What is Truth? (Homosexual Debate)
There is an amazing thing about truth, it does not change, and it does not contradict itself. It was not that many years ago that this would not have been such an amazing fact. Truth holds the same weight if it is scientific, mathematical, historical, linguistic, or even moral truth. In each of these disciplines, and in any others, the truth cannot be against a truth in another discipline or against itself. Even with that we know that sometimes we do not always hear the truth, historic truth might be skewed by the author of the materials, moral truth might be hindered by one’s own prejudices, linguistic truth can be skewed by a dialect or a bad teacher, mathematical truth can be skewed by wrong facts, and scientific truth can be asserted from false theories. Thus, we can and should debate, discuss, and even argue sometimes over what is truth.
In today’s world where we throw the words intolerance, hate, bigotry, and start to change subjects with misnomers, false accusations, etc. instead of truly debating the merits of truth. One such case present so recently in the public realm is that of the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. There are a lot of questions that go into this debate. The issue of not allowing debate and discussion is problematic of both sides of the fence. I want to address, in the spirit of discourse one question that is raised. How does allowing homosexual marriage affect your marriage?
This is really meant to be a trick question, the correct answer is that my wife and I will not change anything about our marriage if homosexuals were allowed to be married, and our marriage would be “unchanged”. However, it does change something else, actually a few things. One it would change what marriage is and has been. Second, it would change the perception of marriage in our worldview, thus making us have to work even harder to show our children what marriage is. Third, it would change the culture another step away from stability of marriage. Fourth, it would enshrine “rights” where they are not universally enshrined, and force those who disagree into a world in which they become discriminated against, and persecuted for staying strong to beliefs.
I just want to touch each of these four things briefly, as no one today wants to read extensive arguments on anything, we wants meme’s to say it all. History has shown us collectively that marriage is between men and women. Marriages have been throughout history many different things, but the unifying article was a contract or union between men and women. Even in cultures such as the Amazon where women dominated and men were often used for procreation and discarded, any marriage would have been between a man and a woman. Sometimes marriages were allowed by society to be polygamist marriages, but always between men and women. These social contracts were designed for the protections of the less dominate of the two being married, and for the protection of their offspring. The encouragement of marriage by societies was often to assist in creating a situation in which stability exists for the betterment of children, and for society. A situation in which many children are born of single parents leads to a society that must take more care of its young, and creates a dependency upon the social constructs of society. Changing the definition of marriage to be that of condoning a sexual relationship, or mere protection of financial gains, beyond the setting up of a stable relationship and protections of future generations, continues to destroy governments need to intervene in marriages, or condone, support, or encourage them at all. The marriage becomes nothing but a contract, nothing more. From a religious perspective homosexual marriages change even more of what the definition of marriage is, but I want to keep this strictly out of the religious debate for now.
For most of society, the general understanding is still there that when a child grows up, they find someone they want to be with for the rest of their lives, someone they want to build a family with and so they unite themselves to the other and start building lives for a family. Changing the worldview to a situation where the marriage is strictly a contract that allows for health benefits, visitation rights, and a vague sense of state approved love, makes it more difficult for those who want to encourage their kids to marry for something beyond sex and the ability to visit someone in the hospital, or receive some health insurance, becomes more difficult. The laws of the land have a funny way of dictating more morality to the world view then any religion or other outside effect. As children push boundaries, they find give in all areas except the law of the land, many times. Thus, as the laws change so too does the teachings in the schools and the general sense of morality the children pick up. So, if truth is truth, and if marriage is something constructed in the natural order of things (and not merely some social construct) then it might be able to be proven that the natural law would show marriage between a man and a woman is the truth. Now the battle to teach that truth to children has become that much harder.
