"How will my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?"
“Your same-sex marriage will do nothing to impact my marriage. But your marriage is not what we’re debating in our nation. We are debating whether it is wise to radically and permanently redefine marriage in our nation for everyone. And that is quite significant indeed.” Why not legalize gay ‘marriage’? (part 1)
Good article.
When you introduce another construct of an institution, here the divine institution of marriage,which is in opposition to its integrity, you indeed impact the marriages of others. Homosexual marriage removes the divine construct of the commanding officer being the male and the executive officer being the female and their roles being inextricably linked not just to the offices themselves but to their genders.
Homosexual marriages teaches and examples “another” consideration which is in opposition to God’s design. Its existence and acceptance says, “rejection of God’s fundamental construct is acceptable”. Thus, the impact is a seductive implication that the male headship is to be questioned if not removed and another form(s) of marital government introduced. In fact, it can and has gone as far as socially establishing a form of hatred and classification of “bigotry” toward true marriage of man and woman and its appropriate form of government.
It is naive to imagine that homosexuality and all of its perverted expressions when socially embraced do not have an impact on valid institution, particularly divine ones but as well, human ones which are based on sound principles. It may not always be direct but it has its impact.
When you introduce another construct of an institution, here the divine institution of marriage,which is in opposition to its integrity, you indeed impact the marriages of others. Homosexual marriage removes the divine construct of the commanding officer being the male and the executive officer being the female and their roles being inextricably linked not just to the offices themselves but to their genders.
Homosexual marriages teaches and examples “another” consideration which is in opposition to God’s design. Its existence and acceptance says, “rejection of God’s fundamental construct is acceptable”. Thus, the impact is a seductive implication that the male headship is to be questioned if not removed and another form(s) of marital government introduced. In fact, it can and has gone as far as socially establishing a form of hatred and classification of “bigotry” toward true marriage of man and woman and its appropriate form of government.
It is naive to imagine that homosexuality and all of its perverted expressions when socially embraced do not have an impact on valid institution, particularly divine ones but as well, human ones which are based on sound principles. It may not always be direct but it has its impact.
Alex,
Your comments are always thought-provoking. I can’t help wonder, in this case, if there isn’t inconsistency between this post about homosexual marriage, and your subsequent one relating to a law banning teachers from having sex with students.
The foundation of your homosexual marriage opinion is largely, and correctly based upon Biblical teaching regarding marriage. Your teacher/pupil opinion seems to omit that dimension entirely. Since the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage, why shouldn’t the state ban sex between a teacher and student, unless they are legally married?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
Your comments are always thought-provoking. I can’t help wonder, in this case, if there isn’t inconsistency between this post about homosexual marriage, and your subsequent one relating to a law banning teachers from having sex with students.
The foundation of your homosexual marriage opinion is largely, and correctly based upon Biblical teaching regarding marriage. Your teacher/pupil opinion seems to omit that dimension entirely. Since the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage, why shouldn’t the state ban sex between a teacher and student, unless they are legally married?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Alex,One is a comment on the impact of something, the other is on its legality. But let me be more comprehensive and if you have further questions then it can be based on more information.
Your comments are always thought-provoking. I can’t help wonder, in this case, if there isn’t inconsistency between this post about homosexual marriage, and your subsequent one relating to a law banning teachers from having sex with students.
The foundation of your homosexual marriage opinion is largely, and correctly based upon Biblical teaching regarding marriage. Your teacher/pupil opinion seems to omit that dimension entirely. Since the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage, why shouldn’t the state ban sex between a teacher and student, unless they are legally married?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
1. Homosexuality is not only immoral but it is a perversion of normal sexual order. And an attempt to establish a marriage based on homosexuality is an amplification of that perversion. Both are always in direct opposition to God and the basis for the perpetuity of mankind and his social order. They are an attack upon God’s construct of the institution of marriage as well as normal sexual function. Hence they should be retained, in the least, as legally impotent.
2. Teacher/pupil marriages between legally consenting m/f parties is not addressed in Scripture as immoral, hence the authority to view it as illegal by way of moral consideration is not present.
3. As to sexual activity between unmarried legally consenting m/f parties, it is always sinful (fornication). And worse, if one or both of the parties is married, it is adultery. Both are immoral.
4. Unmarried m/f legally consenting fornicators may remedy their status as fornicators by marrying. Their immoral fornication status is removed via marriage. Homosexuals cannot remedy their perversion via marriage.
This is why laws regarding m/f sexual activity between legally consenting adults differs from that of homosexuals throughout history and one with which I agree . Often m/f fornication is a prelude to marriage and though not sexually moral it is not perverse as homosexuality is, hence there exists legal differences and treatment.
Hope that helps.
Alex,
Thanks for the explanation. I understand your reasoning, and am happy to leave it there.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
I would also see law banning same sex marriage as a diff. kind of case than a law banning fornication, as in that other case.
Why…
1. Marriage is social institution (as well as a religious one) that western societies (and most others as well) have recognized in law for thousands of years
2. Long-standing legal tradition (as well as religious conviction) has limited it to one man and one woman
3. “Gay marriage” is part of a progressive social agenda that defines human progress (societal evolution) in terms of breaking free of the past and reinventing things. This philosophy is pure poison to civilization.
So, to me it doesn’t have to do with nature of homosexuality vs. generic fornication but rather has to do with the long-standing relationship between law and marriage and also with beliefs about “progress” that are actually decline.
Why…
1. Marriage is social institution (as well as a religious one) that western societies (and most others as well) have recognized in law for thousands of years
2. Long-standing legal tradition (as well as religious conviction) has limited it to one man and one woman
3. “Gay marriage” is part of a progressive social agenda that defines human progress (societal evolution) in terms of breaking free of the past and reinventing things. This philosophy is pure poison to civilization.
So, to me it doesn’t have to do with nature of homosexuality vs. generic fornication but rather has to do with the long-standing relationship between law and marriage and also with beliefs about “progress” that are actually decline.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion