Opposing same sex marriages

Randy Alcorn posted a great piece on his blog, Eternal Perspectives, the other day. It deals with same sex marriage and the reasons we should oppose it.

A few excerpts:

…Marriage has been the societal building block for millennia; it has developed as the method by which cultures pass on, from generation to generation, who and what they are. Since cultures are made up of men, women and children, to effectively pass on cultural values the family should reflect the cultural makeup of one man, one woman (an equal number), and their natural children where possible.

…”Homophobia” and discrimination have nothing to do with opposition to same-sex marriage. Opposition to it is not an attack on homosexuality or homosexuals; it is simply the belief that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, based on practical cultural and social reasons as the list above makes clear.

Also, “discrimination” necessarily involves infringement of a basic human right. A marriage license is not a basic human right. It is a privilege which has always required the government’s permission, as do many other parts of life, such as getting a driver’s license or a business license (to sell food, for example). Just as the ability to freely move about on roads and the ability to pursue the occupation of one’s choice both require certain preconditions, so it must be true of marriage. One of those preconditions for the granting of this privilege (in addition to age and health based considerations) is that the participants must be one man and one woman, for all the reasons listed in Bill’s talking points.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Opposing same sex marriages”

  1. Kansas Bob says:

    I agree with Randy on marriage but what about civil unions? Should the government okay them? If not, then are civil rights being violated? If so, then what is the difference – tomato.. tomahto – marriage.. civil union?

  2. Casey says:

    Exactly. What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? I say no to both, because they are one and the same.

  3. Kansas Bob says:

    Removing any religious beliefs from the mix then how can one argue against a “civil” union?

  4. casey says:

    That was the point of Randy’s post, wasn’t it? Anyway, here’s another one:

    In his 1934 book, Sex and Culture, Unwin chronicled the historical decline of 86 different cultures. His exhaustive survey revealed that “strict marital monogamy” was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Unwin stated it this way, “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.”


  5. Kansas Bob says:

    Maybe I missed it but I don’t remember Randy’s article addressing civil unions. That to me is the issue that our country faces – do citizens have a civil right to a civil union?

    “strict marital monogamy” sounds more like an indictment against divorce than it does civil unions.

    Of course no one in the church likes to rail against divorce any more.. we’d rather make it all about hetero vs homo.. something most of us don’t have to deal with.

    Sorry for the rant.. I see so much devastation from divorce in my pastoral role.. it just makes me sad that homosexual marriage gets so much attention and heterosexual divorce has become accepted as a reality in the church.

  6. casey says:

    What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? Any argument against gay marriage is an argument against civil unions, is it not? It’s only a matter of semantics. An argument against drunk driving is an argument against driving under the influence of alcohol.

  7. Kansas Bob says:

    I decided to post on the difference between the 2 at my place and from what I see the difference is only a legal one.

    Interesting that Bill Clinton signed the bill that defined marriage as one between opposite sexes.