Why I oppose gay marriage (hint: it’s not for the reasons supporters are claiming)

27 Mar

Well, here I get to tick everyone off at me again. Yippee. Boy, I must love being hated. Either that or I just stick to my guns whether others like it or not. Yeah, it’s the second one.

I’m not a bigot, so let’s just get that out there. Now, the obligatory “I have gay friends so that means I’m not homophobic.” Seriously, I do. But, it’s kind of a dumb thing to say. I don’t know why. It feels the same as saying “I have black friends so that means I’m not racist.”  But really, I don’t dislike gay people for being gay. I dislike gay marriage for real reasons. And guess what…it’s actually  intolerant to call people names and demonize them for having a different view than you. This is honestly a really tough issue for Christians today. We don’t want people to think we are hateful! It is painful to be so misunderstood. Please read my side of the story and agree or disagree, there is no reason for you to call names or hate me. Mature, civilized discussion is always more productive but it seems like most who disagree with me just shut me out or ignore me. I kind of don’t get to the point until the end, so hang with me.

The secular left are brilliant at stigmatizing the mainstream, traditional beliefs of moderate people and peer pressuring them into believing they are hateful extremists who should change. Or at least scaring them into not standing up for their own beliefs. But Christians, please do not let a fear of men overpower a fear of God’s Word.

One result of leftist aggression combined with Christian silence (or laziness or self-centeredness- not sure which) is abortion on demand.  Soon another result will be gay marriage. I know that I will be on the wrong side of history on this. But I’m cool with that because I will still be on the right side of right. I hate to be a fatalist, but it’s pretty apparent that gay marriage is coming. But, before it does, I just want to let everybody know why I’m against it, not just that I am.

I know you have a right to disagree with me on this issue. That’s totally fine. I know that supporting gay marriage seems like the nice thing to do on the surface. I know it seems like it won’t affect others (“Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay-married.” ) However, there are a lot of deeper consequences that many have not considered. I’m not here to change your mind. I’m just here to explain my position with really real reasons because many who oppose gay marriage are just opposing it without telling others why. And that’s always a bad idea, my friends.

Before you get your panties in a wad (too late?) I am not saying that homosexuality is a choice. I won’t argue about that because I don’t know what it feels like. I don’t doubt at all that people could be born with (or develop early on) homosexual tendencies. And, I have sympathy for that because I know it is difficult to come to terms with for most. Truly. But, homosexual activity is a choice. Just like all the sins I’ve committed have been a choice. And my sins are not lesser sins. So, if you were born homosexual and you want to act on that, then I would agree that you can do so. I do not advocate outlawing everything the Bible calls sin. (Everyone knows how to Google for all the Bible verses condemning homosexuality, right?) I know many people don’t believe the Bible and I agree that they should not be legally forced to follow its instruction. Should there be a law against lying? Against envy? Obviously not. So, I’m not saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be gay. But to redefine marriage is something totally different.

I used this pic to get you to look at my post.

I used this pic to get you to look at my post.

Marriage is a legally-recognized romantic union between a man and a woman established by God. It truly is a Christian institution designed for the mutual benefit of the couple and for pro-creation (or the adoption of children). Now, are there plenty of non-Christian married couples? Of course. So, why did they decide to get married? My guess would be because the State (and insurance companies, financial institutions, etc.) bestow benefits for having that legal document (and because of societal pressures which are probably becoming less and less). Why does the state do that? Because it makes for a more stable and productive society to have committed couples raising children together (Obviously with our divorce rate, we are sucking at this but that doesn’t mean we should condemn marriage. It means we should do better at it.). Now, we can argue all day about whether or not it’s any of the State’s business if we’ve made a commitment before God and man to stay together, but that would be pointless because they aren’t going to get out of it, either way. But, if homosexual marriage is legal, then the definition of marriage totally changes. It starts to mean a legally-recognized romantic union between consenting adults, right? Doesn’t that open up the door for a whole lot of other things to be called marriage? So, at what point is marriage so diluted that it really means nothing at all?

(Sidebar: I think one problem we have with marriage being taken too lightly is that many pastors are just marrying anyone who can pay for their services instead of really helping the couple to realize what they are promising and making judgements as to whether they can do it or not. Personally, I think preachers should refuse to marry couples who they, with much prayer, believe are not prepared for marriage- mainly because I’m a divorcee and wish my preacher would’ve refused to marry an obviously doomed, young and stupid couple! haha but enough about my white trash past… Also, for it to be a Christian institution, I don’t think Justices of the Peace should be preforming marriages on the fly.)

