SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: OXYMORON
I've read many articles from Conservative writers purporting to give reasons why same-sex marriage is not marriage but they always fail to convince. They begin by saying marriage is about children or about raising children, and base their arguments from that. It is a false narrative, and when you start with a false idea, you will never convince the gainsayers.
So just what is marriage about? For that, let's consider when and why marriage came into existence. Most tribal societies were patriarchal, ruled by a Chief.
The Chief could have children from wives, concubines, slaves, and mistresses. So marriage is not about having children.
The children of wives and concubines were often treated equally, and sometimes even children of slaves were raised as equals to the others. So marriage is not about how children are raised.
So what sets the wife apart from the others? Only her children were guaranteed an inheritance of the Chief's estate. The oldest male from the wives' children was the usual successor to the title of Chief.
Children of concubines may or may not be given a share of the inheritance. Abraham drove out his firstborn, Ismael, because he was born of a concubine, in favor of his second born, Isaac, born to his wife, Sarah.
But Jacob/Israel made all sons of his wives and concubines co-inheritors in his estate.
Children of slaves and mistresses, however, are illegitimate. Does this mean they are not legitimately children? Don't be silly. It means they cannot legitimately inherit from the estate.
So marriage is about inheritance, with the children of the marriage being the sole legitimate inheritors. But the potential of children is a secondary part of marriage. Consider:
A marriage that is not consummated is invalid. So the potential of children, and therefore an heir, is necessary to the institution.
Yet it is only the potential that matters. Abraham and Sarah, whether you see their story as myth or fact, illustrate part of that. At 100 and 90 years of age, respectfully, the birth of Issac was possible, but highly unlikely. The possibility kept the marriage valid.
Similarly, consider Odysseus (Ulysses). He was absent for 20 years and suspected dead, yet when he returned, he was still considered married. As long as the possibility of his return, and therefore the birth of an heir, remained, the marriage was valid.
So we have what marriage is about: Inheritance, through the natural offspring of the married partners.
If, then, there can be no natural offspring of the union, there can be no marriage. Since in same-sex marriage there can be no natural offspring, the term is an oxymoron.
What is same-sex marriage about? Some same-sex couples point to their shared residences and finances as being the same relationship that heterosexual couples have. But for that to be the qualification for marriage, you'd have to include Bachelor Brothers, Spinster Sisters, Oscar and Felix, Laverne and Shirley, and any couple sharing a domicile and expenses, regardless of sexual activity.
Again, what is same-sex marriage about? Only one thing: the only qualifying criteria is to be engaging in sexual activity. There are no residence requirements, no financial requirements, no requirements except sexual activity. Adding same-sex couples to marriage changes its definition to be "government sanctioned sexual activity", which seems to be what many think marriage is.
The argument you hear for same-sex marriage is a claim for fairness and equality. same-sex couples argue that they should be given the same rights as married couples in terms of legal issues: receiving survivor benefits, the ability to make legal and medical decisions for a incapacitated partner, etc. Increasingly, the citizens of the United States agree. Yet when given domestic partnerships or civil unions, many still clamored for marriage.
Despite states, such as California, establishing civil unions as in all ways the same as marriage, at the federal level, there was no such provision. Civil unions do not cover Social Security benefits, federal employee benefits, or family based immigration petitions, nor are they required to be recognized by other states. So some same-sex couples understandably chaffed at the discrimination and asked instead that it be termed a marriage (as the Supreme Court has now done).
Hard-core LGBT advocates, however, have a less benign interest in having same-sex marriage. These are people interested in changing our culture and by having it termed marriage, they can bring pressure to bear on churches to perform same-sex marriages despite their beliefs, through loss of tax-exemptions and civil lawsuits. The true end-game for these activists is the mainstreaming of LGBT activities and the criminalizing of any criticism of LGBT activities from the pulpit (or elsewhere) by classifying it as hate speech.
This anti-liberty agenda is most noticeable in recent lawsuits against various businesses; florists, bakers, and photographers have been ordered by the courts to participate in same-sex weddings. See my article PRODUCTS VS. SERVICES for a critique of the judges' rulings.
So just what is the correct response? Congress should pass legislation, and maybe an accompanying Constitutional Amendment, doing the following:
1. Declare marriage a union of one man and one woman, the historical definition.
2. Define civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. as a union between like-sexes and give them equal benefits in all ways to those of marriages, at all levels of government.
3. Convert all existing Same-Sex Marriages into Civil Unions, etc.
By recognizing the same-sex marriage oxymoron, yet giving equality of benefits to civil unions, this will give the LGBT community the fairness and equality they seek and the public recognizes they should have, but without effecting the 1st Amendment rights threatened by the term same-sex marriage.
