« previous: Windows on ATMs? | next: interesting »

Marriage and Homosexuality

Marriage is a word with a definition, and the variant corresponding to matrimony explicitly defines it as the union of man and woman as husband and wife. Therefore "homosexual marriage" is a logical impossibility; it makes as much sense as "cold heat" and "dry liquid." The issue here is not whether it’s right or wrong. The issue is that it’s self-contradicting. Two homos cohabiting could be called a lot of things, but it cannot be called marriage by any sane person who speaks English.

I am a Christian, which means that I believe in the Bible, and the Bible states in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is sin. Therefore I believe that homosexuality is sin. I don’t hate homosexuals or any other sinners -- which is to say, everyone, because everyone sins. I’m not "homophobic" (which is an entirely ridiculous term) -- I’m not scared of homos or any other sinners. Well, I’m scared of murderers. Anyway, just to make it perfectly clear for those people who are impervious to things which are painfully obvious to the rest of us: believing something is wrong does not imply hatred or fear of people who practice that thing.

Less obvious to some people is that not all Christians believe that sins should be illegal. Cursing and lying are sins but shouldn’t be illegal; words or actions that intentionally hurt a person’s feelings could be sinful but certainly shouldn’t be against the law. The American legal system has its roots in Christian ideals, but you can’t make the system an exact mirror of the Bible. (If you think that’s a good idea, you’ll probably change your mind if I replace "Bible" with "Koran.") Our Constitution is an ingenious document which states that the role of government is to protect our rights, not to grant rights to us; indeed, it recognizes that the rights existed beforehand. Our system starts with the broad recognition that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and then it places restrictions on things which would infringe those rights. Getting murdered, or beaten, or harassed, or imprisoned without trial, for example, would infringe upon those rights, so these kinds of things are restricted by law. But in contrast, things which are merely offensive are not (and should not be) restricted by government. Cursing is offensive to me, but it doesn’t damage me nor restrict my fundamental rights in any way, so the government has no right to restrict people’s freedom to curse. That’s simply not what (most) Americans believe that government is for. And again, even if you do believe that government should do those kinds of things, you’d probably regret giving it that authority if in 50 or 100 years the majority of people were muslim and they decided to change all the laws to reflect the ideals of the Koran instead of the Bible.

Although I believe homosexuality is wrong, and although I find it thoroughly disgusting and offensive, I don’t believe the government should do anything about it. Indeed, I don’t believe the government has any right to do anything about it; I’m not willing to give the government the authority to decide what is and isn’t moral.

Now, all that to say this: the issue of "homosexual marriage" has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. "Homosexual marriage" is impossible because marriage is explicitly heterosexual by definition. If two homos want to form a "civil union" or whatever, that’s fine with me; just don’t call it marriage because that’s an oxymoron.

And finally, I don’t support the idea of a Constitutional amendment to forbid homosexual marriage. I don’t support it because that is not what the Constitution was designed for. I don’t believe that homos have a "right" to be married, because as I’ve explained, that simply makes no sense if you speak English. However it would be an abuse of the Constitution to use it for this purpose. The only other time something like this was attempted was prohibition, and that amendment was repealed. All the other Constitutional amendments that have been passed either recognize broader rights or deal with administrative affairs of the government. The Constitution does not exist to limit the rights of the people; it exists to protect them.

Posted by Anthony on Dec 11, 2003 | 11 replies
Filed under: General

Comments:

01. Dec 11, 2003 at 01:47pm by Mark:

I don’t hate mo’s, and they usually don’t bother me either. This is why i could care less whether they can get married. The thing i hate the most is when two mo’s adopt a kid. This is def not right. That kid is going to be f’d up for the rest of his life, cause he was brought up in abnormal surroundings. Now you know that I know nothing about the Bible, nor do i care that much about it. Now before you start hating, yo, it is simply not natural for a freaking man to be with another man. Check out some science books people. They can’t reproduce, and that is the point of the sex. But usually i just ignore them if i can. It’s disgusting to see two of them holding hands. You can’t ignore that. i usually give ’em a good stare, which translates to "what the f are you thinking."

That’s all from me for now. Good day sir.

02. Dec 11, 2003 at 11:47pm by Anthony:

> I don’t hate mo’s

"mo’s", huh? I thought "homo" was a pretty good abbreviation but you’ve got it down to just two letters. Not bad.

> it is simply not natural for a freaking man to be with
> another man. Check out some science books people. They
> can’t reproduce

That’s word. It doesn’t take a genius to see that we were meant to fit together in a certain way to achieve a certain goal, and that that requires the sexes to be opposite.

> The thing i hate the most is when two mo’s adopt a kid. This
> is def not right. That kid is going to be f’d up for the rest
> of his life, cause he was brought up in abnormal surroundings.

Definitely word. What’s scary is that these people (and all the people who feel the need to be politically correct about everything) are trying to make it seem perfectly normal. Everyone knows there’s nothing normal about it, but for the sake of political correctness they nod their heads and say, "Yep, perfectly normal." It’s going to result in lots of messed up kids. But a lot of kids are pretty messed up already, often due to having been raised without a mom or without a dad, so this will just continue that trend, and therefore statistically I think it will tend to blend in. It’s a sad and sick thing to have to look forward to.

