------------------
Claim 8) Homosexual marriage is readily embraced by all other countries.
Response 8) Sexually progressive France held protests (November 17, 2012) concerning homosexual marriage. Imagine the shock to the international community when French citizens came out by the hundreds of thousands to protest against homosexual marriage. The French were protesting to fight against a parliamentary bill redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships and legalizing same-sex adoption.
-----------------------------------------------
Reuters reports:
Opponents
of homosexual marriage and adoption, including most faith leaders in France,
have argued that the reform would create psychological and social problems for
children, which they believe should trump the desire for equal rights for gay
adults.
Support for gay marriage in France has
slipped by about 10 percentage points to under 55 percent since opponents began
speaking out and fewer than half of those polled recently wanted gays to win
adoption rights. Organizers insist they
are not against gays and lesbians but for the rights of children to have a
father and mother.
-------------------------------------------------
The basic point is this: without the
intervention of government, there is no a
priori understanding that can help us to understand certain types of homosexual
relationships as being marriage. Homosexual marriage was not even considered until
recently. Unlike heterosexual marriage, which exists in nature since man’s
existence and is then recognized by
the state, homosexual marriage is an abstract legal entity with no natural or prior
existential existence. Indeed, once the term marriage is divorced from nature
like this, then logically there’s no limit to the relationship types that can
have ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ status conferred on it by the state.
All this has enormous implications for
how we understand the relationship between the family and the state. But have we really considered the
implications of saying that marriage and family should be defined by the state?
There is no escaping from this problem. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are
really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual (and even homosexual
) marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well.
Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow showed
that after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, even traditional marriage were
viewed as little more than a legal construct. In his book, Nation of Bastards, he
warned that by claiming power to re-invent marriage, Canada “has drawn marriage
and the family into a captive orbit. It (reversed) the gravitational field
between the family and the state… It has effectively made every man, woman, and
child a chattel of the state, by turning
their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at the
state’s disposal. It has transformed (them) from divine gifts to gifts from
the state.”
Once
homosexual marriage is introduced, it will undermine the integrity of every
family and every marriage in it. The
state which legalizes gay marriage has assumed the god-like power to declare what
constitutes a ‘family.’ By this assumption, government declares that both
marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts
from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their
objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state.
(http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/)
Sincerely,
Christopher Lee
No comments:
Post a Comment