I've read many articles from Conservative writers purporting to give reasons why same-sex marriage is not marriage but they always fail to convince. They begin by saying marriage is about children or about raising children, and base their arguments from that. It is a false narrative, and when you start with a false idea, you will never convince the gainsayers.
So just what is marriage about? For that, let's consider when and why marriage came into existence. Most tribal societies were patriarchal, ruled by a Chief.
The Chief could have children from wives, concubines, slaves, and mistresses. So marriage is not about having children.
The children of wives and concubines were often treated equally, and sometimes even children of slaves were raised as equals to the others. So marriage is not about how children are raised.
So what sets the wife apart from the others? Only her children were guaranteed an inheritance of the Chief's estate. The oldest male from the wives' children was the usual successor to the title of Chief.
Children of concubines may or may not be given a share of the inheritance. Abraham drove out his firstborn, Ismael, because he was born of a concubine, in favor of his second born, Isaac, born to his wife, Sarah.
But Jacob/Israel made all sons of his wives and concubines co-inheritors in his estate.
Children of slaves and mistresses, however, are illegitimate. Does this mean they are not legitimately children? Don't be silly. It means they cannot legitimately inherit from the estate.
So marriage is about inheritance, with the children of the marriage being the sole legitimate inheritors. But the potential of children is a secondary part of marriage. Consider:
A marriage that is not consummated is invalid. So the potential of children, and therefore an heir, is necessary to the institution.
Yet it is only the potential that matters. Abraham and Sarah, whether you see their story as myth or fact, illustrate part of that. At 100 and 90 years of age, respectfully, the birth of Issac was possible, but highly unlikely. The possibility kept the marriage valid.
Similarly, consider Odysseus (Ulysses). He was absent for 20 years and suspected dead, yet when he returned, he was still considered married. As long as the possibility of his return, and therefore the birth of an heir, remained, the marriage was valid.
So we have what marriage is about: Inheritance, through the natural offspring of the married partners.
If, then, there can be no natural offspring of the union, there can be no marriage. Since in same-sex marriage there can be no natural offspring, the term is an oxymoron.
What is same-sex marriage about? Some same-sex couples point to their shared residences and finances as being the same relationship that heterosexual couples have. But for that to be the qualification for marriage, you'd have to include Bachelor Brothers, Spinster Sisters, Oscar and Felix, Laverne and Shirley, and any couple sharing a domicile and expenses, regardless of sexual activity.
Again, what is same-sex marriage about? Only one thing: the only qualifying criteria is to be engaging in sexual activity. There are no residence requirements, no financial requirements, no requirements except sexual activity. Adding same-sex couples to marriage changes its definition to be "government sanctioned sexual activity", which seems to be what many think marriage is.
The argument you hear for same-sex marriage is a claim for fairness and equality. same-sex couples argue that they should be given the same rights as married couples in terms of legal issues: receiving survivor benefits, the ability to make legal and medical decisions for a incapacitated partner, etc. Increasingly, the citizens of the United States agree. Yet when given domestic partnerships or civil unions, many still clamored for marriage.
Despite states, such as California, establishing civil unions as in all ways the same as marriage, at the federal level, there was no such provision. Civil unions do not cover Social Security benefits, federal employee benefits, or family based immigration petitions, nor are they required to be recognized by other states. So some same-sex couples understandably chaffed at the discrimination and asked instead that it be termed a marriage (as the Supreme Court has now done).
Hard-core LGBT advocates, however, have a less benign interest in having same-sex marriage. These are people interested in changing our culture and by having it termed marriage, they can bring pressure to bear on churches to perform same-sex marriages despite their beliefs, through loss of tax-exemptions and civil lawsuits. The true end-game for these activists is the mainstreaming of LGBT activities and the criminalizing of any criticism of LGBT activities from the pulpit (or elsewhere) by classifying it as hate speech.
This anti-liberty agenda is most noticeable in recent lawsuits against various businesses; florists, bakers, and photographers have been ordered by the courts to participate in same-sex weddings. See my article PRODUCTS VS. SERVICES for a critique of the judges' rulings.
So just what is the correct response? Congress should pass legislation, and maybe an accompanying Constitutional Amendment, doing the following:
1. Declare marriage a union of one man and one woman, the historical definition.
2. Define civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. as a union between like-sexes and give them equal benefits in all ways to those of marriages, at all levels of government.
3. Convert all existing Same-Sex Marriages into Civil Unions, etc.
By recognizing the same-sex marriage oxymoron, yet giving equality of benefits to civil unions, this will give the LGBT community the fairness and equality they seek and the public recognizes they should have, but without effecting the 1st Amendment rights threatened by the term same-sex marriage.