Legalize Same Sex MarriageThis is " Legalize Same Sex Marriage " point four in a six point case regarding the same-sex marriage debate. The case is outlined here.
Legalize Same Sex Marriage - Point Four
Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves. How would same-sex marriage hurt natural marriage?
This may be news to many Americans, but some college professors and other liberal radicals canï¿½t stand natural marriage. They agree with the sentiments of the Gay Liberation Front which proclaimed back in 1969, ï¿½We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system.ï¿½ To them, marriage is a hindrance to achieving full public acceptance of radical sexual liberty. Thatï¿½s why these people devote themselves to the complete destruction of the institution of marriage.
One of the leaders of this movement is Judith Stacey, the former Barbra Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California (Iï¿½m not making this up!). Stacey, who now teaches at New York University, declares, ï¿½I object to the profoundly discriminatory and antidemocratic character of the policies [marriage] promotes.ï¿½39 Staceyï¿½s disdain for marriage is so great that she actually applauds rising divorce rates!
Despite this, Stacey is actually one of the nationï¿½s staunchest supporters of same-sex marriage. In fact, most people who professionally dislike marriage support same-sex marriage.40 Why is this so? Because Judith Stacey and her allies understand that the endorsement of same-sex marriage would spell the destruction of natural marriage. Stacey quotes law professor, Nan D. Hunter, who argues that government-backed same-sex marriage would have ï¿½enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone.ï¿½41
Legalize Same Sex Marriage - The Strategy
Michelangelo Signorile admits that is his strategy as a homosexual activist. His goal isnï¿½t to get government-backed same-sex marriage so he can adhere to marriageï¿½s moral code like straights do. (He can already do that without the government getting involved. And remember, just about every other homosexual is like Signorileï¿½96 percent of them do not get married when given the chance.) His goal is to destroy marriage itself. He urges his fellow homosexual activists ï¿½to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to societyï¿½s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.ï¿½
Sneaky? Subversive? Exactly. In fact, Signorile goes on to write, ï¿½The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of ï¿½familyï¿½ entirely.ï¿½42
Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, agrees. She admits, ï¿½Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.ï¿½43
Legalize Same Sex Marriage - Changing the Definitions
We need to realize what these homosexual and anti-family zealots realize. (Remember, these are the people who hate natural marriage but are for same-sex marriage.) They realize that changing the definition of marriage will destroy marriage itself because the new definition will help change the attitudes and behaviors of our citizens. By dragging natural marriage down to their level, marriage will be destroyed, and their sexual choices will be validated. They are correct!
If you are still not sure how changing the law would destroy marriage, consider an analogy. Right now, the legal benefits given to married couples affirm the fact that we consider natural marriage to be the most valuable sexual relationship in our society. That is, if sexual relationships were players on a sports team, marriage would get the most valuable player (MVP) award. In sports, thatï¿½s an esteemed award because itï¿½s given only to the player whose performance is truly the most valuable. But suppose the leagueï¿½s commissioner redefined the qualifications required to win the MVP award to the point where everyone in the league received the award, even those who performed poorly. Would anyone think the MVP award was special? Obviously notï¿½everyone would think it was meaningless!
Who would even take the trouble to go pick it up? No one. In the same way, the value of natural marriage will be diminished if we redefine the qualifications of marriage to include same-sex relationships and confer the same benefits on those relationships. We need to face the fact that just as all players are not equally valuable to a team, all relationships are not equally valuable to a society. Natural marriage is the most valuable relationship in any civilization. Thatï¿½s not bigotryï¿½thatï¿½s wisdom based on evidence from five thousand years of human experience, the self-evident design of the human body, and the documented beneficial results of natural marriage to children, their parents, and our society.
If we allow any other sexual relationship to have the same status as natural marriageï¿½be it man-man, woman-woman, man-daughter (incest), man-woman-man, or whatever-whateverï¿½we will degrade marriage itself (just like we degrade the MVP award by giving it to everyone). When we degrade marriage, we will get less of it. When we get less of it, we will further weaken our civilization. Children will be hurt the most.
Keep Reading the Six Points
Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.
39 Judith Stacey, ï¿½Lettersï¿½, The Nation, October 1, 2001, posted online at http://www.americanvalues.org/html/page124951.html.
40 David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 28.
41 Judith Stacey, In the Name of the Family, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), pgs. 123-124.
42 Michelangelo Signorile, ï¿½Bridal Wave,ï¿½ Out, December 1994. Quoted in Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, Insight, Issue No. 238. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3.
43 Quoted in Tim Leslie, ï¿½The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage,ï¿½ Crisis, January 8, 2004. Available online at http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm.
What is your response?
Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus
Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus
I still have questions