In a comment in the previous Blog, Davola said...
"I'm not for gay marriage and I'm not against gay marriage. If they want it let em have it. Who cares? They are going to have sexual relations either way. There is no financial benefit to getting married. It is just a slip of paper. What is the big deal anyway?"
Davola has expressed exactly what a lot of ordinary, regular people think and feel: “Who cares? What’s the big deal anyway?” I would guess that many people not only don’t care one way or another about gay marriage, they would rather not have to give any thought whatsoever to gay lifestyles. Their stance might be summarized as: hey, it’s no skin off my nose—we should just look the other way—it seems like such a silly thing to get worked up about—live and let live already! What’s the harm?
As it turns out, redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage really IS a “big deal.” And the potential harm could mean more than just the “skin off your nose.” Although the major media outlets have largely ignored this side of the story, lots of other really smart people have explained the issue quite clearly.
If you are interested in learning why anyone should care a fig about gay marriage (redefining marriage) v. protecting traditional marriage, a thoughtful examination of some of the following articles may prove insightful.
Same-Sex Marriage Is About More Than “I Do”http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081010same.html
Catholic position on protecting traditional marriage published in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 1, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/01/EDGD1396GT.DTL
“Why Our Society Should Preserve Marriage”
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/051109Explain.html
6 comments:
Dave and I had this discussion yesterday. One of the points that I worry about, which was hardly mentioned in the articles you listed, is that of having children reared in a home where both sets of gender driven values aren't present. For example: females tend to be more compassionate, future minded, nurturing, as well as in touch with their feelings, and so on; while males tend to be more light minded, competetive, logical, and rational etc... All of these traits are equally necessary to raise a productive, well rounded individual, not to mention family. All are important qualities for coping or getting through life, and therefore need to be found in our most basic unit of society; the family. Only a man/woman marriage union adequately fits that bill.
Aside from that, but on the same strain, is the fact that children will grow up in these "genderless" marriages largely confused about the roles of both sexes, whether the parents intend it or not. Gay and Lesbian marriage in essance says "we don't really need the other sex, we can make it on our own". What does that do to a young boy's or girl's self esteem if he/she is raised in the home with parents of the opposite sex? "If boys aren't so bad, like my mommies say, then why didn't they marry one?" Additionally, those children who are the same gender as their parents see their parents way of life as the shoes they are to fill when they grow older. "My daddies didn't need a girl to have a family, so neither do I!" I think you get my drift.
Needless to say, these poor children will either know very little about who they are in terms of sex, or who the other gender really is. Their relationships with others will become strained and awkward either way. And then these confused kids will grow up to be your grandchildren's and greatgrandchildren's teachers, co-workers, fellow countryfolk, government officials, or other possible moral influences, as the roles of gender become even more blurred and unstable. Of course they will then try to fix or redefine other things in hopes of mending the now failing social system, and you can bet that it would never occur to them to go back to the way things were.
Additionally, who says that it has to effect us personally in order to step up and do what we feel is best for our country, our society, and our world? Why can't we do so because it is our duty and priveledge as a member of our society to pave the way for generations to come, even if they aren't our own or we won't be around to see it's benefits? Be wary of such talk. Not only is it selfish, but think of all the problems we face today because those before us stood idle while the ruthless pilfered and plundered many of our precious dreams.
Debbie--you are right, of course. Eloquently and passionately expressed!
There are many articles available on the internet regarding the effectual "experiment" on children that is going on in "genderless" marriages, as well as regarding other alarming repercussions to society, in schools, etc.
My intent was merely to offer an introduction to the issues. If someone just wanted a brief overview, these were good sites. However, the three links I offered included further links, and therefore could lead to the whole gamut of information for the person who actually wanted to know more. In trying to simplify it, perhaps I left too much out.
Each of us should be a least minimally informed so that we can articulate the issues to those who are still sitting on the fence, as it were. The issue is not going to go away. As Paul Bishop, the LAPD officer, remarked in his Meridian article today: "What did we expect? Did we expect the Adversary to stay curled in his hole licking his wounds? Did we expect the pointing fingers from Lehi's dream to stop pointing? Did we expect the Adversary's attempts to knock us from the straight and narrow path to simply cease?" He also quoted this: “We live in times when sitting on the fence will not be enough. Standing for truth will not be popular or convenient.”
So, here we "draw the line in the sand."
When Victor and I had the discussion with his mother and sister it was very clear that they had made some major compromises and the moral and ethical values they were raised with as Catholics have been thrown out the window.
Sandy stated that even same sex marriages have the same balance of traditional families. She stated that there is still a "feminine" role and a "masculine" role. Victor was blunt and said that was untrue.
When we discussed the roles on a spiritual level and how the family is identified in the scriptures (specifically the old testament) - Sandy promptly stated that the Bible is wrong and that it is the interpretation of man that came up with the definition of a family unit.
I asked her if she knew how to find out for herself if the scriptures are true. She gave me a blank stare and I stated: "If you believe in God and Jesus Christ and you trust that they will provide answers, then it becomes our responsibility to get down on our knees and pray asking the Father in Christ's name if what we read in the scriptures is true." I then told her that I have made the practice of praying to receive clarification and that I know that Heavenly Father intends for us to be family units with a mother and a father.
Later when Victor and I were alone we discussed the decline of his mother and sister's values. And we lamented over the immoral behavior being justified.
I'm not a homosexual or bi-sexual. I used to be deathly afraid of them [homosexuals] when I was younger.
I have to be non-biased at work, which IS required. It is a contradiction for me to feel one way at work and another way at home.
This is a situation that I deal with on a daily basis. Anytime there is a change to the marital laws or registered domestic partnerships a flood of emails get sent out from headquarters.
Same sex couples have every right that hetrosexual couples have currently, including raising children. Last I checked you didn't have to be married to have kids.
So again, why are people against them having a piece of paper that says "married"?
I am not on the fence with regards to this issue. I am not in either pasture. I just don't care. But if you are going to force me to pick a side, then I am for gay marriage.
ELTON JOHN SOLVES GAY MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY (Nov 17th 2008):
One of the world's most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. "We're not married," he told the press, "Let's get that straight. We have a civil partnership...I don't want to be married! I'm very happy with a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution. ~Michael Medved
Just because people participate in pre-marrital sex and procreation already doesn't mean we should just let them have the rest of the cake. We have to preserve what little moral standing society may have left, even if it seems a lost cause. Having a majority of people do something does not make it right.
To me, marriage is sacred and special, and is already taken for granted and abused. I'm not about to sit by and say nothing while people attempt to desacrate it even more. The Lord has made His decree that marriage is to come before procreation. Since these couples couldn't get married, some of them decided to jump the curb anyhow. Now they want to go back and add marriage to the picture as if it were the cherry on top, like it will make things complete. Since repentance is the only thing that can mend a broken commandment, they will find themselves sorely dissappointed because their void cannot be filled the way they think it will. They've got it all backwards.
Additionally, did it ever occur to you that they want to be allowed to marry because they know it is special? By changing it, it will not be as special as it used to be. It's like asking for a very nice cheese cake that they can't afford, so they okay some substitutes and inferrior ingredients to be added to put it in their price range. Then, when they go to eat it, they find it isn't nearly as good as they had hoped.
Lastly, being for or against Gay and Lesbian marriage has nothing to do with mortgages. If your job was to marry people, then you could say that. Just because you have to work with people who have those arrangements doesn't mean you have to believe the same way as they do. No one is saying to treat them different than the law says, or to be cruel or unrecognizing. We just don't want the law to be changed. We love them and serve them too. We just know that some of the things they want to do are wrong.
Post a Comment