03. Dec 12, 2003 at 10:10am by Mark:

I have to credit my friend Cuvo with mo. I don’t know where he got it, nut i stole it from him.

04. Dec 13, 2003 at 06:02pm by Nathan:

The question of whether or not any homosexual should be allowed to get married shouldnt even be a tough question, for a believer. If you are an unbeliever then obviously you have no basis for disagreeing with homosexuals getting married because if you stayed true to the unbelievers outlook on life you should step aside and let them live out their lives as they want. But, for the believer the bible not only clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, but it also clearly states what the penalty for such a perversion is, death. In Leviticus 20:13 it says "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Now how can the believer say that he doesnt agree with the homosexual lifestyle but then say that it isnt the job of the civil government to enforce a poilicy of no same sex marriages. That is an open contradiction. Of course homosexuality is wrong and of course something has to be done to put an end to such a perverse and openly unGodly lifestyle. It is up to the Government to uphold Biblical penalties for sin. I will not go into detail about what the Bible says regarding the duties of the Civil Magistrate but it clearly shows that God gave the Civil Magistrate power and that it is up to them to obey God in everything, this means upholding the standards God set forth for all mankind and punishing the evil that the Bible so explicitly condemns.

05. Dec 13, 2003 at 06:43pm by Anthony:

First of all, death is the punishment for all sin, not just homosexuality. (You know that, but some people may not.)

The American government is not a theocracy, it’s a democracy. That means the government does what the majority of its citizens want it to do; it does not exist to uphold Biblical penalties for sin.

06. Dec 14, 2003 at 12:59am by Nathan:

Yes "the wages of sin is death" but God graciously does not give us what we deserve, but there are specific sins that he commands deserve the penalty of death, homosexuality being one of them. Just because the Government does what the majority of people want it to do doesnt mean that that is the way God commands it in his word. It does exist to uphold the standards that God commands of all people. This includes punishing things that God says deserve punishment.

07. Dec 14, 2003 at 01:52am by Anthony:

> Yes "the wages of sin is death" but God graciously does not give us
> what we deserve, but there are specific sins that he commands deserve
> the penalty of death

There are not "specific sins" that deserve death. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death; it does not say "specific sins." God’s grace extends to all who ask for it, including homosexuals. You’re pretending there’s some distinction there, but no such distinction is supported by scripture. And if you want to continue to pretend that, then you’ll have to consider these other "specific sins" too:

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. (Exodus 21:15)

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: (Leviticus 20:9)

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, (Leviticus 24:16)

And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (Numbers 3:10)

Homosexuality is a sin deserving death, as is hitting your dad or mom, or even cursing them, or blaspheming God’s name, or working on the sabbath. All those sins deserve death, and none moreso than the rest.

> It does exist to uphold the standards that God commands of all people.
> This includes punishing things that God says deserve punishment.

That’s false. The majority of people do not want that to be the case. If you’re saying that it should be that way anyway, then you’re attempting to undermine or circumvent the government, and God’s word commands us to obey the government.

It’s additionally false because it’s entirely impossible. If the government attempted to punish things that the Bible says are deserving of punishment, then our entire system would grind to a halt. It is not possible for the government to monitor and punish 250 million people who are cursing their parents or blaspheming the name of the LORD.

08. Dec 15, 2003 at 08:18pm by goofyfooter:

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought our nation was built on a republic not a democracy.

09. Dec 15, 2003 at 09:03pm by Anthony:

What distinction are you drawing between "republic" and "democracy"?

republic:
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

democracy:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

10. Feb 21, 2004 at 04:49pm by Mike:

The difference between a republic and a democracy as I understand it is the difference between the people electing representatives to make the decisions and people making the decisions directly. Our system is technically a democratic-republic because we elect representatives to make decisions as well as having the power to decide certain issues directly with propositions and what not.

The founding fathers were actually very much against a direct democracy (which they considered mob rule), which is why we have an electoral system and originally, members of the Senate were elected by members of their state’s legislature (this of course was changed as we wanted to move more towards a direct democracy). This is the difference as I understand it although the definitions for the two sound pretty similar. Of course, I could just be full of crap too. This is what the father of the Constitution had to say about it:

"…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison, Federalist #10 - The Federalist Papers

Good job on the gay marriage stuff by they way. I’m personally for a Federal Marriage Amendment. However, at the moment I’m only for it to correct the anarchy that is going on right now in Massachusetts and San Francisco. I may change my position even more to support it because of the issue itself some day if a marriage in one state forces a marriage to be recognized in another. In that case, I think federal intervention would be called for as well. At any rate, conservatives are always handicapped because of our respect for the rule of law. Liberals pretty much do what they want and then we try to work in the system to undo the damage.

11. Feb 26, 2004 at 06:43am by Anthony:

I agree that if ever there’s a time to amend the constitution, it’s when rogue states (I’m looking at you, CA) cross the line like this. I’m not for it in this case, but at least it’s in context now.

Good background on the democracy vs. republic issue. I think what’s actually happened is that America, by existing for the past 200 years in a state of in-betweenness, has partially erased or at least obscured the line between republic and democracy. That’s why the current definitions are so similar (and wishy-washy).

Reply to this message here:

[ Home – Create Post – Archives – Login – CMS by Encodable ]