On August 1, people lined up for blocks to buy sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A to show solidarity with a company president who publicly defined traditional man-and-wife marriage as a command of God and the best way to go. A few days later, same-gender couples lined up around the restaurants and smoched openly on the kissers.
People find it easy to stand in line to buy sandwiches. Will these people stand in line to vote? Will they write for the record their stand on marriage and family?
Someone I know wrote on Facebook the other day:
“There is real inequality and favoritism taking place with the government choosing who can and can't be married. It isn't fair. And while a lot of religious people take pleasure being "favored" by the government - it's immature. What if tomorrow the government decided to only recognize marriage between homosexuals and void everyone else's? Would you still be happy with the government's ability to favor?
“Everyone gets caught up in fighting the definition of "marriage" when the truth is we need to be caught up in the gross lack of separation between church and state that has taken place. That's what's causing all this mess, and causing my facebook feeds to read like a bipolor teenager (let's just say my Utah and California friends wouldn't get along very well).”
What does a parent say when his favorite son elopes to British Columbia with his sweetheart to get married in a same-sex marriage ceremony? How does he respond to this --
“All Tom and I ever wanted was to get married because we love each other. And if we hurt some people’s feelings, well — that is just too bad. It is their problem, not mine. I married the only man I ever loved and am glad I married the man I loved. It meant a lot to me to marry the person I found most precious, despite the fact that some people thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. Government has no business forcing some people’s religious beliefs over others. I support the right to marry for all – white or black, gay or straight. That is what loving is all about.”
Interesting that in red states in general and in Utah in particular –
When the homosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, their opponents called it "sin." However, when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive."
Marriage as political alliance. Dowries. Women treated as property with no rights. Institutional violence between men and women. Polyandry. "la casa grande” for the mistress. “la casa bonita” for the wife. No-fault quickie divorces. Heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time. Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage definitions.
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
the man
the woman
the culture in which they live
and or
God
and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The central issue in this debate needs to be stated a different way. Children have a right to a legal family relationship. They have a right to two parents, one of the male persuasion, one of the female gender.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. Traditional orthodox churches, however, have in the main been ineffective, as well. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains sections that do a clearer, more convincing, job of defining marriages both in the world and in the next sphere.
Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship. People should not confuse marriage with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most if not all marriages get various people and things attached to them: houses, summer homes, yachts, in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, teachers, trainers, and attorneys -- as well as children. If a married couple is not careful, their marriage will evolve into a way of insuring that they get what they do not want.
Marriage was ordained by God. Civil unions were ordained by humans. People in civil unions should have clear rights of inheritance and work benefits for themselves and their partners.
The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements. Domestic arrangements have a long, sometimes honorable, history in the long evolution of human events.
People find it easy to stand in line to buy sandwiches. Will these people stand in line to vote? Will they write for the record their stand on marriage and family?
Someone I know wrote on Facebook the other day:
“There is real inequality and favoritism taking place with the government choosing who can and can't be married. It isn't fair. And while a lot of religious people take pleasure being "favored" by the government - it's immature. What if tomorrow the government decided to only recognize marriage between homosexuals and void everyone else's? Would you still be happy with the government's ability to favor?
“Everyone gets caught up in fighting the definition of "marriage" when the truth is we need to be caught up in the gross lack of separation between church and state that has taken place. That's what's causing all this mess, and causing my facebook feeds to read like a bipolor teenager (let's just say my Utah and California friends wouldn't get along very well).”
What does a parent say when his favorite son elopes to British Columbia with his sweetheart to get married in a same-sex marriage ceremony? How does he respond to this --
“All Tom and I ever wanted was to get married because we love each other. And if we hurt some people’s feelings, well — that is just too bad. It is their problem, not mine. I married the only man I ever loved and am glad I married the man I loved. It meant a lot to me to marry the person I found most precious, despite the fact that some people thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. Government has no business forcing some people’s religious beliefs over others. I support the right to marry for all – white or black, gay or straight. That is what loving is all about.”
Interesting that in red states in general and in Utah in particular –
When the homosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, their opponents called it "sin." However, when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive."
Marriage as political alliance. Dowries. Women treated as property with no rights. Institutional violence between men and women. Polyandry. "la casa grande” for the mistress. “la casa bonita” for the wife. No-fault quickie divorces. Heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time. Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage definitions.
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
the man
the woman
the culture in which they live
and or
God
and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The central issue in this debate needs to be stated a different way. Children have a right to a legal family relationship. They have a right to two parents, one of the male persuasion, one of the female gender.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. Traditional orthodox churches, however, have in the main been ineffective, as well. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains sections that do a clearer, more convincing, job of defining marriages both in the world and in the next sphere.
Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship. People should not confuse marriage with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most if not all marriages get various people and things attached to them: houses, summer homes, yachts, in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, teachers, trainers, and attorneys -- as well as children. If a married couple is not careful, their marriage will evolve into a way of insuring that they get what they do not want.
Marriage was ordained by God. Civil unions were ordained by humans. People in civil unions should have clear rights of inheritance and work benefits for themselves and their partners.
The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements. Domestic arrangements have a long, sometimes honorable, history in the long evolution of human events.
THE CALL TO ACTION
In the meantime, red-state, traditional family values political activities will insist on chicken sandwich lunches and blue-state progressive family values political activities will insist on Swedish meatballs or Greek salads for lunch. Lunch will not have much fun in it. We will accomplish very little in the way of getting strong solid families for children.
In the meantime, red-state, traditional family values political activities will insist on chicken sandwich lunches and blue-state progressive family values political activities will insist on Swedish meatballs or Greek salads for lunch. Lunch will not have much fun in it. We will accomplish very little in the way of getting strong solid families for children.
No comments:
Post a Comment