MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

They Don’t Believe It’s Not a Big Deal

June 5th, 2012 Visited 1280 times, 1 so far today

Young Love Banner

The same sex marriage proponents would have you believe that it’s not that big of a deal that same sex couples are given the permission to enter into a “marriage” relationship.

One of the arguments is “it won’t affect your marriage.”  The reasoning follows the line that each person must enter the relationship themselves, and what others choose to do has no bearing on what you have chosen to do.

And it goes further to say that traditionally married couples have done more to harm marriage with divorce, annulments, etc., than permitting same-sex couples to enter into a marriage will ever do.

Let’s unpack these arguments, shall we?

It Won’t Affect You or Your Marriage

The most common argument that you will hear is that you marriage (or potential marriage) will not be effected by same-sex marriage being an option.  The rational is pretty tight: basically, current marriage law defines a marriage between two heterosexual individuals and they’re just taking out the heterosexual part.

Therefore, since it’s still a partnership between two consenting adults, the reasoning goes, there’s really no big difference between the “plumbing” the individuals have, and one entity really doesn’t effect the other.  Or does it?

The whole goal of same sex marriage isn’t the partnerships, it’s acceptance.  We live in a culture that has people moving in together and leaving each other regardless of whether they are married or not.  Other than the federal marriage tax benefit, you can have a non-married partner on bank instruments, insurance, etc.1.

Marriage itself has been eroded by both divorce and same-sex pushes for domestic partner benefits such that I’m not sure what it means other than what happens when the couple splits.

Therefore, I suggest that the entire move to have same-sex marriage relationships recognized in law is expressly for the purpose of affecting you.  It’s intention is to normalize the relationship as something that’s acceptable and approved in the culture—in essence, they are attempting to change public perception by taking an entity with positive cultural attributes and appropriate it for the purpose of acceptance.

They are trying to change your opinion of their unions, and through the process label everyone that disagrees with their lifestyle as akin to racists.

Traditionally Married Couples Have Done More Harm to Marriage

The rationale here is that divorce, adultery, and annulments are worse for marriage than same-sex marriage, because same-sex partners tend to want to be committed to each other.

Now, this argument is a fairly strong one, in that one of the last remaining taboos seems to be adultery.  You see, there have been two perversions of marriage that are at the root of both same-sex marriage and our divorce culture.

First, there’s the change of marriage from a covenant based arrangement to a love based arrangement.  This is the idea popularized by Hollywood and impacting the culture—the idea that two people get together because they love each other and are caught up in the emotion of the moment.  Many young people today make a decision about a life partner not based on mutual goals, upbringing or other traits but by desperation or emotion.  What happens when the feelings fade?

Second, there’s the view that marriage is a contract that can be cancelled for any reason.  This is the direct result of the first point.  Almost every couple say “until death do us part” but what they really mean is “until I fall out of love with you.”  And why not, that’s how they’ve been trained.  Marriage, for them, is something they do while it feels good, and when it stops, then they divorce.

Both of these are at the foundation of same-sex marriage.  Feelings for another person are enough to justify getting married.  The financial benefit is the grounds for “equal protection”.  And yet this error is the same error that the same-sex proponents back.

So they are extending the error of marriage instead of seeking to right it.  What would be the traditional definition?  Two people (opposite sex) that make a vow together to live life’s journey for the rest of their lives based on the commitment made, not their feelings for one another.

Conclusion

The arguments we’ve discussed today are a smokescreen.  They sound great, but they hide the point.  They’re focus grouped, they are refined to get the biggest positive impact, and they are working.

So, why should a Christian stand against same-sex marriage?


Image from Stock Exchange used under the Standard Restrictions explained at the link.


  1. Granted that some locations still frown on this. []

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: