Same-Sex Marriage Revisited

The news came out the other day that the Obama administration was going to support the fight for the legalization of this type of union:

The Obama administration has taken another important step in its advocacy of same-sex marriage, weighing in on an important case to be heard in the US Supreme Court next month.

The essence of the administration’s argument is that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the US Constitution in defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman – specifically Section 3 of DOMA, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages in the granting of federal benefits including Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, insurance benefits for government employees, and filing joint tax returns

In their haste, the same-sex marriage supporters have ignored some important arguments against their quest and here are a few of them:

First, The Constitution of America (by the word ‘Constitution’ I am including the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence) does say that ‘all men are created equal’ but it does not say that all men receive the same benefits that society has to offer. A dog catcher is equal to the heart surgeon but no one in their right minds would pay the dog catcher a heart surgeon’s salary or vice versa.

Yes, they have equality but they do not have the same benefits. Thus though the homosexual is created equal with the heterosexual, the homosexual does not get to enjoy the same benefits that the heterosexual does. The homosexual has rejected the normal lifestyle, which includes marriage and child-rearing, by opting to pursue its perversion which means that they have chosen to reject those benefits that come with that normal lifestyle.

Their chosen path makes or offers NO provision for such benefits and there is no constitutional amendment or right that allows for their pursuit of those benefits that come with a normal lifestyle.

Second, we need a litmus test to judge the merits of granting the homosexual community (HC) the right to marry their same-sex partner. I use the word ‘partner’ because the word ‘mate’ does not hold up here.

I suggest 3 criteria to use to examine the HC’s desire to marry:

A. Does same-sex marriage meet the historical rule of ‘becoming one’ with their partner? Upon examination we see that those involved in same-sex unions just do not meet this criteria. Instead, they are just two halves from the same side and they are still missing the vital ingredients that come with marrying someone from the opposite side of the fence.

There is no union here, there is no ability to become 1 whole or complete unit. Something will always be missing.

B. Would same-sex unions contribute to society as a whole? No. If you put 100 heterosexual couples on one secluded island, 100 male same-sex unions on another, and 100 female same-sex unions on a third, and they are far enough apart that they cannot contact or flee to the other islands; then you checked back in about 10-50 years, which one would have made a significant contribution to society in order that it would survive?

Obviously, the heterosexual island would be the clear winner. Now many of the HC side would argue that reproduction is not a requisite for marriage but they would be wrong. Such arguments show the selfishness of the HC as they do not care about society as a whole or if it survives. They just want to practice their perversion.

C. Does love play a part in the HC’s desire to gain the right to marriage? They claim that they are loving couples and they want to spend their lives together, etc. BUT when you examine their arguments, it is not about loving couples being able to marry and freely love each other.

Underneath it all it is about money. Their arguments are about receiving the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. They are not about loving their partners, it is all about greed and what money they can obtain for themselves.

So I would disagree with the idea that their pursuit of same-sex marriage is about love. In fact, I think that argument is a smoke screen to hide their true motives; it is all about money and when it becomes about money love is tossed out the window very quickly. If it was about love then they would not be targeting the receipt of benefits, they would find ways to take care of their partners without forcing their views on others or receiving benefits.

When it is all said and done, the reality is that same-sex marriage does not qualify for inclusion into the institution of marriage. There is nothing noble about it or the conduct of the HC in their pursuit of this inclusion. In fact, the HC has shown that they will usurp the democratic process, the will of the people and that they are willing to abuse the legal system to get their way.

By ‘abuse’ I include the fact that they will seek out like-minded judges to rubber stamp their agenda and by-pass honesty, ethics, objectivity means to come to a fair and just decision. The HC does not care that the majority of people do not want same-sex marriage instituted, in fact they care very little about anything at all except getting their spoiled way.

They do not care that their desire will ruin society and bring destruction upon it. They do not care that their perversion is sin. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it and that tells the rest of us that they do not deserve the right to marry. They do not have the right attitude or motives.

I need to point out one thing

Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history,” the House brief says (from the link above)

If you do not want same-sex marriage legalized, you are going into a very difficult fight and if you are going to fight you will have a battle on your hands. You can’t give up at the slightest sign of defeat. The HC is ready to do battle and they have the money to finance a long war, they are committed to winning which means their opponents must be equally financed and equally committed.

Though the opponents of the HC demand for marriage rights have one force on their side that the homosexuals do not. They have God. Prayer is the first place to start. Pray for the supreme court justices that they will stand against this selfish demand, prayer for the Obama administration that they will see the error of their ways, pray that the congress will find the courage to fight against the HC demand for same-sex marriage.

Then ask God to help you write letters to all the above stating your opposition clearly, intelligently, and wisely. Rants will not work nor will unreasoned arguments. Then continue to follow God’s leading to fight this scourge because same-sex marriage brings nothing constructive to civilization.

The thing is, you can’t lie there and do nothing.


6 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage Revisited

  1. you are entitled to your wrong opinion but there is nothing historically, biblically or homosexually that allows for same-sex marriage. you close your mind to other people’s arguments because it is not what you want to hear. the homosexuality community may persuade 9 justices but they will not be able to persuade the most important Judge of all.

    human desires do not over-rule God’s laws. you may get to enjoy being married to your same-sex partner for a short time on earth but is that little enjoyment worth what you will face later? my wage point was an example which was on target. heterosexuals enjoy historical, biblical and sexual support for marriage, the homosexual has nothing to base their demands upon except sinful desires and that is not enough to build any union upon.

  2. you wrote:

    “First, The Constitution of America … does not say that all men receive the same benefits that society has to offer. A dog catcher is equal to the heart surgeon but no one in their right minds would pay the dog catcher a heart surgeon’s salary or vice versa…Thus though the homosexual is created equal with the heterosexual, the homosexual does not get to enjoy the same benefits that the heterosexual does. “

    As such, you were writing about the 14th amendment – or should have been. Because you bring up the subject of what equality the constitution does and does not provide, and the 14th amendment is the section of that document most relevant to that point. Its Equal Protection Clause says “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    And here’s my point. Your example of wages has no relevance to the question of marriage.

    Your example of wages represents something (in this example) clearly not provided by the state to its citizens. And as such, you are quite right in pointing out that the wage inequity probably does not violate the constitution – provided that the laws about wages apply equally to the dog catcher and the surgeon.

    But what if the law said that only white males were permitted to become surgeons? Such a law would not hold up to scrutiny under the 14th amendment, as it provides a protection to some citizens that it denies from others.

    Unlike wages, marriage DOES include protections of the law – the very thing that the 14th amendment is supposed to guarantee.

  3. The homosexual does not have God because in the OT called called their preference an abomination and in the NT he has given them over to their lusts. You and the HC are deludiing yourselves in this matter. Homosexualityis not of God and not from him either.

    The restof your comment simply demonstrates you di dnot grasp what was said or you do not want to hear the truth.

  4. 1) The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution.

    2) Your example of unequal wages does not apply, because their unequal wages are not imposed by law. (Rather, they are the result of the free markets). But in matter of the law, the Constitution (by which, I mean the Constitution), demands that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”.

    3) Likewise, your example of dividing people onto islands based on sexual orientation is inapt. Because society does not divide along these lines. We all form a single community. And the fact that every generation produces a certain percentage of homosexuals suggests a possible evolutionary advantage to our species by this outcome. If you’re serious about this question, you need to look at the advantages to the species that correlate with same-sex orientation. A couple of examples that science has suggested: the benefits to society of having members who are not competing for the opportunity to reproduce, the benefit to a family of having the additional resources/work/help to nurture and support the offspring of near relatives, a genetic adaption that boost female fecundity in mothers but increases the chances of bearing homosexual sons.

    4) Your ‘becoming one’ complaint is laughable. Same-sex couples become a single social unit in exactly the same way as opposite-sex couples. They unite their lives, their dreams, their aspirations, their households in exactly the same way as opposite-sex couples. Their bodies may not join in all of the same ways, but their lives do. Its hard to take you seriously when you try to equate marriage to a sexual act that is anything but unique to marriage. You are aware that unmarried folk ‘becoming one’ through the sexual act you infer. That doe not make them married.(Likewise, people do not automatically become unmarried if they do not engage in this act).

    Marriage is a relationship. Sex is an activity. You are conflating the two.

    5) The homosexuals ALSO have God. The same God that created you also created me, for his purpose. Weird to see a “religious” complaint about something God put in place in the first place!

Comments are closed.