Discover more from THE SHIELD
Some Brief Thoughts on What is Called "Same-Sex Marriage"
Marriage between members of the same-sex is fundamentally impossible. A same-sex couple can not truly become one flesh via consummation. SS union is intrinsically impossible because it cannot unify.
Brief Biblical Considerations
It’s not popular to say, but marriage is strictly a union between one man and one woman. God instituted marriage in Genesis 2. In the New Testament, both Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7) and the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31) refer back to Genesis 2 as the basis for marriage. Marriage is God’s gift to the whole of society.
The fact that God instituted marriage means it is not an arbitrary construct. It is based upon the different and yet complementary natures of men and women. Again, this is not popular to say in 2023. In the US, what is legally called “same-sex marriage” is recognized as law. Marriage has been redefined.
Considering the Children (or not)
A brief observation: in the debates on redefining marriage, it was telling to observe that advocates os SSM almost always focus on their supposed rights as adults … rarely are the needs of children front and center. In Andersen v. King County, a 2006 ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court, Justice James Johnson noted:
Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.
Redefine It Once, Why Not Again (and again)?
Back to the main issue, what is to stop marriage from being redefined further? Now that marriage is seen as having a “flexible” definition, we will see pressure for that definition to be changed yet again. Specifically, now that the sex has been changed from man and woman to same-sex couples as well, the number can also be changed. Why should it hold at only two? Why can’t “marriage” include 3 or 4 people or even 3-40? Indeed, if same sex marriage, why not plural marriage and if plural marriage, why not group marriage? Who’s to say?
For example: in 2001, the Netherlands became first to legalize “same-sex marriage”. Then, in 2005, three-people relationships received legal recognition via a “cohabitation agreement”. In 2005, a Canadian man charged with polygamy argued that the legalization of what is called same-sex marriage should allow for plural marriage. In 2009, Mexico City, Mexico introduced same-sex marriage. In 2011, a Bill was proposed where couples in Mexico City could use "renewable" marriage contracts to try living with their other partner first for a minimum of two years. At the end of this contract, the marriage could just not be renewed.
THE SHIELD is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, become a free or paid subscriber.
Let me show you some more potential examples. Does a sister have a “right” to have her relationship with her brother recognized as a legal marriage? If not, isn’t this discrimination? Does an 18 year old grandson have a “right” to have his relationship with his 60 year old grandfather recognized as a legal marriage. Why not? They can’t produce any children through their incest, so the possibility for harmful genetic outcomes isn’t there. If you accept SSM, why do you deny the “rights” of these people in these examples? Why not accept these potential unions as acceptable examples of legal marriage?
Discrimination and the Definition of Marriage
Societies have always discriminated regarding what does and does not constitute a marriage. One reason: marriage is tied to morality. Historically, civilizations have understood this. If their is no proper discrimination regarding what marriage is/isn’t, then we must allow incestuous and polygamous unions to be recognized as marriage.
Remember, prior to this redefinition, everyone who met the requirements had access to marriage. A gay adult man could marry a lesbian adult woman, as long as neither one was already married. Meaning, a man or woman practicing homosexuality could have been married, just not to a person of the same sex. Biblically speaking, a person who only interested in a homosexual relationship essentially rejects the option for true marriage because they are choosing a partner of the same sex. This is their choice, but the definition of marriage should not be forced to be altered because of this choice.
END THOUGHT: We Can Disagree in Love
As I write these words, it’s clear I disagree with what is legally called “same-sex marriage”. Please remember, disagreement is not hate. People should be allowed to disagree with each other without one being accused of hatred, shouldn’t they?