I borrowed this whole section from here: “By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.”

So, you see, if this becomes legal, citizens will not be allowed to oppose it on moral grounds. And that’s not freedom, y’all. Not at all!

Now, if the State is going to bestow benefits (or allow companies to do so) based on marital status, then no, it’s not fair for homosexuals (or non-Christians or polygamists or whatever) to be excluded from receiving those benefits. So, that is why I am not against the idea of a civil union. This way, people could have the choice of being in a church-recognized marriage or in a secular civil union. Both would have the same legal status. Now, what’s wrong with that (plenty, I’m sure, since I thought this up in my own feeble brain)?

We are hearing the word “equality” a lot right now. But, really, the law is equal. Anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex. So, we aren’t lacking equality, but we may be lacking choice.

Okay, the kiddo is waking up so I gotta go, but here are a few links that say kind of the same thing but probably better.

Thanks for reading, friends.


This is an oldie but a goodie from Randy Alcorn

Op-Ed from the Chicago Tribune


25 Responses to “Why I oppose gay marriage (hint: it’s not for the reasons supporters are claiming)”

  1. Amy March 27, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

    I’ve struggled to quiet all the HATE out there and find someone/something that speaks to my heart about the issue. This is it. Thank you. 🙂

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 27, 2013 at 9:25 pm #

      Thank you, Amy! The backlash has been horrible, just as I expected. It’s nice to hear a kind word!

  2. iceman0311 March 27, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    1. ” and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.” this part really bothered me. 2. Marriage is not only christian thing, there were people far before Christianity was even around getting “married” 3. I recently read a report by a grad student from some Christian College on the east coast who retranslated the original hebrew text and, Leviticus translated more so saying that one should not masturbate, not that one shouldn’t be homosexual, the new testament verse, were saying more along the lines that one shouldn’t be sleeping with the temple prostitutes, ya they had then too. 4. Also, looking back a Greek philosophers and some greek beliefs, homosexuality has always been around and was actually accepted at one point in history.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 27, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

      1. Why? Don’t you believe in business or home owners being able to run their property the way they want? Let me put it this way: When I was in college and I would go home to visit, if I had a male friend with me, my mom didn’t allow us to sleep in the same room. If he had been crashing at my place, we would’ve just slept wherever and not thought about it because he was truly just a friend. But, my mom didn’t agree with that behavior and her house, her rules. 2. I know this, but I’m really not interested in the history of marriage throughout history and other cultures. I am concerned with the Biblical view of marriage and the way we treat it in America today. And that’s all. When I say it’s a Christian thing, I am referring to the marriage principles established in the Bible. Hence, why Jews hold the same position. If you don’t believe the Bible, then there is no reason to care what the Bible has to say about marriage. God established the first marriage with Adam and Eve and that’s what I’m referring to. 3. Okay. But, I bet it didn’t say that homosexuality was actually condoned. 4. Yes, I for sure, under no conditions, want the US to use ancient Greece as our role model. I mean, Ancient Greece and Rome are not my idea of ideal. Homosexuality has always been around. No doubt. Not arguing with you there. If you can tell me that it is accepted by God as good, then I will too. Seriously, it would be so much easier to just say “live and let live!” But, the problem is that the legalization of gay marriage will affect all of society, not just the ones who get married.

  3. moises cabrera March 27, 2013 at 9:52 pm #

    no offense or disrespect but this honestly sounds like a close minded opinion… how does them getting married affect you… you chose your husband and partner in life why cant some one else do the same and not be pointed at… they just want the same thing that you do… to grow old have kids and try to die happy… if your not against a civil union for them then whats wrong with a marriage… its just what a head hair away from being the same damned thing… just because your kids will be exposed to it more will probably be a better thing for this foresakken country. then we wont have all this close minded crap flying around because people think that just because they feel that certain stuff might affect your perfect little life that you have to take to arms and defend yourself against the air rustling your feet as if it were a major threat… and if im correct whats the golden rule… no need to say it im sure you are aware of what it is. your hellbound on scriptures that you dont even obviously understand because you distort them to work for you… thats why theres like how many different versions of the bible… how about you switch shoes even tho im sure its hard to imagine the troubles of others even more so for the ones your helping to hurt… i think ive said enough i find myself getting very frustrated that its even something that has to be defended… someone wants to get married and because its same sex its so wrong… if they wanna get married and live life who are you that you think and or feel you have the right to judge or stop them your not the one that has to sleep in that bed… so why not sleep in and worry about your own instead of fighting to stop someone elses pursuit of happiness and checking to make sure that there doing what you beleive is right its not your life so why get into it…

