gay marriage - I don’t like it
Hot on the heels of my recent post about the way that we argue about moral issues in society comes this article opposing gay marriage.
The author says:
However, the commonly accepted definition [of marriage] - union between a man and a woman - is under threat. If this definition is successfully challenged, the institution’s great value to our culture and society will be irreversibly diminished. This is why parliament should codify in legislation the existing common-law definition of marriage.
He spends the rest of the article talking about how it is possible that legal developments might allow for same sex marriages in the absence of legislation to the contrary. But he says absolutely nothing to justify his contention that gay marriage would “irreversibly diminish” the institution of marriage.
If I felt as strongly as this guy does, I am sure that I could come up with at least one argument to support my thesis. There are of course some arguments against gay marriage which simply can’t be answered.
UPDATE - phil’s college essay on homosexuality and the bible can be found here for those who have expressed interest.
September 21st, 2004 at 9:15 am
“The church of course is a family.”
Is it? I thought the church was a church, and ‘family’ was only a metaphore that some people find helpful to apply to the church and others do not.
Shouldn’t we defend the institution of the family and not let people redefine it to apply to other groups of human relationships?
Gosh, if the church is a family, next thing you know any two people who love each other and commit to a mutal, intimate, lifelong relationship will be allowed to be called a family too!
September 21st, 2004 at 9:16 am
Forgot to enter my name, but that above post was by me.
September 21st, 2004 at 1:33 pm
I understand that people want to strengthen the institution of marriage, I mean look how bad the divorce rate is now days! But can anyone please explain the logic which says if you ban gay marriage you strenghten hetro marriage?
November 4th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
No tears for queers and no special rights for dykes. Fags already have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like any normal person can. They dont lose any right by banning fag marriages because they just like everyone else never had that right to begin with. If you choose to lead a gay lifestyle you cant expect to have your cake and eat it.
November 5th, 2005 at 3:37 am
“No tears for queers and no special rights for dykes. Fags already have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like any normal person can. They dont lose any right by banning fag marriages because they just like everyone else never had that right to begin with. If you choose to lead a gay lifestyle you cant expect to have your cake and eat it.”
You left out the original and witty thing about ‘Adam and Steve’ Chris.
I must say, I thought we would have seen someone like you on here much sooner Chris, because there are plenty of people like you out in Church Land.
I watched a couple having their wedding photos taken at the beach yesterday, and all the over-dressed family members standing around looking uncomfortable… and couldn’t help thinking…’why would gay people want to pay thousands of dollars to put themselves through all this nonsense’?