Same-Sex-Marriage - NEW BYZANTIUM
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
The American judicial system has exceeded its role in the context of the order of natural law:
Homosexuals assert pride in their situation. Why then are they so bent on donning the cloak of propriety foreign to their own? Since marriage is understood as a union between a man and a woman; homosexuals, in their own unique role, may not declare they are married, but should take pride in asserting they are “at union” or “unioned.”
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
The Chris Wallace Show in August 2010 invited comments regarding same-sex-marriage and the following was tendered:
“Mr. Wallace,
It is clear that Ted Olson has accommodated himself with human law above God’s Law. God made humans of two sexes for his own purposes; and the clear objective is procreation—thus marriage between man and woman. Our Constitution gives preeminence to God’s Law. In addition, his reasoning is flawed: He invokes interracial marriage to support his position on same sex marriage. The two are not compatible and are not at the same level of significance; because, underlying interracial marriage there exists again the fundamental natural principle of male-female marriage. Homosexuals have freedom to effect legal unions as free citizens, but cannot be deemed married.”
________________________________________________________________________
The response by e-mail on August 12, 2010 was:
“Here is the new reply:
It would seem that you want to limit the concept of marriage to be procreative.
In that case, and using your logic, older people that cannot procreate should
not be allowed to marry; those who are sterile or incapable of bearing children
should not be allowed to marry; those with any capacity not to form a bond that
results in children should be excluded from any ability to marry. Seems your
"world" would be pretty devoid of love which was the one command made in "God's
law" of the new covenant.
You can see more information for the comment on this post here:
“This email was sent automatically. Please don't reply to this email.”
________________________________________________________________________
Following is the inevitable logical rebuttal:
“Once again, your train of thought fails the test of good reasoning. The inability to procreate does not negate the validity of an opposite-sex marriage. Love does not demand marriage as its exclusive requirement. The presence of love among same-sex persons can be satisfied by appropriate legal means. Marriage is not a “concept” but an institution set forth by the Creator. God cannot be corrected. A same-sex union may be validated as a union, but not as a marriage—even in the presence of authentic love. Love is a complex emotion fulfilled in diverse ways. Many people love many other people, but do not marry them. The admonition to love one another [agape] and the precept to care, respect, and cherish each other do not compel marriage; nor do erotic love and aberrant love rise to the dignity and sacredness of marriage as instituted.”
Expansion of Western Civilization: from Constantine the Great to Constantinople and Byzantium and onward to America |
NEW BYZANTIUM
is The AMERICAS