  4. iceman0311 March 27, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    1. my issue with this is that its to similar to when blacks were denied rights that whites were granted on a daily basis, it is simply discrimination. As a Christian you should realize that God’s whole message throughout the bible, there are two main points, Love others unconditionally, which means gay, straight, black, white, jew, or gentile, muslim, or buddhist. We should be loving unconditionally. the other key point is that all are welcome at the side of God in Heaven if they accept that Jesus, is lord and savior and died for their sins. Sin is sin, and all sin is equal. 2. we have stated in our Constitution a separation of State and Church. I am a Christian but this still needs to be held true. We can not base some laws off of the guidelines provided in the bible, but not others. 3. Do you know how many times Jesus actually speaks of homosexuality in the bible? 0. Also, do you know what else is said to be a sin in leviticus that we just simply ignore in todays world? no shaving, no wearing mixed fabric clothing, the list could go on. 4. you dont want the US to use Ancient Greece and Rome as role models? where do you think the idea of a democratic society comes from? We have more in common with those societies than most would care to admit.

    I feel as christians its our duty, to love others regardless of their sins for who are we to judge. Just because we sin doesn’t mean we lose our right to marriage, to spend our lives with the person we love. So who are we to take that away from someone who may be gay. Why is it so wrong for them to say, “yes i love someone of the same sex and am attracted to them and am going to spend the rest of my life with them AND love God.” I do not know what God truly accepts or is okay with, nor am I even gonna try to wrap my mind around that or imagine it. but he also states that we are to Love others and not judge our peers.

    I’m sure I forgot something so if so I apologize. By the way, I hope I’m not offending you, and am enjoying this conversation.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 10:04 am #

      1) Listen, it’s not fair to compare the African American struggle for civil rights to the gay fight for legalized marriage. Blacks were discriminated against based on skin color. The issue people have with providing wedding services or rental properties to homosexual couples is that they will be forced to support a behavior (not a skin color) which they don’t agree with on moral or religious grounds. It’s like forcing a Catholic pharmacy owner to sell birth control. It’s not that he hates people who take birth control, or even that he wants it to be illegal, but he is forced to violate his religion and moral beliefs because of other’s choices. I’m not saying gay couples shouldn’t be able to rent a house together, I’m saying no one should be forced to allow behavior they disagree with on their property. I also know some black people who really wish gays would not compare their plights.
      Yes, I do love gay people the same way I love anyone else. The problem is that at some point, popular opinion decided that to disagree with someone means you hate and fear them and to love someone means you agree with everything they say or do. If you read my post, you will realize that I readily admit that my sins are no different than anyone else’s.
      2) Certainly, I also stated that in the post that people should not be legally forced to follow the Bible’s instruction. What I am saying is that we should leave the definition of marriage as it is, or create two different types of marriages with the same legal status. One for those who want a Biblical marriage and one for those who don’t.
      3.) There are a whole lot of sins that Jesus didn’t specifically mention. He only lived 34 years; he couldn’t be expected to list every single one, could he? Now, you mention Leviticus. I assume you agree that once Jesus atoned for our sins, we came under the New Law and are not under the Old Law anymore (for instance, we no longer have to give living sacrifices of livestock, etc.). But, Leviticus was God’s instructions for the Covenant between the Jews and God. It all has to be taken in context. He didn’t want men to shave because people were getting haircuts and trimming their beards to look round like a planet. It was a sign of worship for the gods of the heavenly hosts. The same thing for tattoos. A good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). The New Testament does not command against tattoos or body piercings, but it also does not give us any reason to believe God would have us get tattoos or body piercings. Paul speaks of homosexual sex in Romans 1:26-27, and it is mentioned in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 also.
      4) No, I don’t. Because look what happened to them! Haha I know about the ideas of democracy but aren’t we actually a Republic?
      Yes, we are instructed to judge, actually. Many people use the “Judge not…” verse to justify not having to rebuke or exhort their brothers and sisters. It is a very misunderstood verse. Christians DO NOT get to judge who goes to heaven and who doesn’t, but we are commanded in the Bible to judge behavior as good or bad, right or wrong. Sorry, I don’t have time to look up the verses but thank goodness for Google!
      You are not offending me at all. I appreciate your polite approach and also enjoy learning from conversations with others! Thank you!

