likewise claims rights and liberties that derive from a source other than the state, a source that transcends and relativizes the state.
Enter "same-sex marriage", it takes out both Christianity and family in one strike.
Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artifact.
What will happen if marriage is abolished? Will the world end? No, but the State that does so effectively signs it's own death warrant, to be executed in a couple of generations as everything slowly disintegrates, looking a bit like that scene in one of the Star Gate episodes when everything was being pulled ever so slowly into a black hole. Only we won't know that we are trapped in the black hole's gravity field until it's too late, and then the State won't be able to save us anymore because it was the first thing pulled into the black hole, and then we'll go back to God. So, I suppose it will end well, just creating a lot of unnecessary casualties along the way.
Related links: Same sex marriage ~ Kiwiblog
The Audacity of the State ~ Touchstone
Essential reading: Sex and the Empire State ~ National Review
If you think merely having a non-church marriage makes people "chattels of the state," I'd be interested to hear how you view your birth certificate, passport and IRD number.
ReplyDeletePM,
ReplyDeleteThat's not what my post says. Swap your "non-church wedding" with "same-sex marriage" and then go read the Audacity of the State link.
Still applies. The state is as entitled to define marriage as it is to define citizenship. In any case, your man Farrow isn't arguing that the state should have no place in defining marriage, he just wants it to endorse only his definition.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, a guy who'd like contraception and divorce banned isn't really in a position to complain about the state getting involved in marriage - he's merely annoyed that it's not getting involved in the way he'd like.
PM,
ReplyDeleteThis is what my man Farrow says on what right the State has to define marriage when he talks about the natural family unit - ie, no right at all.
The natural family unit confronts the state as an entity that claims rights not granted by the state but brought to it—rights the lawful state is obliged to recognize and respect.
In any case, a guy who'd like contraception and divorce banned isn't really in a position to complain about the state getting involved in marriage...
Au contraire, PM. Contraception increases divorce which increases the breakdown of marriage and family, all of which the State is legalising and encouraging. The State is actively interfering in the family, rather than supporting it, and in doing so will in the next couple of generations (short of divine intervention) ensure it's own demise.
Any person who sees a state as necessary is conscience bound to speak up, even if most people don't want to hear because it will interfere with how they want to live their lives.