No. 2 — the longest section of the [Manhattan] declaration — applies to same-sex marriage. It amounts to a confession of confusion, a cry by the perplexed who have come to think that same-sex marriage is at the core — the rotten core — of much that ails our society. Everything from divorce to promiscuity is addressed in this section without any acknowledgement that same-sex marriage, like all marriage, is a way of containing promiscuity (or at least of inducing guilt) and that not having it would not reduce promiscuity in the least. This I state as a fact.
ad_icon
The declaration calls the out-of-wedlock birth rate the “most telling and alarming indicator” of a collapse of the “marriage culture.” Yes. But that collapse occurred long before same-sex marriage became an issue, not to mention a reality, and so one has nothing to do with the other.
It remains true that the family is the single best place to raise children. That being the case, same-sex marriage would serve the same purpose. I know of children raised by same-sex partners and they seem no worse for the experience, although — O’Reilly beware — they lack a certain knee-jerk antipathy to gays, lesbians, transsexuals and similar people of dissimilar sexuality.
Some of the declaration is couched in religious terms, and with that I cannot argue. But it is its appeal to common sense that I find so appalling.
One of Cohen’s assertions is that marriage decreases promiscuity, which is a good thing, therefore, it should be extended to same-sex partners and marriage will decrease same-sex promiscuity. But what is it about the nature of marriage which can get a red-blooded man to vow to forsake all others as long as they live? I suspect that Cohen’s idea of lessening the incidence of promiscuity is not the same thing as a vow of lifetime monogamy. So, what is it that compels one to make a lifetime vow of monogamy? The answer is found in the end of marriage itself, which is the one-flesh union of man and woman. Man and woman are united(one flesh) in a way that same-sex partners can not be. The forsaking of all others for life is the the way that the one-flesh union of man and woman is actualised. Same-sex partners do not become one flesh (one procreative principle), so that the end or purpose of marriage is not appropiate for same-sex partners. Using marriage to lessen the incidence of same-sex promiscuity will result in the loss of the ideal of lifetime monogamy, which only makes sense in the context of man and woman becoming one-flesh. And the loss of this ideal will actually lead to more broken homes.
Just like always Cohen equates the Christian position against same sex marriage as the primary issue in the debate. Though we have told them over and over again, Cohen and his alies don’t believe that the issue is God’s Word, its inerrancy and authority.
He implies that we think that ssm is the disease, and that this belief is unsound. But he is in error. We have argued and continue to argue that ssm is a symptom of a disease. The problem is that the symptoms themselves carry their own danger and that ssm is a symptom with very serious side effects. And when we die, isn’t it from the aggregation of symptoms, not the mere presence of a virus or bacterium? Larry
Actually, men and women do not become “one flesh.” WE are each made in the image of God, not separately. God does not judge us on being complemented. That would be heretical. And it is unscriptural.
The purpose of marriage is, among other things, for mutual joy. I’m not exactly sure how a gay man and a straight woman would enjoy being married. Seems that a straight woman would prefer a straight man.
#2 Dr. Joan, that’s fine for you, and for me, but I doubt our founders would base government policy on a religious perspective. Until you can get secularists, Jews, liberal Christians and Catholics to agree, the government has no ability to assess the truth of your claim.
Our marriage laws are just as much a legacy of “our founders” as our religious freedoms are, so I would not be so quick to implythat “our founders” would not base government policy on a definition of marriage that exludes the possiblity of “same sex marriage.”
One purpose is mutual joy? Where did this come from? There may well be some joy in a marriage – for some, a great deal, I daresay – but is this a purpose of marriage or a by product of a more fundamental purpose? Larry
#6 – you might want to read the BCP marriage rite.
John Wilkins, I did as you suggest, and got the following:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
alright #8 – check p 423
#1 So what do we make of childless marriages or people who are impotent? Are they inferior marriages? Further, does this prioritize having children to raising them?
#2 Well this is an interesting catch-22. A gay person wants to focus on not fornicating but developing a single relationship. Why would they want to do this? Well, it does signify a sort of maturity to have a long term relationship that generally helps other people. consistency, resilience, dependability, self-control are all worthy virtues that I suspect would be a part of the Christian life. but then you seem to prefer that gay people have promiscuous sex.
#3 and yes, which is exactly what some gay people want, especially Gay Republicans.