  5. Barbara Engler March 27, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

    I think your confusing marriage with Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a legal civil union between two people currently a man And a woman. Holy Matrimony is sanctified by God and the church. The bible also spoke about Jesus that loved everyone and accepted all. It also discussed husbands that had many wives. During the time the Bible was written there were more pedophilia; rape; and bisexuality that was accepted – just never spoke about.

    My son is gay is very active in church and if he ever finds someone that he would like to spend the rest of his life with I would hope he could have a civil union marriage.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 9:14 am #

      Barbara, you may be right. No one has mentioned that to me yet so I will definitely investigate. I thought Holy Matrimony was just something that was of the Catholic church only, but I could be wrong. Jesus did (and does- Happy Easter!)love everyone but he certainly did not accept all behavior. Remember in John 8:11 when he told the woman to “go and sin no more?” Of course those things were accepted by some in Biblical times, but that does not mean that they were of God. I hope your son finds joy in wherever God leads him!

  6. Drew March 28, 2013 at 5:50 am #

    I would really enjoy if you filled me in on what you were / are “actually” meaning by this statement:
    Doesn’t that open up the door for a whole lot of other things to be called marriage?

    This is the sort of argument that is definite hot water territory, you have to realize that this is definitely some bigotry that you speak of. It’s just simply unjust.
    “In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.”
    –Now, you see. Offering those blacks or interracial couples over there, they sure don’t deserve the same respect as them white folk. That’s tainted money over there.

    I’ve never met someone who has been in all respects “excited” to get “civil union’ed” to another person. It’s the social aspects behind it. Yes, however simple of a word “Marriage” is, it’s one of these/those things that has need to be bestowed to all. This Equality and Freedom that you speak of, you seem to be disproportionately leaving out a large minority of the population. You speak of FREEDOM, as if those of the CHURCH are far superior to others.

    Deuteronomy 7:3, this seems to be a great addition to what I am adding to this conversation. For some reason, this was put into the bible… Seems to be odd that anyone who speaks out against it, is now crazy… It’s also not considered a sin. Now, how can one thing that was NOT allowed back in the day and considered complete and utter SIN, be allowed today? Even when the bible clearly states that how even down to the TENTH generation, this can presumably be continued on down the chain for hundreds and thousands of years.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 9:43 am #

      Drew, what I mean is that if gay marriage is legalized, what will be the definition of marriage? I don’t see how we could possibly come up with a definition that would not allow polygamy, incest, group marriage, etc. Now, don’t freak out. I’m not comparing a homosexual relationship to an incestuous one. But, it will only be a matter of time. The reason for restricting marriage to one man and one woman is that it takes exactly one man and one woman to make a complete pair (for mating). That logic of completion evaporates if people of the same sex can marry. The arguments used to defend same-sex marriage work just as well for defending any voluntary relationship imaginable.

      Listen, it’s not fair to compare the African American struggle for civil rights to the gay fight for legalized marriage. Blacks were discriminated against based on skin color. The issue people have with providing wedding services or rental properties to homosexual couples is that they will be forced to support a behavior (not a skin color) which they don’t agree with on moral or religious grounds. It’s like forcing a Catholic pharmacy owner to sell birth control. It’s not that he hates people who take birth control, or even that he wants it to be illegal, but he is forced to violate his religion and moral beliefs because of other’s choices. I’m not saying gay couples shouldn’t be able to rent a house together, I’m saying no one should be forced to allow behavior they disagree with on their property.

      I don’t think the Church is superior to anybody.

      I’m not for sure what you mean about Deut 7:3. There God was forbidding the Israelites from marrying idolatrous people because the heart is naturally inclined to evil and it would be easier for an idolatrous woman to steer one of God’s chosen (and their children) away from Him, rather than the other way around.

      • iceman0311 March 28, 2013 at 9:55 am #

        Do you even realize what you’re saying? “Listen, it’s not fair to compare the African American struggle for civil rights to the gay fight for legalized marriage. Blacks were discriminated against based on skin color. The issue people have with providing wedding services or rental properties to homosexual couples is that they will be forced to support a behavior (not a skin color) which they don’t agree with on moral or religious grounds.” Have you ever worked with the public? Just because you do business with someone doesn’t mean you support their behavior. Secondly that is the most arrogant thing I think you’ve said. It’s not like homosexuals will turn every person they do business with into a homosexual, its not some virus. It is a life style, and in this Country, we have the right to Love, Life, and the pursuit of Happiness. why is this being denied to some?

        secondly, do you realize there are cultures with in the united states, who practice polygamy on a strictly religious stance. The government will never allow it but it happens in religious ways all the time. also world wide, polyandry is far more common, thats one wife to many husbands.

      • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 10:32 am #

        Yes, I do. Yes, I have. I’m not saying no one should do business with homosexuals. Slow down and realize what I’m saying. I am saying that by providing wedding services, companies will be forced to not only support, but enable, gay marriage. The same with rental properties. It’s not that I think people should refuse to cut the hair or sell groceries to a gay person. But, if you don’t agree with gay marriage, then you should not be forced to be involved in gay marriage.

        Secondly, yes, I do. How do you feel about it? Polygamous cultures (which are almost always polygynous—one husband with more than one wife) are much more competitive and unstable. Where monogamy is the norm, a man—no matter how powerful, rich, or attractive—can have, at most, one wife. With polygamy, he’s free to “collect” as many wives as he can, leaving the less powerful men without prospects. History tells us what happens to cultures with large numbers of men lacking marital prospects. Typically the men turn to prostitution and are more likely to prey on the society that has not made a place for them. Polygamy also lowers the status of women, especially of the wives who must compete for the same man’s attention. So rather than balancing the sexual competitiveness of men and women, polygamy makes the problem much worse.

        Okay, gotta go! I will come back sometime next week. I have to get ready for Easter because a boat-load of people are coming to my house and if I don’t cut myself off, I could spend the next three days talking with people!

  7. emm March 28, 2013 at 6:35 am #

    Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But you can’t force religion down peoples throats. Nowadays, that’s completely wrong to make a law based on religion. It’s not your life. So why does it matter what someone else does with theirs? This is almost like interracial relationships. Some people don’t accept them, others do, and at one point those were illegal too.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 9:06 am #

      I’ll have to disagree about interracial relationships. For one thing, I’m not talking about relationships. I’m talking about marriage. For another thing, I believe the whole basis of marriage is for mating purposes. Homosexual couples simply cannot mate because of the reproductive organs they have. Interracial, heterosexual couples can. And I’m not forcing religion down people’s throats. I’m saying that I want the definition of marriage to remain the same. My reasons for wanting that are both religious and logical, but people can want the same thing for a myriad of reasons.

  8. Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink March 28, 2013 at 10:25 am #

    Everyone, thanks so much for your comments. I am blessed to be able to learn and talk with each of you! I am going to write one more thing that will hopefully allow me to explain myself better. Then, I am going to take a peaceful break from Facebook and WordPress for the Easter weekend.
    First of all, I’ve heard from many who say they are Christians and who support gay marriage. All I can say is that if you are a Christian and attend a Bible-believing church, then you should talk to your pastor about this issue. Someone who has gone to college specifically to learn the Bible is a great person to discuss these things with, since I do not claim to be a theologian! Also, if you are a Christian and you have prayed and studied with sincerity and conviction about this specific issue, then that’s that.
    Next, a great article, though somewhat old, can be found at http://www.equip.org/articles/to-defend-marriage/ . I know many won’t take the time to click the link, so here is the best summary I can provide. Bear in mind that this is not going to be a complete explanation!
    In an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson boiled down the basic ingredients of conjugal marriage: “Marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses [husbands and wives]; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity.” Notice the word “norm”—ideal. The norm is the same even if some marriages fail to fully achieve it. A proper end of the marital act is children, even if a child doesn’t result from every conjugal act, just as a proper end of playing football—to take a trivial example—is to score touchdowns, even if in some football games, nobody scores a touchdown.
    Each of us has one biological function that we cannot, by ourselves, complete: sexual reproduction. That purpose can only be fulfilled by a specific kind of union with another human being of the opposite sex. To reproduce naturally, a male and female must unite their bodies in the sexual act. In this one way, we are naturally incomplete as individuals and organisms.
    Marriage protects, reflects, and reinforces this powerful, complementary, reproductive part of our natures. No relationship between two men or two women can qualify as marriage because ultimately same-sex pairing cannot “achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.”8
    An infertile man and woman can still marry, since it is “mating that gives marriage its orientation toward children. An infertile couple can mate even if it cannot procreate. Two men or two women literally cannot mate. A child fulfills the marital relationship by revealing what it is, a complete union, including a biological union.” Same sex unions can’t bring together complementary organs and body systems that are designed to procreate.
    Some feel that one persons “marriage” should not affect another’s. This is like saying the value of a real dollar in Texas wouldn’t be affected by flooding the market with counterfeits in New York.
    Redefining marriage would foment culture wars everywhere, ending with a draconian loss of religious freedom. If same-sex marriage is defined as a basic human right, a matter of justice and equality—as its advocates claim—then no one could publicly defend real marriage for long. Government would have to treat traditional views as irrational bigotry. Everyone who holds the view of marriage heretofore held in every culture would be opposed by this culture. Ministries would be forced to revise their principles or close up shop. Catholic Charities already has had to abandon its adoption services in California, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia to avoid being forced to place children with same-sex couples.
    If the state redefines marriage, we should expect to see marriage collapse as a public institution. Several European countries in which same-sex marriage is legal show what may come. Check out the Netherlands if you want.

  9. Moises Cabrera March 29, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

    honestly it sounds like you have not considered anything but your own veiws of life… but in all actuallity your ways of life have nothing to do with mine or his or theres… you were able to make the choice to get married to the person of your picking. why cant tom love bill? does that hurt you in any way… because your neighbors are gay do you feel the need to move… i cant look it up but im fairly sure that the divorce rate would drop dramasticly because half the people that get married, divorce… now what was the point of getting married just to end it in six months becuase your spouse was more then you signed up for. thnk about this… if gays can get married how do you think it will look when there relationship last twice the time of yours. and do you know why it would because people out there like you dont want them to be happy like you are with your husband so they actually have to fight to keep there love going because of all the people watching hoping they will fail… once again my main point is how does what someone else wants in life have anything to do with yours… people like this only make it harder for the people that want to be happy because a book that (YOU) live by doesnt deem it just… so if the bible said go and slay thy neighbor id see you at a rally saying “its in the bible he didnt do anything wrong” but as said previously there is a seperation of church and state in our country so why does the church feel they need to harass someone doing them no harm… you said its up to us to choose the difference between right and wrong… that power lies inside of your body and soul… you cant base everything off of a book written a long time ago and updated to the needs of what people feel they need to be told to do. or is it a clouded judgement that just wont allow it to open your mind to something bigger then your small life in this universe. all im saying and your aguments still havent supported it, is how does what two people want to do to be happy affect your life? how does them getting married hurt you in any way? and how is this not like the blacks fighting for they rights? they were mistreated because of white people that thought they were better because of skin tone to this where gays cant get married because you feel it will dilute the meaning of the word marriage when in all actuallity marriage has no real meaning to most because if you dont like the car you picked you can take it back for a new one (better known as divorce). how many ays do you predict will be getting divorced? i have a feeling it will be smaller then any other type of marriage because of the fiht they had to endure to even get there to that point. and when it comes to kids it would be the same process as an infertile man or woman union. its called adoption. and if this gets passed maybe people will learn to be more tollerant and not so damn judgemental…

  10. Ryan Wise April 4, 2013 at 4:24 am #

    1. I support your right to freedom of association. While I disagree with a number of your beliefs, I wholeheartedly support your right to believe and to practice your religion and organize as you see fit. I think that some of your arguments that your right to freedom of association and those of your coreligionists may come under threat from legalization of same sex marriage are well founded.

    2. I agree that many of the consequences of same sex marriage on our culture have not been well considered. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, they are assertions which should be addressed as part of this discussion and not simply shouted down in anger, as often happens. Your conclusion that same sex marriage will either require the government to effectively promote same sex marriage or else not promote marriage in general is, I think, obvious. Even though this is obvious, it’s often disputed for propaganda purposes. The reliance on strawmen in this debate by people I’d otherwise consider my allies is deeply frustrating.

    3. In a nation where the majority of political leaders are male, I can see same sex marriage being unhelpful for women, for example. I’m assuming that being the wife or husband of a congressman is, itself, a position of status.

    4. I also agree that all people’s actions are choices in the eyes of the law. If a person has a right to same sex marriage it needs to be based on something other than the notion that people are unable to control their inborn desires. I think that this is a common yet weak argument for same sex marriage.

