defending marriage

[lenseekstruth]

Somebody made the argument on FB," why do we think that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage when so many people, and here are names of famous people and how they destroyed their marriage, are doing a very good jof destroying the institution"? I am trying to post something in defense of marriage, show me the “holes” in this argument:
Humans are sinners and will always manage to mess up things, but that doesn’t mean that we should change an institution that for thousand of years has meant “a man and a woman that, through the marital embrace can bring forth a child” That is the only union that can procreate and deserves a special name,“MARRIAGE”.

 

[Samuel63]

Yes, marriage as an institution is very fragile. It has been abused mostly by heterosexual couples that decide to divorce, mostly for convenience. For this reason alone, marriage just does not mean anything today to society. There are traditional couples that value marriage, sure, but society has eroded the structure of marriage for too long. It is very weak, possibly terminal.

Add to this, the real possibility that marriage will be redefined to include homosexual couples. This is a critical acceptance by society to jettison the traditional view of marriage. It is like pulling the plug on the live but terminal patient.

Some want to protect marriage because they are fostering hope that marriage in its original and pure form will survive somehow. This “somehow” will be by the grace of God and may require our effort and prayer.

Our survival depends on it.

 

[karebear92]

Somebody made the argument on FB," why do we think that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by gay marriage when so many people, and here are names of famous people and how they destroyed their marriage, are doing a very good jof destroying the institution"? I am trying to post something in defense of marriage, show me the “holes” in this argument:
Humans are sinners and will always manage to mess up things, but that doesn’t mean that we should change an institution that for thousand of years has meant “a man and a woman that, through the marital embrace can bring forth a child” That is the only union that can procreate and deserves a special name,“MARRIAGE”.

It is true that people such as Kim Kardashian destroy the institution of marriage, but the difference is they do fit within the natural institution of marriage while same sex couples do not.

This is an argument I have used in the past:

Natural marriage exists and has existed since the beginning of the human race. As monogamous creatures, two individuals would join together (often but not necessarily in a ceremony) and become one entity, if you will, both working towards a common purpose in procreating and raising children. Since the human species takes years to reach maturity, it is only reasonable to conclude that we are monogamous for that purpose (you have to keep it secular or they will dismiss it). The human species has developed culturally since then, and obviously the institution of marriage has been culturally adapted in many ways to reflect that, but since the adaptations (such as the introduction or understanding of love) did not directly contradict the original meaning and purpose of marriage, one cannot say that it redefined marriage. One can still be married without love.

But one cannot separate marriage from its original meaning and purpose, as it naturally exists as a natural institution. To change it would be akin to changing the meaning of humanity, which naturally exists. If one says that a natural institution adapts to culture, then one must also say that natural definitions must also adapt to culture, which puts one in a place where they have to defend why certain natural laws are unchangeable. For example, one cannot say that slavery was moral because the institution was adapted to fit the culture. Rather, one must agree that the definition of humanity has always been that all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, are equal, and that slave owners were wrong. So you can argue that the institution of marriage has always been wrong until it is changed to include whatever you wish for it to include. But then I argue that it is a natural institution tied to but not necessarily dependent upon unity and procreation (meaning that it isn’t dependent upon two people successfully having children but working towards the goal of natural procreation) with unity not only in their natural purpose together, but also united in giving themselves entirely to their spouse for the purpose of procreation and unity, which cannot be separated. If you separate it from the purpose, then they are no longer united in purpose. In other words, in my opinion, same sex marriage completely contradicts both purposes of natural marriage.

So, if you accept the concept of natural marriage that I presented, then you must agree that it would be redefining marriage by separating it from its purpose. Therefore, if one begins to redefine marriage, one must make a new line of differentiation. Which is where the slippery slope argument comes into play. I will admit that I have copied and pasted this from previous posts but they are entirely my own words

First, I am not commenting at all on how people live. I am strictly saying that the institution of marriage is, in my opinion, what I stated in my first post. I personally believe sexual acts with someone of the same gender is wrong, but I am not saying anything regarding that. I am strictly saying that same-sex couples can’t engage in marriage without changing the definition of marriage, which then contradicts what marriage has always been.

 

[Pahlavan]

Marriage is a reality that societies and their governments recognize; they do not “institute” it since the “pair bond” of one male and one female predates all but the most primitive of human groupings.

That marriage is what it is can best be proved by its essential commonality across the earth. Yes, there are exceptions, but they represent aberrations rather than proof against marriage. For example, although Islam permits polygamy, it is relatively rare if one counts the monogamous marriages vs the polygamist marriages.

Even in nations ruled by atheists, marriage is still the norm. Think about it - in North Korea, as atheistic a nation as exists, marriage is still the norm - even considering the decades long repression, poverty, and famine. In fact, I believe that a close study would demonstrate that marriage is central to the ability of North Koreans to endure their many hardships.

