There is no Such Thing as Gay Marriage

Yes the courts and the lobbies that bought them off can shove the concept of gay “marriage” down our collective throats and even if perhaps in the not so distant future they will, in Orwellian fashion, force resistant churches to “marry” homosexuals, the union will still not be (it cannot be) marriage.

One man, one woman. I know it’s not difficult to understand, but it can be difficult to accept for fallen creatures hellbent (no pun intended) on defying the statutes of their Maker.

That humans have twisted and spat on God’s design through divorce, broken homes and the like is an even greater testament to man’s natural enmity towards God but it is not an excuse to try to label unions that aren’t marriage as such.

It’s not marriage plain and simple and no amount of forced indoctrination can change reality. As Pat Buchanan remarked in his latest column,

To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature’s God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig.

Click here to read Mr. Buchanan’s column.

Advertisements

19 Responses to There is no Such Thing as Gay Marriage

  1. edbooked says:

    Well said. The State has a vested interest in the procreation and nurture of children in society. To that end, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman was established. Same sex unions, unable to procreate, can not meet the State’s need. Accordingly, some title other than “marraige” for same sex arrangements seems appropriate.

  2. j razz says:

    Same sex unions, unable to procreate, can not meet the State’s need.

    Ah, but they found a way around that. All they have to do is adopt all of the children they could ever want or visit the local sperm bank. Granted, this is in the UK, but I doubt it will stay there.

    j razz

  3. vitaminbook says:

    Actually, your post gets a point across that you probably didn’t intend. ‘Marriage’ really is an entirely subjective concept!

    The quote says that ‘nature’ defines marriage, yet in nature nothing like ‘marriage’ exists. It’s an entirely human concept, and one that’s had many, many different meanings throughout human history.

    You’ve got a religious idea of marriage. Lots of people have a non-religious idea of marriage. (In my own country, almost nobody is thinking about God when they say ‘I do’, even if it’s taking place in a church.) Is it really so hard for you to have one kind of marriage and secular people, including homosexuals, to have another? You can continue to believe that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, that’s no problem. It doesn’t mean that you have to force that belief on others.

    • ELAINE N. RAMEY says:

      This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.. God created marriage between the man and the woman for the procreation of the species. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO HAVE SEX; ABUSING SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY IS NOT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, NEITHER IS IT MARRIAGE. IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE SICKNESS THAT MUST BE CORRECTED!

  4. Laz says:

    No vitamin, marriage is not an entirely ‘subjective concept’. That is the point that I intended with the post.

    Whether it’s Ireland or the the U.S., most of the people who marry at church aren’t thinking about God when they say ‘I do.’

    But even if everyone in the world fell into this category, it wouldn’t change the objective fact that God defines marriage as one man, one woman (homosexuals can have civil unions just don’t call them marriages because they’re not, Pat Buchanan’s quote is apropos here).

    This is obviously not your opinion and I must inform you that it isn’t mine either, but since it is God’s Objective Truth it is what I must joyfully abide by.

    It doesn’t mean that you have to force that belief on others.

    I know that all of us could afford to be more consistent with what we believe, and by forcing this statement upon me, you are no exception…

  5. dingo says:

    Laz, everything you say and everything you believe in tells me that you’re a blithering idiot. Just be glad that you have the Man-Given (Founding Fathers) right to say and believe what you want.

  6. Laz says:

    Dingo,
    You may very well be correct in your description, but that still doesn’t change the fact that God created marriage: one man, one woman.

    Thanks for the comment.

  7. anonanonanon says:

    Thank you, vitaminbook. Marriage is a civil right that is deeply linked to a relgious rite. However, the two are not the same thing: even though a preacher may assign this legal status, he is not the only one to do so. The church can do as it will; the state, at least, owes it to the rest of the country to ensure civil rights are available to all citizens.

    I hardly see how a couple composed of two men or two women should be less intrinsically stable than the kind you favor. I don’t believe that being gay makes anyone less of a human being, but maybe that’s just me.