As marriage starts to change more and more into contractual terms, these terms become changeable. Homosexual unions, although many will adopt, are not life giving entities. The life that gets brought into these marriages is not of natural order to the relationship. Adoption is a necessary component of society, and is a good of society to promote. However, even while conflicting, studies have shown that a stable mother, father relationship is much better for adoptive children to be brought into then a father, father or mother, mother relationship. Some argue this is because of the social stigma still involved in same sex unions. However, just from a purely logical thought process, there are certain things, attitudes, processes, etc that a man brings to a relationship and certain things, attitudes, processes, etc a woman brings. Children learning from both a strong male figure in their lives and female figure tend to be more balanced and well rounded. I know many single parents who do a great job, but they still cannot be both parents. Then there are IVF and other issues. Some then lead to the situation in this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/kenneth-miller-mennonite-minister-isabella-miller-jenkins-kidnapping_n_1778371.html What right does the non-biological parent have with a child that was born during a lesbian marriage?
Finally, and most productive to the question, what will change if homosexuals are allowed to marry, is the issue of this new enshrinement of “rights”. There are plenty of people that do not have the right to marry, as legislated by the government. Children are not allowed to marry in most states, you are not allowed to marry multiple people (although I am surprised this did not come first since there is some history of this in society, and most pro homosexual marriage folks are still against this), you are not allowed to marry a close relative, you are not allowed to marry animals. Now, before you get mad at me for accusing homosexuals of being pedophiles or of bestiality, I am not, just laying out that marriage is not a universal “right” for people. Governments can determine who this “right” belongs to, and I would argue nature determines this “right”. Once homosexual marriage become codified in law it has been shown that even those who have religious reasons for not condoning the marriages must abide by them. Not abide by them in the sense of acknowledging they exist, but must participate in them. If I only photograph Muslim weddings, I would not be sued for not photographing a Christian wedding. However, I could lose in suit for not photographing a homosexual wedding: http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/ Or, if I am a baker and do not want to make a cake for a homosexual wedding (and do not keep those two men figurines for the top, or two women figurines): http://bossip.com/721486/thats-not-sweet-oregon-bakery-refuses-order-for-gay-wedding-cake/ Or, the Catholic Church might be forced to assist with adoptions because they will not adopt to gay couples: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/requirement-to-consider-gay-couples-for-adoption-forces-illinois-catholic-charities-affiliates-to-close/Or, I might be a church that does not condone gay marriage, and now I am forced to provide the church for the wedding: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html. This can go on and on, but one last one I can be forced to make my kids go to school to learn how homosexual unions are a good thing, and I cannot opt out, and will not be notified of when it is going to be done: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html if I protests too much I will be arrested. This goes from allowing homosexual marriage because “it will not affect your marriage” to seeing that everything in society changes.
In conclusion, the first three issues are not unique to homosexual unions, and the trampling of marriage has occurred through many elements found within heterosexual marriage. Contraceptive use, no fault divorce, faux marriages for citizenship etc. have so degraded marriage to the point that society is starting to not recognize what marriage is and has been. The solution to this is not denigrating marriage even more; the solution is not to continue to redefine marriage. Instead a fight needs to take place to reclaim what marriage is and should be. This is a fight many people are not willing to take, having already fallen prey to easy divorces and marriages void of children and stability. This is a fight that should have started years ago, when marriage started to be redefined, when marriages became dispensable, something to be used, like so many other things in our society. It is not something that should be given up on, our society and our children are worth more. We must seek truth, truth about what marriage is, what it should be, and how to seek the good in marriage. We need discussion, we need argumentation, and we need fighting. We need these things not because they are good in themselves, but because they will help lead to truth. Disagreeing, arguing and fighting on an issue is not intolerance, belittling someone for their views, calling names, etc is. So let’s have a few civil arguments, let’s disagree, let us ask real questions, and let us stop trying to trap people with false questions. Ask the tough questions and give the tough answers: discover truth!
PS: I want to point out, that even though I am against Homosexual marriage for logical, philosophical and religious reasons, I do not believe in bullying, calling names, belittling or demeaning people who are homosexual. Though I do not condone the acts of homosexuality, nor the acts of premarital sex of heterosexuals, I know I have my own sins I deal with. I believe we can disagree with something and not hate the person we disagree with.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “What is Truth? (Homosexual Debate),” an entry on revelation315
- April 2, 2013 / 8:10 pm
- Domestic Church