Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Daily Brew (06.0126)

Thursday's Brew*
Flavor du Jour: The State of Marriage

Gay Marriage,
A Contradiction of Terms
by Lyn Perry

Virginia is advancing toward a "gay marriage" referendum. According to the Washington Post:

Eighteen state constitutions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. . . . Massachusetts is the only state that grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Connecticut and Vermont recognize civil unions, while four states, the District and several dozen localities allow couples to formalize relationships through domestic-partnership registries. (washingtonpost.com)
Domestic-partnership registries.

This is how marriage will be redefined in America. And if that's the route we're traveling, then let's look at the destination: A break down in cohesive, functioning family units. Because if gender is arbitrary, so is the number. So is the age. So is the species. If we write our own rules, then anything goes.

You see, marriage has already been defined. Well intentioned state constitutional amendment drives aside, marriage is simply a union between one man and one woman. This is a biblical issue and isn't really open to discussion. People may attempt to redefine marriage, but the genesis of the concept is found in the garden. Marriage can't be anything else than what it already is. Gay "marriage" is a contradiction of terms.

It would be like trying to redefine a square as a shape with three sides. Despite the sincerity of the creative geometry student, we would tell her, no, what you've described is a triangle. Although related to a square in that it has sides, a triangle is a completely different concept. We don't entertain the idea that this child may be right or that he has a different perspective. A square is what it is. Pass or fail.

What advocates of same-gender unions don't seem to realize is that if gender is negotiable, then so is the number. Why stop at two? Why not have 3, 5, or 25 people enter into a domestic-partnership so that everyone involved can benefit by our current laws?

Or what about the age restriction? Why 18? Or 16? Why not allow children to enter into a "marriage" with an adult? Who's to say that this would be inappropriate? Oh, but children can't enter contracts, you say. Why not? That's just another arbitrary law that we've decided upon. Let's change it. Children are people to.

And even that (the minor issue of a partner's humanity) shouldn't hinder one's desire to enter a domestic-partnership. After all, some dogs and cats are more loyal than a spouse. Why not allow cross-species unions? Ridiculous you say? Not if we look at the destination we're traveling toward in giving up our commitment to marriage.

What's the answer to all this confusion? It's already been revealed to us. The definition of marriage, according to God, is clear. It has already been decided that anything other than the union of one man and one woman is inappropriate.

Are there hard realities associate with the application of this truth? Sure. Divorce and remarriage is not an easy issue. Polygamy in the Old Testament and in other cultures has to be examined. Government and business will need to grapple with the implications of same-sex partner benefits. But the issue of marriage is solved. It is what it is.

Reflecting on Genesis 2:18-25. Thanks for reflecting with me.
Lyn

(* Note: The Daily Brew attempts to engage ideas and address contemporary themes with truthful and relevant principles for the purpose of positively impacting our culture. Thank you for reading.)

Amending: TMH, CS, QMN, CC, LCS
Tag:
Post a Comment