    Well we have at least one commonality since I don’t believe that homosexuals are less human than heterosexuals. We are all human beings.
    –Laz

  8. Mursam says:

    Personally, I believe that Churches shouldn’t be forced to marry gay couples. However I see no reason why they can’t be married elsewhere, so that it doesn’t impact anyone’s religious beliefs. They have one idea of marriage, you have yours and they’re not attempting to have yours.

  9. David White says:

    I think one could even leave the “church” out of this argument, relative to “religion” or “sects”. I’d rather witness nature as a whole, in that, I have never seen a gay animal. Ever seen a gay dog? A gay horse? There are no gay insects. Gay is a lifestyle choice, not an inborn instinct or gene. Gay is more like choosing to be a pervert rather than a normal member of society. Sometimes it’s like a form of cowardice. Individuals afraid to deal with the responsibility of relationships with the opposite sex. It is easier for them, they believe, to satisfy the needs of someone with similar sexual repressions. Very little effort is required to live the life other than the oppression by straights. Sort of like children playing house, they are people playing at life. No consequences for their perversion is their goal.

    David thanks for your comment. In actuality, a type of chimp (bonobos) engages in same-sex sexual activities. This from a heavily cited Wikipedia entry,

    The bonobo, which has a matriarchal society (unusual amongst apes), is a fully bisexual species — both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for lesbianism in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes, including humans, as well as a number of other primate species.

    Your premise of leaving the “church” out might seem plausible. However one cannot ignore God’s Revealed Word in which homosexuality (among other things that aren’t as stigmatized in our homophobic culture) is prohibited

    –Laz

  10. W. Melon says:

    Fortunately, with the concept of the separation of Church and State, the law is not required to accept biblical definitions of words. Else, we would have to recognize that pi is exactly 3.

    Of course the Bible doesn’t actually explicitly define pi as 3. Nor does it explicitly define marriage, and certainly not as the union of one man and one woman. If you have even a passing familiarity with the Bible, I’m sure you can think of numerous Biblical examples that contradict that definition.

    Sorry Melon you’re incorrect. Genesis 2:24 is a clear indication on what marriage actually is according to God (the only true definition). Then there is Jesus’ echo of that text in Matthew 19:4-5, as well as the Apostle’s in Ephesians 5:31.

  11. W. Melon says:

    A) None of those verses gives an explicit definition of marriage.
    Of course not
    B) What are we to make of all the biblical examples of men taking multiple wives?
    Does God condone polygamy?
    C) Why should the state accept your (supposedly biblical, but not really) definition of marriage?
    It’s not my definition, and I’m not saying the state should accept it. Whether or not it accepts it still does not change what God has indeed said.

  12. anonanonanon says:

    @ David White – if you have never seen a thing, it must not exist? I’d like to live in your world; I’ve never seen one person murder another, never seen an armed robbery.

    And how to address the mention of cowardice? As I can obviously see that you present yourself as heterosexual, how do you have any inkling of the motivations of homosexuals? It’s simple – you don’t. All that you can provide are assumptions and slurs. No relationship between human beings is easy; gender doesn’t change that. If anything, the pervasive atmosphere of disapproval and outright hatred in most of the world makes it MORE difficult to engage in a homosexual relationship. So, tell me again, how is it easier?

  13. W. Melon says:

    “Of course not…”

    Wow, the Bible’s just full of escape hatches. Don’t argue with a fool or you’ll be a fool. People without the Spirit can’t understand. Have you ever considered that these verses were specifically designed to make the believer feel better when he has to back out of an argument he’s losing?

    Yes actually I have considered these verses as such, when I was without the Spirit. Mercifully and graciously, God has opened my eyes. The Corinthian text is not an “escape hatch” just a statement of fact about the hopelessness of our natural condition. When one is in said condition, one cannot possibly understand. To try to explain it to such a person is akin to an attempt to explain the color blue to a man born blind.

