In an apparent preemptive strike against a future swarm of Massachusetts-married homosexual couples, the state of Ohio has banned same-sex marriages from being recognized in their state. Governor Bob Taft was quoted as saying “It’s about time we did something. Our families are finally safe. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go home and have heterosexual sexual relations with my woman-wife.” When questioned further about what dangers were threatening Ohio’s families, he responded, “Gay stuff. Mostly. Some of the gyms in our state have discounts if you get your spouse to join. We’re just making sure that these discounts aren’t abused.”
Taft went on to call marriage “an essential building block of society” and stressed that it needed to be reaffirmed. “Sure, just like with Legos, it is quite easy to dismantle the building blocks of society… sometimes the pieces don’t fit together well enough and sometimes your dog eats the ONLY laser turret piece in the entire set. But I still think it is a good analogy.” When asked how he would respond to those who would say that the state of marriage in this country is already deteriorating, especially when considering the divorce rate of nearly 50%, Taft replied “I would tell them that I would rather have twenty heterosexual divorces than see one homosexual couple get married. Sometimes marriages don’t work out, and that’s okay, but it’s never okay to hurt families and children, and that’s what homosexual marriage is going to do. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go home and take pride in the fact that my wife is a female woman who is heterosexual.”
I think I’ll move to Ohio where the governor has the courage to speak out in defense of the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage. Marriage exists for the health of society and to redefine its basic nature by including perversions is to shoot it in the leg and contribute to the ultimate downfall of society. To justify this on the grounds that the divorce rate is high is like giving LSD to alcoholics because they already abuse alcohol. Gov. Taft will take some heat from the PC brigade but it sounds as if he is up to it.;)
Marriage, as a religious institution, in its various forms, is not under attack, and is in no need of any “defense.” Can you honestly say with a straight face that homosexuality is a bigger perversion than two people pledging before each other and God to spend the rest of their lives together, and then waiting until they’ve brought a few children into the world before calling it quits?
“Marriage exists for the health of society…” I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. To the government, marriage exists to justify taxing people at a higher rate. To the individual, of course, it is much deeper and more personal, but the government does not need to be concerned with these aspects. The way you talk about marriage existing “for the health of society” makes me think that you view marriage primarily as a civil union. Either that, or you think that while marriage is a religious institution, religion should by dictated by the government (see also: Fascism). One of the fundamental tenets of America has been that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It’s the First Amendment.
I do not feel the need to “justify” letting homosexuals have their union be recognized by the state, because my position on that is determined by my political, rather than religious beliefs. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted in a manner that at all costs promoted their religious beliefs or silenced all those who oppose? The entire world would be like the Middle East. “My god says I am right, and you are wrong, so you deserve to be cast out, persecuted, killed.” That isn’t a very Christian way to do things. “Promoting” your religion using the law as a tool is shameful. It might seem alright for you, as long as your religious views appear to be the ones favored by the law; but by embracing such a system, you are just setting yourself up for a hard lesson on “what goes around, comes around.”
I agree that divorce, in a sense, is a perversion of the institution of marriage, and is a destructive force in society. It should only happen in rare instances. Homosexual marriage, however, can never be sanctioned.
Anything that seeks to redefine the basic nature on an institution seeks to attack it. It is difficult to come up with a perfect analogy, but it is like insisting that the Boy Scouts admit girls with all the same rights and priveleges or that from now on all dog shows will include cats. The nature of the Boy Scouts is that it is a group of boys. To include girls would be an attack on its very nature and would destroy it as it has existed successfully for years.
Marriage is by nature and definition a union between a man and a woman. One of the miraculous benefits of this union is that children are often produced. This is intentional and will never happen between homosexual couples for a good reason.
Studies show definitively that married men and women live longer, healthier lives. Chilldren are far better adjusted with a mother and father. Monogamous marriage does benefit society as a whole, whether you believe in it for political or religious reasons.
That’s the thing… I’m NOT sanctioning it (Sanction: Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.) Not everything you don’t sanction should be illegal. Once again you are basing legal decisions on religious beliefs.
Your Boy Scout analogy doesn’t work. The Boy Scouts are a private organization. They are free to exclude females, as well as homosexuals. A better analogy would be voting, circa 1900. “Voting is, of its very nature and definition, a male institution, and female voting would be a destructive force in society.”
The government has no business dictating matters of religion or practicing discrimination. Private organizations are free to do so. That is why while you will see homosexual legal unions in the United States, you will never see a homosexual marriage in the Catholic church. If there is any “battle” to be fought with regards to this topic, it needs be fought at your church, synagogue, or mosque. Marriage is a personal religious bond, and nothing the government allows is going to change that.
The institution of marriage has changed many times. The great men of the Bible had more wife’s than they could write about. For early Christians passion and sexual pleasure was not acceptable even in marriage.
Marriage was different in the early part of the century. The wife had more freedom before she entered into Holy matrimony. Only later in the century did it take this form.
One man and one women on a Las Vegas Strip after a night of binge drinking saying I do.
It is legal and considered a marriage. People get real and get the facts.