\Mar”riage\, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. .] 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.The definition of the word explains what it is and why what same-sex couples purpose is not, in fact, marriage, but something else entirely. Like the spork, a spoon with tines at the business end, not quite a spoon, not quite a fork. A new word was created to specify a new idea. The idea that members of the same sex entered into a “civil union” does not meet the definiton of marriage.
Why stop with same sex couples? Since we’re talking about the loving bond between two beings, why not include the love a man may have for his dog? Why must marriage exist solely between two entities, why not more? What if a father loves his daughter, I mean really loves his daughter? Incest? Why not? Once you start redefining the language surrounding marriage, where does it stop? Just because some of these examples may be disquieting to you doesn’t mean that someone else may not find such entertwinings desirable. Don’t be such a closed-minded bigot. Isn’t that what proponents of same-sex marriages say to their detractors?
Why do homosexuals want to get married anyway?
- As a symbol of their fidelity and lasting, commitment–The Advocate, America’s largest gay magazine, published the results of their own survey in the August 1994 edition. Their research found:
- Fifty-seven percent of gay readers claimed more than thirty sexual partners during their lifetime.
- Thirty-five percent claimed more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime.
- Forty-eight percent admitted having a “three-way” sexual encounter during the past five years.
- Twenty-nine percent admitted to meeting their partners in a bathhouse or a sex club.
- Family health coverage–AIDS and HIV infection are likely to remain largely confined to gay men and intravenous drug users, their sexual partners and their children and are unlikely to become epidemic in the general population. Additionally, some men are secretly bisexual. If a man picks up an STD from a homosexual encounter, he may then pass the infection on to unsuspecting heterosexual partners. What does this have to do with medical benefits? Well, with equal opportunity employment, your employer may be required by Federal law to hire a homosexual. Due to the high occurence of STD’s found among male homosexuals, guess who’s insurance rates are going up? Treating HIV/AIDS isn’t cheap.
- Child custody–If homosexuals raise their kids like they teach yours in public schools, the gay demographic is sure to start increasing.
Government sanctioned same-sex “marriage” is not about love or commitment. It is about societal acceptance. Homosexual activists believe that by obtaining marriage licenses their relationships suddenly will be viewed as equal with heterosexual matrimony. There is one serious flaw in this reasoning: It won’t work.
When government sanction of same-sex “marriage” does not result in society’s embrace of gay relationships, activists then will label any and all who disagree with homosexuality as dangerous bigots who are a threat to American democracy. Oh, I forgot, they do that already.
In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University, commented on the probable consequences of the government sanction of same-sex “marriage.” She wrote:
“Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The axe will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.”Why deny government sanction of same-sex “marriage”? Because the issue is not about love or commitment; it is about the validation of a lifestyle that most believe is wrong. Nothing will change that. Not the courts, not intimidation, not even coercion can force the American public, especially those with deep-seated religious convictions, to validate homosexuality.
Posted by Philip McClure in Political Rants on April 29, 2004