So, marriage is what marriage is - a union of one man and one woman. One cannot merely decide to “redefine” something that has a reality. We could call marriage by any other name, but its reality would still be what it is.

Marriage is the only institution that provides for the ongoing existence of a culture by replacing its population. Societies, through their governments, develop public policy to encourage marriage as a vehicle of self-preservation. A culture that cannot replace itself is a dead culture. Sane societies do not promote suicide pacts!

 

[timotheos]

Is marriage simply a reflection of those who are or wish to be married? Some erroneously say yes.

Is Christianity simply a reflection of those who call themselves Christians? Again, some erroneously say yes.

The defense of marriage is intrinsically tied to defense of the faith. And when you think about it, it only makes sense. Cut the reality of God out of the equation, and you can’t do a great job of defending anything of moral nature.

 

[karebear92]

Is marriage simply a reflection of those who are or wish to be married? Some erroneously say yes.

Is Christianity simply a reflection of those who call themselves Christians? Again, some erroneously say yes.

The defense of marriage is intrinsically tied to defense of the faith. And when you think about it, it only makes sense. Cut the reality of God out of the equation, and you can’t do a great job of defending anything of moral nature.

I completely agree with this. Unfortunately, however, at least in America, as soon as you say faith or God, your argument immediately becomes invalid. It is the unfortunate truth of this country, and it makes me quite worried about the future of this country–this world.

 

[rossum]

Humans are sinners and will always manage to mess up things, but that doesn’t mean that we should change an institution that for thousand of years has meant “a man and a woman that, through the marital embrace can bring forth a child” That is the only union that can procreate and deserves a special name,“MARRIAGE”.

Bear in mind that there is no single historical view of marriage. Depending on what legal jurisdiction you live under, and what religion you follow, there are different meanings to “marriage”. For example, civil marriage in America recognises divorce, while Catholic marriage in America does not recognise divorce. That is two different definitions of marriage already.

Marriage is not a single well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.

• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

Changes in marriage are not new.

rossum

 

[lenseekstruth]

TO ROSSUM
An essential part of marriage has to be procreation, otherwise is anything but marriage. Only a man and a woman have the ability to unite their bodies, the sperm and ovum, and procreate. In ancient times polygamy was the norm because it was necessary in order to populate the world, and the death rate was very high, but as societies became more civilized laws put certain restrictions on marriage, but did not change the purpose of unity and procreation . Gay marriage does change that purpose, and that is why it should be given a different name , because it’s an all together different thing, two males or two females cannot procreate. If a car does not have an engine and can run only if pulled by another car it cannot be called a car because it does not fulfill the purpose that it was created for.

 

[rossum]

TO ROSSUM
An essential part of marriage has to be procreation, otherwise is anything but marriage.

So infertile people, whether due to illness or age, cannot get married? I can’t say I have seen that as a common rule anywhere. Are you sure you are right here? Are there laws forcing fertile but childless couples to have at least one child? Again, I am not aware of any historical precedent.

My point is that the definition of what is, and what is not, a marriage has changed over time and with geography. There is not one single “marriage”, but many differing things that are subsumed under the same description.

rossum

 

[Barbkw]

Children are the issue. People in marriage raise society’s children.

The homosexual agenda wants people to believe that same sex attraction is genetic and not learned.

However, studies now are proving, that children raised by homosexual couples, develop same sex attraction at a far greater rate than children raised by heterosexual parents.

When same sex attracted children become conditioned by a society which has normalized homosexual activities, these children then embrace the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[lenseekstruth]

So infertile people, whether due to illness or age, cannot get married? I can’t say I have seen that as a common rule anywhere. Are you sure you are right here? Are there laws forcing fertile but childless couples to have at least one child? Again, I am not aware of any historical precedent.

My point is that the definition of what is, and what is not, a marriage has changed over time and with geography. There is not one single “marriage”, but many differing things that are subsumed under the same description.

rossum

Infertile couples still have the potential for procreation, as a person who’s paralyzed, for example still has the legs, but because of illness cannot walk, future discoveries could bring changes to both the infertile couple or the paralyzed person, or even a couple that does not want children could change their mind…but they all have the potential IE. the necessary parts to procreate.

 

[rossum]

Infertile couples still have the potential for procreation, as a person who’s paralyzed, for example still has the legs, but because of illness cannot walk, future discoveries could bring changes to both the infertile couple or the paralyzed person, or even a couple that does not want children could change their mind…but they all have the potential IE. the necessary parts to procreate.

Potential is not actual. What of men who have had orchidectomies or women who have had hysterectomies? I do not remember any law saying that such people cannot get married.

If you are going to allow the possible advances of modern science in future to affect the definition of marriage in the present, then it is also possible that in future science will allow lesbian couples to have their own baby together. I agree that it might be more difficult for a male couple to have a baby, but your “what if in the future…” looks very weak against female-female marriage.

