|
|
February 8, 2013 · By David Mann · 0 Comments
Here are the basic rules regarding marriage.
Every currently unmarried person of legal marriage age is allowed to marry a consenting person of their choice who is:
Each one of these conditions is there for a very important reason that should not require much explanation to any reasonable person. When all of these rules are applied to all persons, then everyone has “marriage equality.”
Some problems come in when people try to add conditions to the above list that don’t belong there. For example, there is no good reason to add a condition that the consenting person must be of the same race. Race, contrary to outdated ideas about it that some still cling to, is superficial, genetically meaningless, and not even clearly definable. Adding such a condition would actually violate the definition of marriage, because it would prevent people from marrying who are perfectly eligible to marry.
Further problems come in when people demand to be allowed to waive one or more of the individual conditions of marriage, while still being treated as if they meet the conditions in general.
The first question that has to be asked is this: Why should anyone be allowed to waive one of these conditions and yet still consider their relationship to be a valid marriage? Just because they want to? Is that a sufficiently compelling reason?
The obvious answer is no — that is not a sufficiently compelling reason. One of the inconvenient realities of life is that the desire to do something does not automatically create a right to do it. If it did, there would be no reason for laws or any other limitations on behavior.
The next question is, if anyone is allowed to waive one of these conditions, what reason can be given that any of them would not be allowed to be waived? If someone is allowed to consider a relationship with someone of the same gender to be a “marriage,” for what reason would someone else be disallowed from doing the same with a child, their own sibling, or an additional spouse?
That question is actually a little more complicated. Many people under 18 have legitimately gotten married in the fairly recent past. (Of course, they were not prepubescent at the time.) There was a time early in history where close relatives married because no one else was available (reference the old “where did Cain get his wife?” question) and because the state of the gene pool did not yet make it a problem. And of course Biblical history records many examples of polygamy which, while not exactly endorsed as ideal, was not expressly forbidden at the time either.
Nonetheless, it’s hard to disagree with the last three conditions above. A prepubescent child is clearly not ready for a sexual relationship of any kind, and even an older underage person is not likely to be ready for the responsibilities that come with one. The marrying of close relatives is something whose time was over very far in the past. And polyamory was never what marriage was designed to be in the first place.
So why should anyone be allowed to violate the first condition? There is no good reason, and anything that pretends to be a good reason is firmly rooted in an understanding of homosexuality that is utterly false, however popular it may be. Arguments for same-sex “marriage” abound in false analogies, likening same-sex attraction to things like race, eye color or left-handedness. Does anyone really believe that a fetish for the wrong gender (which is what homosexuality basically comes down to) is similar to such superficial and neutral qualities in any meaningful sense? Or do they just hope other people will?
Either way, the realities of homosexuality — constantly denied by people with same-sex attractions, even as they continue to demonstrate them — remain. Its strong tendency to lead to promiscuity and recklessness, the denial and inner conflict that comes with it, the physical and mental damage it creates, and much more — these realities do not change just because people are ignorant about them, willfully or otherwise. Homosexuality has always been, and will always be, in violation of the design of sexuality. And it remains something that people can (and do) walk away from if they are sufficiently determined to do what’s right over what’s easy.
If anyone does not wish to participate in marriage on the terms it comes with, they are more than welcome to excuse themselves from it. They are not welcome — at least in the eyes of anyone who truly understands and values marriage — to change its terms to suit themselves.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
As the White House has been slammed with scandals such as Benghazi, Extortion 17, the AP phone tapping scandal, targeting FOX News, and the IRS targeting conservative groups, President Obama appeared before the nation at a press conference and had the “audacity” to call up two marines to hold an umbrella for himself and the Turkish Prime Minister, stating, “Why don’t we get a couple of Marines [to hold umbrellas.] They’re gonna look good next to us.” What a stark contrast to our first president, General George Washington!
Forces antagonistic to religion dominate our courtrooms, our classrooms, and that most potent platform of public influence, the entertainment industry. Stridently ideological and convinced that the forces of reason and progress are on their side, these secular shapers of culture will not be satisfied until every last vestige of religious influence is exorcised from the public square. These individuals reject the fact that the Christian religion played an integral role in the shaping of America's political traditions and the spirit of liberty and equality that is unique among nations.
As Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Spock were always fond of noting, when attempting to unravel a whodunit, a useful postulate is: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Point in case is the targeting by multiple government departments and agencies at the federal and state level, by elected officials, and by Democrat Party organizations of Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring honest elections and ballot integrity by targeting voter fraud.
South Dakota state legislators Representatives Stace Nelson (R-Fulton), Manny Steele (R-Sioux Falls), “Chip” Campbell (R-Rapid City), Don Kopp (R-Rapid City), Liz May(R-Kyle), Lance Russell (R-Hot Springs), and Senators Tim Begalka (R-Clear Lake), and Phil Jensen (R-Rapid City), join together to express deep concerns and opposition to the wide spread amnesty for illegal aliens proposed in US Senate Bill 744 being considered by Congress.
We have not forgotten the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that was killed in the face of intense outrage from the American people. This administration has engaged in criminal conduct by granting amnesty through presidential edict to certain illegal aliens. If we were outraged back in 2007 at the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, we are now outraged to the hundredth power at the latest attempt by Congress to shove amnesty for illegal aliens down our throats.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
Sorry, comments are closed on this post.