    Maybe I don’t have the Spirit, but I’m pretty sure you don’t have to have the Spirit to be able to realize that verses that don’t even contain the word “marriage” cannot possibly provide an explicit definition of the word “marriage.”

    And you don’t need the Spirit to read the context of a text…

    “Does God condone polygamy?”

    You tell me. You’re the one with the Spirit.

    One man, one woman is the His model for marriage, I fail to see how this condones polygamy.

    “I’m not saying the state should accept it.”

    Good. The rest doesn’t affect me a bit.

    As the Apostle noted in his first letter to the church in Corinth. I hope and pray that you come to repentance and faith.

  14. W. Melon says:

    “Yes actually I have considered these verses as such, when I was without the Spirit.”

    This sounds an awful lot like “I used to be able to think critically before I was brainwashed.”

    Naturally that is what one would say.

    “To try to explain it to such a person is akin to an attempt to explain the color blue to a man born blind.”

    Or akin to trying to explain Xenu to a non-scientologist.

    Except for the historical fact of Christianity compared to the non-historicity of that particular worldview, sure… Sticking your head in the sand won’t change anything.

    “And you don’t need the Spirit to read the context of a text…”

    Nor do you need it to look up the word “explicit.” At best, you can argue that these verses provide an implicit definition of marriage. But then you’d have to admit that your definition of marriage is based on your interpretation of the Bible, and that other people might interpret it differently.

    It’s not my interpretation… The context reveals that these texts are addressing marriage

    “One man, one woman is the His model for marriage, I fail to see how this condones polygamy.”

    Maybe it’s all those polygamous marriages in the Bible that received absolutely no condemnation from God.

    By stating exactly what marriage is (per cited texts), any deviation (polygamy) or re-invention like gay “marriage” is by default condemned. I don’t expect you to understand or accept that, but it is what it is.

  15. wep601 says:

    While I can appreciate your passion for this issue, to just emphatically state: “There is no Such Thing as Gay Marriage” makes me think of a line from the movie City of Angels… “some things are true whether you believe in them or not.”

    Exactly Wep, God’s definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is “true whether you [or I] believe” in it or not. Thanks for the comment.

  16. W. Melon says:

    “Exactly Wep, God’s definition of marriage (one man, one woman) is “true whether you [or I] believe” in it or not. Thanks for the comment.”

    Definitions cannot be true or false. They can only be common or uncommon, useful or useless, etc.

    Does this include your definition of a definition?

  17. W. Melon says:

    “Does this include your definition of a definition?”

    Yup. In fact, the word “definition,” like many other words, has many different definitions.

    Just so we understand each other

  18. R.C. says:

    Of course there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.

    Marriage was created by God to teach mankind, in the deepest fibers of their being, that He loves them.

    Loves them so much that He wants to be united with them forever.

    Loves them so much that He wants to take all humanity into union with Him, as His family, as His bride.

    Loves them so much that when He expresses His love, the outpouring of His love enters humanity so powerfully and completely that it becomes a Person, and is given a Name.

    So He prepared humanity for the reality of His love by writing into the helices of their DNA a profound and echoing lesson: That a man may love a woman so much that he desires to be united to her forever, that he takes her into union with him as his bride, and when he expresses his love for her, the outpouring of his love enters her so powerfully and completely that it may, sometimes, become a person, and nine months later, be given a name.

    This is the cosmic fundamental lesson of the history, indeed the humanity, of the human race.

    Which is why, seven-and-a-half billion years from now, when the sun expands to scorch and consume all the planets out to Mars, those who today trust in the Person who is God’s outpouring of Love, and who has a Name above all others, will still be alive.

    And there will still be no such thing as homosexual marriage. Not because people do not change; they change all the time. But marriage is an expression, in the end, not of human nature, but of God’s nature. It is an echo of His voice, a glimmer of the Beatific vision.

    And God does not change.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: