Opinion Section > Religion Opinion

No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry

(1/36) > >>

fish:
In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?
Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.
For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.
This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.
“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.
Actually, no, it isn’t.
This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.
They are “undefining” it.
After all, what is the Left’s argument? They don’t focus on definitions any more than the Right does; they don’t say, consistently and boldly, “Marriage is the union between any two adults; therefore, there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples.” They won’t tread there.
There are a couple of reasons why. First, leftists are confused: They never have a clear vision of what they want to create, only what they want to destroy (i.e., the status quo). Second, redefining marriage would be a tactical disaster for them, as they’d relinquish a huge hammer they pummel the opposition with: the accusation that traditionalists are being “exclusive” and “discriminatory” and are denying people rights. For if you establish boundaries — anywhere — you’re excluding and discriminating against whoever lies beyond them.
So leftists won’t offer any alternative definition; instead, they simply imply that the right definition is wrong. And this is where they lose the debate. For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?
This failure to redefine marriage also puts the lie to the Left’s claim that their actions won’t lead to the recognition of other conceptions of “marriage,” from polygamy to inter-species unions (yes, this does happen). This isn’t as silly as it sounds. Remember that an undefinition excludes nothing. If you refuse to establish boundaries, then the sky — or Hades — is the limit.
Thus, while the Left’s focus on rights helps them win the immediate marriage battle, it also ensures the loss of civilization. After all, once you undefine something, you have destroyed it — at least in people’s minds. For if something exists, if it is real, it is a certain thing and thus can be defined. “Bird” refers to a specific creature, but if “bird” could mean fish, insect, chair or pepperoni pizza — if it could mean anything — the term would lose meaning. Likewise, if marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing. It will simply be a “something” and be destroyed as a meaningful institution.
To understand the implications of this, realize that marriage exists not as a “right” that brings self-fulfillment but to stabilize the family. It encourages men and women to fulfill their obligations to each other and their children. Thus, an attack upon marriage is an attack upon the family. And, since the family is the central building block of civilization, if you destroy it, you have destroyed civilization.
Except perhaps for a few Machiavellian types, the Left doesn’t understand this; like all emotion-driven people — like children — they know only what they want at the moment. But wiser heads should refuse to discuss the issue as what it isn’t: a matter of rights. Instead, be steadfast in the understanding that faux marriage simply doesn’t exist. Oh, people can still pretend to marry; heck, we did that in first grade (only boys and girls back then). But dismiss this as child’s play — and a rather twisted variety of it at that.
This is why I seek to control the language and use the term “faux marriage.” For the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. Thus, using the Lexicon of the Left — in this case, the oxymoronic euphemism “gay marriage” — is disastrous; it’s likewise a mistake using “traditional marriage,” for what is the other side of that coin? Both terms either state or imply that a mythical institution called “gay marriage” exists.
What will happen once citizens accept this idea? Well, homosexuals are people, too, and if their conception of “marriage” exists, many will conclude that it’s wrong to deny recognition of it. Hey, how can you not recognize — in the sense of perceiving — something that exists? And once personal recognition becomes widespread, legal recognition is nigh.
This is why states err when proposing laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and woman. Instead, their measures should state, “Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.” Again, this isn’t just semantics. When these measures go to court and judges are left to rule on the constitutionality of limiting who may marry, they can easily rationalize that such laws violate the equal-protection clause. But if the law is framed as I suggest, this argument becomes illogical, as no one is being denied anything. After all, a homosexual certainly can — and may — marry just as anyone else may; he may form a union with a member of the opposite sex. As for heterosexuals, they cannot form a legally sanctioned union with a member of their own sex any more than anyone else can. Thus, controlling the definition would help control the courts.
Of course, our “creative” judges can spin anything, so there are no guarantees. But we ought to ask: If they would rule that same-sex couples have a right to “marriage,” with what definition are they working? After all, the only consistent definition out there is the one the West has operated by for millennia. There is nothing else except an effort that amounts to an “undefinition,” an unraveling of part of civilization’s bedrock. And you cannot have a right to what doesn’t exist.
 
http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/selwyn-duke/item/11404-no-mr-president-same-sex-couples-cannot-marry

Digital Narcosis:
The gay marriage issue is pretty easy to understand when its broken down into motives.

People are afraid of what they don't understand.  Its an easy explanation.  Its always been a survival tactic of humans to avoid what they don't know.  Fear of the unknown kept their tribes alive at one time.

People are afraid of change.  Its just basic human behavior.  Its not necessarily a bad thing.  Its just an instinct like so many others.  The culture in which people are raised and what they are taught also plays a direct influence on what they will or will not deem acceptable behavior.

The prejudice created by religions is also a constant detour to equal rights for those outside of the opposing religions.  This intolerance of anything outside of one groups beliefs should be unacceptable in American Society.  It goes against the basis of the basic freedoms that are supposed to be empowered upon its citizens.  Intolerance of one groups practices are the very reason this country was founded (historically).

Personally I've never thought that allowing gay couples to marry would hurt anything other than the egos of those opposed.  I'm a believer that the entire "institution of marriage" is flawed anyway.  It isn't about two people loving one another anymore and performing a ceremony to celebrate that union.  Marriage is about wealth accumulation and distribution.  If it was about anything else why would this issue matter?  Religious groups who are against gay marriage could then in effect just refuse to accept gay marriage as anything valid in their belief system.  Gay couples could marry under their own terms and ceremonies and it would be no different than someone celebrating a child's birth or someone's anniversary.  It would just be a ceremonial practice that resulted in a celebration that didn't effect anyone not involved.

I don't think there should be any legal benefits or handicaps resulting from ANY marriage.  It should just be a private ceremony that is symbolic to those involved.  Everything gets complicated when the government becomes involved.  Its all unnecessary.  The prejudice against it is unnecessary.  The paperwork surrounding it is unnecessary.

There was another group that deemed millions of people inferior because they existed outside of their beliefs...  Nazi Germany. 

We know how that ended.

matrsnot:
DN, Jews, blacks and homosexuals were among those "inferiors".  Hitler had a very difficult time at the 1936 Olympics when Jesse Owens showed up the so called Aryans.  It seems a bit out of whack that people can discuss this yet the federal government does not recognize these marriages. 

fish:
same sex marriage is an abnormal relationship. it cannot produce offspring without the help of a hetrosexual relationship. By itself, it does not form a family and that family cannot grow. the abnormal lifestyle it promotes is not a positive influence on society. if it was same, sex marriage would not have the oppostion it has. it would not be allowed in only 6 states. it would be approved by voters instead of governors and judges. Jews and blacks were born that way, gays are not.

lobo4:
I can't understand how my family is not a positive influence on society. All of our kids are happy healthy individuals. They are all honor students , all play sports or are active in Theatre programs, gymnastics..etc. All of our kids are respectful, helpful and well rounded. We as a family are much like my family was growing up. All very close, all do chores and have responsibilities. My children are polite and we as a family are not much different from most. I understand that it is pointless to even respond to any of the post on this site on this topic but it really pisses me off when people insinuate that I am some how abnormal and can't possibly add anything positive to this world because of my sexual orientation. I see families everyday that don't teach their kids respect or the whole family is ate up with drugs. Kids grow up being ingrates. Yet becasue of one aspect of my life that someone disagrees with I can't possible lend anything positive or worthwhile to this world?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page