    5. Your arguments for why non-Christians marry seem fairly ill-considered.

    While governments and cultures may help enforce marriages, as they help enforce other agreements I don’t think these benefits explain why non-Christians enter into marriage. There are many benefits to committed relationships; reduced sexual competition (many people are jealous) , increased mutual cooperation including asset sharing and division of labor and reduced exposure to sexually transmitted disease, to name a few things. All of these things apply to same sex couples just as they do to heterosexual couples. I recently had a relative who was in his 90s get married. If reproduction is the primary purpose of marriage, shouldn’t there be an age limit on marriage? After all, either an elderly person is incapable of reproducing (which should disqualify them for marriage in your view), or their children are significantly more likely to have genetic defects (just as with incest.)

    You ask; “I don’t see how we could possibly come up with a definition that would not allow polygamy, incest, group marriage, etc.”

    I’d say that some of the benefits above would start to go out the window if polygamy was re-instituted, which would be some basis for the enforcement of monogamy. I think an argument against traditional polygamy (where one man could have separate marriages with multiple wives) could be said to violate the rights of the original wife. Incest could be argued against based on the possibility of genetic harm to children. ( Though honestly, I’d prefer that choice be left to couples rather than the state. The notion of the government making decisions based on people’s genetic fitness to have kids seems to have a bad history. )

    You quote;
    ““An infertile man and woman can still marry, since it is “mating that gives marriage its orientation toward children. An infertile couple can mate even if it cannot procreate. Two men or two women literally cannot mate.”

    This makes absolutely no sense to me. A couple can adopt children and raise them without mating. I’ve known a few sex-less couples who have stayed married till their kids were grown. Mating is therefore clearly separable from orientation towards children.

    This argument comes across like a lot of hand waving to cover up a clearly inconsistent standard. Also, I’d note that it seems to be abandoning your position that reproduction is the essential element in marriage, and substituting it with the notion that a particular type of sexual interaction is the essential element. It doesn’t really explain why this should be, though.

    You write;
    ” This way, people could have the choice of being in a church-recognized marriage or in a secular civil union. Both would have the same legal status. Now, what’s wrong with that ”

    People have the choice of being married in a religiously recognized marriage or a purely secular marriage now. If the notion is that you want to offer a marriage option without, say, no-fault divorce or something similar I’m fine with that. I just don’t see how this solution addresses any of the problems you bring up if the two institutions really are equal.

    You write; “We are hearing the word “equality” a lot right now. But, really, the law is equal. Anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex. So, we aren’t lacking equality, but we may be lacking choice.”

    I think the point is that people are being treated differently by the law based on their sex, which may violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.

    Best to you.

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink April 4, 2013 at 11:15 am #

      Hi! Thanks for your input. I hate to say it this way, but I’m over this topic. Haha that’s not to say I view it with reduced importance, but I’m just tired of talking about it. I started to just approve your comment (I never deny people’s comments unless they are vulgar or profane) and go on but I realized that you put a lot of thought and effort into writing it out so I think that deserves a response. But this is kind of my disclaimer that I may not respond to anymore comments with any kind of timeliness. Also, my backspace key is messed up so it’s a big pain to type out anything long.

      I think it bears repeating that I do not call anyone names for disagreeing with me. I do not think their opinions are less important than mine. I do not think that I am perfect. I am not judgmental just because I think something is wrong that other people might not think is wrong. I don’t hate anybody. This whole thing (both my most popular and unpopular post) was started because of the hateful treatment that those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are receiving. There’s no need for it. It causes people to simply shut down and not discuss the issue while still retaining and possibly strengthening their own opinion. Which leads me to believe that if this came to a vote, people might be shocked at the results.

      So, here we go (thanks for numbering, it makes it much easier).

      1. That was the whole point of this post. I think some have misunderstood and assumed that I do not support their rights to their own beliefs. All I’m trying to say is that people should not bullied for disagreeing, which is what I saw happening and what prompted this post.

      2. I thought it was obvious as well but what I think happens is that the propaganda and strawmen are intentionally used by those with influence. Then, the masses start to pick them up and use them without using any critical thinking of their own. When that happens, people are unable to consider other viewpoints and then lose all ability to have a rational discussion. We would all do well to turn off the cable news and begin to examine things for ourselves, rather than parroting what we hear others say. I think.

      3. I guess.

      4. Right. Otherwise, we would have no laws. Obviously laws can leave people to slip through the cracks or ignore gray areas but I haven’t thought of a solution to that short of anarchy.

