As long as Americans conceive of consent as the sole criterion of the good

…any conceivable combination of a confused human with another person, persons, animals, Eiffel Towers, warehouses, or herself will be called by the empty meaningless sound pattern we commonly spell “m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e”.

When marriage means anything it means nothing. The purpose of marriage is to privilege and protect that relationship which produces and protects children. When that special protection is removed and marriage simply means “I demand that society kowtow to my narcissistic demand for approval” mischief will surely follow and the family with suffer even more than it already does.

Christians must, in the face of this, live according to reality till our civilization passes from the “what could it hurt?” phase to the “how were we supposed to know?” phase. Meanwhile, expect persecution from the sort of fascists who try to use the might of the state to smash businessmen for Ungoodthink.

  • keddaw

    Strikes me this is a secular argument for marriage, not a religious one….

    Depending on how you are using the “and” in “produces and protects” it could also be a really strong argument for allowing gay marriage.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Not if you’re using the English word “and”, which indicates conjunction. Of course, if you’re into redefining words to mean whatever you wish them to mean, much like the proponents of redefining marriage, than what couldn’t that “and” mean?

  • http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/ Florentius

    This is a powerful testimony. Thanks for sharing, Mark.

    He is so right about the search-and-destroy missions engaged in by the militant homosexual community when it comes to those who dare step out of line. It takes incredible courage to put these tales of woe out there publicly because the tolerance police will attempt to ruin your life if you do. Of course, there’s a reason they take the confessional literature of ex-gays so seriously–they realize how utterly devastating it is to the agenda.

  • Nate

    From the Lopez article:
    “Especially damning is the liberal attitude that we shouldn’t be judgmental about sex. …[R]esistance to sexual temptation is central to any kind of humane society. Sex can be hurtful not only because of infectious diseases but also because it leaves us vulnerable and more likely to cling to people who don’t love us, mourn those who leave us, and not know how to escape those who need us but whom we don’t love. The left understands none of that. That’s why I am conservative.”

    Damn, that’s good. That’s really good.

  • SteveP

    I have not heard a rational argument as to why Tom is entitled to Bob’s Federal or State pension after Bob dies — may God rest his soul.

  • http://www.prayerpunk.com PrayerPunk

    It is such a shame that the Church became the state religion of the empire. We tend to see things from above and look down. We think it is our job to make the world conform to us. The early Church didn’t think it was their job to force their veiws on others. Instead they LIVED their faith, and the pagans saw the love and light of Christ pouring through them.,so much so that when it was a death sentence to be a Catholic the Church grew. God loves us so much He gives us the freedom to not obey Him. We should show the same love. If we concentrated more on loving God and each other, and following Christ, then we might just draw in people instead of repulsing them. May the peace of Christ be with you all.

  • Sam Schmitt

    Not sure how anyone here is “forcing their views on others” – no arrest warrants, threats of torture, imprisonment or death. I also don’t see how vigorous argumentation is incompatible with love – in fact, trying to convince people of the truth is a sign of love. It’s also somewhat mysterious to me why living the faith excludes debate or controversy, as if this necessarily entailed hatred or disrespect. On the contrary, sometimes we are obliged to speak, as St. Lawrence (the martyr we honor today) did to the prefect of Rome. He wasn’t “forcing his views” on him, but charitably proclaiming the truth, even though the prefect was “repulsed” by it.

  • kevdonahoe

    The evidence seems to indicate that in the near future the old semantic illusion “Can a man marry his widow’s sister?” may some day be correctly answered “Yes!”

  • Observer

    Marriage stems from the relationship one has. Marriage between a man and a woman stems from two people who can have a family under a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience (yes, the same as someone in a Holy Order) to each other and their children (a faithfulness in being faithful and holding up that particular household which one belongs as Mother and Father – Husband and Wife.) Since that relationship has been altered and redefined by our wonderful educational institutions and the rampant divorce courts under the so-called campassionate care “family division”, we’re now at odds on defending marriage. The crooks, who have done this through law and education, need to have their hands tied behind their backs by prevention and limitation of law. So, it doesn’t matter how much someone tries to defend marriage, because the very nature of a relationship which constitutes it is already being ruined and nearly destroyed. If you recover, restore, and save what is truly a relationship (i.e. relating to one’s neighbor, friend, and family in a proper form and role of love), then you can recover marriage.

  • Matthew

    Let’s see: heterosexual marriage is now a temporary affair due to the whims of either party because of our divorce laws. It is also a sterile affair due to contraception. So, in other words, heterosexuals have been the pioneers of “gay marriage”. Why wouldn’t two men or two women want in on this institution which for many heterosexuals has merely become a gravy train with none of the responsibilities?

    • Mark Shea

      Exactly right. No fault divorce was the bullet to the brain. Gay “marriage” is just kicking the corpse of marriage.

    • SteveP

      Matthew: Well written. The problem in the US seems not to be that one cannot marry the one they love but one does not love the one they marry.

  • http://www.prayerpunk.com PrayerPunk

    I don’t understand the problem. Has the Church changed it’s definition of marriage? No. Why make such a big deal about what the non-believers do? We can and indeed should talk about it, educate our youth, and pray for those affected. However, as St. Paul clearly states, we are not all preachers, and the amount of people preaching on this topic far out weighs the number of people I think are called to preach. This like it or not a delicate issue that many people feel very passionate about. I guess what I am trying to say is that those who would speak on this issue should use more compassion. How can we hope to heal anyone if we seem to be attacking them? And Sam, passing laws against something is forcing your views.

    • Mark Shea

      Because the non-believers are already prosecuting Christians as hate criminals for believing what they believe about marriage.

  • JoFro

    Could someone please explain something that’s been on my mind recently –
    - If the US Supreme Court agrees there is such a thing as Gay Marriage, does that affect the polygamy laws? I mean, wouldn’t Gay Marriage technically discriminate against Bisexuals? Could bisexuals – attracted to both male and female persons – argue that both hetero and homo marriages discriminate against their love, making them choose to marry one sex at a time? What about being married to a transexual? Is that polygamy?
    - When the State of Utah wanted to become a part of the US, the demand was that they get rid of polygamy. Why was that? Did the US claim that marriage was between one man and one woman? If that is the case, if Gay Marriage becomes legal, what are the consequences of that?

  • SouthCoast

    Regarding the above title, a few years back, in Germany, an Old Guy took a Young Thing out on a date. At the end of the evening, the Young Thing refused to hit the sheets with Old Guy. Old Guy took Young Thing took court, charging her with age discrimination. So, choice, too, may soon fall by the wayside.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X