Again, I reiterate that marriage is not a single entity, but a number of different arrangements gathered under the same name.

rossum

 

[Nate13]

Potential is not actual. What of men who have had orchidectomies or women who have had hysterectomies? I do not remember any law saying that such people cannot get married.

If you are going to allow the possible advances of modern science in future to affect the definition of marriage in the present, then it is also possible that in future science will allow lesbian couples to have their own baby together. I agree that it might be more difficult for a male couple to have a baby, but your “what if in the future…” looks very weak against female-female marriage.

Again, I reiterate that marriage is not a single entity, but a number of different arrangements gathered under the same name.

rossum

It’s simple though we are talking about the inherent nature of a person, male or female. You can slice and dice all the parts you want but the inherent nature of a person does not change. If someone is born barren that does not change a thing. The nature of a female person is to be fertile and able to have children. In this way marriage is a single entity. Male with unchangeable nature + female with unchangeable nature = marriage.

Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it
John Locke

 

[lenseekstruth]

Potential is not actual. What of men who have had orchidectomies or women who have had hysterectomies? I do not remember any law saying that such people cannot get married.

If you are going to allow the possible advances of modern science in future to affect the definition of marriage in the present, then it is also possible that in future science will allow lesbian couples to have their own baby together. I agree that it might be more difficult for a male couple to have a baby, but your “what if in the future…” looks very weak against female-female marriage.

Again, I reiterate that marriage is not a single entity, but a number of different arrangements gathered under the same name.

rossum

There exist hundreds of reasons why couples who have sperm and ovum, or ovaries and testicles, cannot procreate, that is an aberration of the norm, but they are male and female, and in normal circumstances they would be able to conceive. It will take an awful lot more than improvements in medicine to make gay couples procreate on their own, write back when that happens and I will agree with you!

 

[lenseekstruth]

It’s simple though we are talking about the inherent nature of a person, male or female. You can slice and dice all the parts you want but the inherent nature of a person does not change. If someone is born barren that does not change a thing. The nature of a female person is to be fertile and able to have children. In this way marriage is a single entity. Male with unchangeable nature + female with unchangeable nature = marriage.

Thank you!* Inherent nature* those are the words I needed, and you put it very well!

 

[rossum]

It’s simple though we are talking about the inherent nature of a person, male or female.

You are shifting the goalposts here. You started by talking about procreation as the “essential” part of marriage. Now you are abandoning that line and moving to the “inherent nature” of people.

You can slice and dice all the parts you want but the inherent nature of a person does not change. If someone is born barren that does not change a thing.

So, you are abandoning you previous insistence that procreation was “essential” for marriage. How do we know that this new idea of yours will last any longer?

You continue to fail to answer my point that marriage has had, and continues to have, many different forms. There are places in America and in Europe which have had same sex marriage for years. Where is you evidence of any deleterious effects?

rossum

 

[Nate13]

You are shifting the goalposts here. You started by talking about procreation as the “essential” part of marriage. Now you are abandoning that line and moving to the “inherent nature” of people.

So, you are abandoning you previous insistence that procreation was “essential” for marriage. How do we know that this new idea of yours will last any longer?

You continue to fail to answer my point that marriage has had, and continues to have, many different forms. There are places in America and in Europe which have had same sex marriage for years. Where is you evidence of any deleterious effects?

rossum

First, if you didn’t notice your responding to a different poster now. There is not an “earlier position” to refer back to from me. Secondly, procreation is not abandoned. The inherent nature of men and women = sex ordered towards procreation. The only way you ignore this reality is if you deny the fact that men and women have an inherent nature.

 

[rossum]

First, if you didn’t notice your responding to a different poster now. There is not an “earlier position” to refer back to from me.

Whoops. Apologies for my mistake.

Secondly, procreation is not abandoned. The inherent nature of men and women = sex ordered towards procreation. The only way you ignore this reality is if you deny the fact that men and women have an inherent nature.

Which I do. I am Buddhist, so there is no “inherent nature” in anything. A person may have been a different sex in a previous life.

rossum

 

[Nate13]

Which I do. I am Buddhist, so there is no “inherent nature” in anything. A person may have been a different sex in a previous life.
rossum

But what sex are they in this lifetime? The fact is they are not in “another lifetime” they are in this one right now. Is reality not of importance?

 

[rossum]

But what sex are they in this lifetime? The fact is they are not in “another lifetime” they are in this one right now. Is reality not of importance?

Is “inherent nature” permanent or temporary? If it is just temporary, then I have far fewer problems with the concept. If it is permanent then, in Buddhist terms, it is a philosophical no-no.

As to marriage, there are already different rules for Catholic marriage (no divorce) and civil marriage (divorce allowed). In places where same sex civil marriage is allowed, the difference between the two is greater. It is an error to think that marriage is one single entity that never changes. It is multiple entities, and those entities can change.

rossum