      5. You’re right about committed relationships and the reasons for them. I understand your comments about reproduction, and others have shared the same concerns. Now, I just want to let everyone know that I’m not advocating a law against infertile or elderly people marrying. I think that reproduction is the primary purpose for which God created marriage between Adam and Eve in the beginning. So, I think that is the ideal model. People have to examine their own motives. One mistake that I think many Christians, especially young ones, make is that they believe the purpose of marriage is to be able to have guilt-free sex. But, if you don’t believe the Bible, then you certainly could argue any number of reasons as the primary purpose of marriage.

      I agree with your reasons for denying polygamy or incestuous marriage but I don’t think they would hold weight when tested in a court. Which, I think we can agree, cases would end up in court. I imagine these groups may just be waiting for gay marriage to pave the way before they begin the fight. And, I have to say, I don’t think they should have to fight for marriage if gay marriage is legalized.

      I think I did end up just throwing out every reason I could think of rather than only using the main ones that I agree with. Again, it was a defensive reaction to try to show all the reasons people have that have nothing to do with not liking gay people.

      I think the option of no-fault divorce (or covenant marriages) is a great idea. People freak out when anyone suggests it but everyone should realize that it would be only an option and not mandatory. You’re right that it doesn’t address any of the problems except that Christians might not feel that they were being forced to call their marriage and gay marriage the same thing. I feel like I got married when the definition was one thing and now they are going to go change the definition on me after I’m already in it.

      I think you meant “sexual orientation” rather than “sex”, right? I know it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation but I don’t think that has happened yet. I also don’t think it should because sex and sexual orientation aren’t the same things at all, obviously.

      I’ll leave you with a few more links. These aren’t meant to change people’s minds (I really have no interest in doing that, only in being free to have my own beliefs), only to fuel more thinking about the issue. Admittedly, these are super-biased sources and not meant to be scientific evidence of anything.

      Please, don’t anyone argue with me about the effectiveness of conversion therapy. I don’t care about that. But, why can’t it be legal if people want to try it for themselves? Because we are slowly losing our rights! Anyway, this story makes you wonder about the slippery slope aspect that can affect public opinion when laws change.

      • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink April 4, 2013 at 11:57 am #

        Strangely, IMMEDIATELY after posting the above, I came across the following two links. I had to come back and share them.

        Admittedly, I did not read all of this one, so I’m not saying it represents my position. It’s just some further reading for anyone who is interested.

        Now, this one is a must read for anyone who is gay or who is a Christian. Or who thinks Christians hate gay people. So, basically everyone! haha But-fair warning- it does have some bad language.

  11. Ryan Wise April 4, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    To clarify;

    You wrote; “I think you meant “sexual orientation” rather than “sex”, right?”

    No, I didn’t. I was careful there. There’s currently no clear constitutional prohibition against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. There is very clearly a constitutional prohibition (with some caveats) on discriminating on the basis of sex.

    Currently, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sex, without inquiring into a person’s sexual orientation. Lesbians and heterosexual women are both prevented from marrying other women without any inquiry into their sexual desire. This is not a clear-shot argument for same sex marriage, but it does legally put the burden of the opposition to SSM rather heavily on its opponents.

    BTW, your new links are broken. I don’t require a response if you don’t have time for it. I understand that the world intrudes.

    Best to you

  12. Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink April 4, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    Ryan, thanks for clearing that up! The links are working from my devices so maybe try again later? Not sure what’s wrong…I’m going to copy and paste the last one here because I think it’s the best. Maybe it will work for ya. Have a good day! http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/being-gay-at-jerry-falwells-university/274578/

  13. Wedding Registry Advice June 18, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

    First of all I would like to say excellent blog!
    I had a quick question which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
    I was interested to know how you center yourself
    and clear your mind prior to writing. I’ve had a hard time clearing my mind in getting my ideas out. I do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually wasted just trying to figure out how to begin. Any ideas or tips? Appreciate it!

    • Heather @ CrawdadsInMySink June 22, 2013 at 11:21 am #

      Hi! Thanks for your kind words and sorry for the slow response! I would say there’s definitely nothing wrong with taking ten or fifteen minutes to get you thoughts organized before writing! My process is very informal and I really don’t plan anything out. It seems like a topic will come to mind and then it just kind of keeps popping up for a few days until I know I need to write about it. For me, writing is a way to organize my thoughts. They just come out once I start typing. I don’t worry about how it sounds, I just write the way I would speak. I think that would help you, too. Don’t think about “writing” for an audience, just type out what you would say if you were having a conversation and then you can go back and make edits or add details as you see fit. Hope this helps. Keep writing- it’s good for ya!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: