Monday, June 05, 2006

Question: How does same-sex marriage harm our understanding of humanity?

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

I had a debate about this question as I was discussing same-sex marriage with my co-workers last Friday afternoon. Although the discussion was mainly about the slippery slope of introducing same-sex marriages into society in general, the question of how it can harm humanity was brought up. Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier can best answer this question. They both co-authored the book Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting.
Answer: (Same-sex marriages can harm our understanding of humanity) in some very profound and harmful ways.
Wife and husband become mere words we use to describe people in a relationship. They lose any vital meaning. In fact, marriage license clerks in Massachusetts have been instructed to start referring to people getting married as “Party A” and “Party B”. Thus the deep meaning of husband and wife are evacuated. With “Party A, you may now kiss Party B,” our sons and daughters will miss the fact that men and women are uniquely completed and fulfilled when they love and commit to the “otherness” of male and female in marriage.
Mother and father become merely androgynous people engaged in the act of caring for kids. Mother and father become mere sentimental words used to address parents-not something special that men and women, as parents, are. Any apparent differences become merely superficial and of no practical consequence. In fact, saying children need mothers and fathers could become hate speech because it indicts same-sex families.
The terms male and female are emptied of significance. We exchange our appreciation of humanity, understood as the treasures of being male and female, for a “Mr. Potato Head” theory of humanity (same shell, interchangeable parts!). The same-sex marriage proposition cannot tolerate any necessary, fundamental differences between the genders. If there were necessary differences, male and female would need each other and every same-sex family would be humanly incomplete. Gender in a society that accepts same-sex marriage can only refer to meaningless, impersonal, interchangeable parts. A socially equal-and not just tolerated-same-sex marriage does damage at a very fundamental level. In fact, granting moral equality to even one same-sex marriage diminishes all of us at the very core of our humanity.
The significance of gender is demolished by the essence of same-sex marriage. Once it is made morally equal to natural marriage it will diminish the femininity of every woman. There will be minimal differences of men and women left over, and they are purely physiological. A woman’s surrogate womb becomes the only part of femininity that is needed to create a male same-sex family. A woman is reduced to a womb and its practical function, and this is a horrible message to send to women and girls. Reducing gender to physiology is, well, dehumanizing.
Similarly, one lesbian same-sex marriage-once it is seen as morally equal to natural marriage-will diminish the masculinity of every man, for the only thing important about manhood will be sperm. This is a bad message to send to men and boys. They are reduced to being impersonal parts,things, not persons. Both views are deeply antihuman because they are deeply anti-male and –female.
This turn in our understanding of gender will create far more-rather than less-confusion with us as individuals and dissension among us in our relationships with others; it will not allow us to be true to our respective genders-who we really are! Same-sex marriage deconstructs our humanity as expressed in our masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and femininity become morally, personally and interpersonally meaningless.
Introducing same-sex marriages into our society is social suicide dressed up as a civil right. How will society benefit from such a radical redefinition of the institute of marriage? It will lead to “love” as being the ONLY reason to marry someone. Will that in turn make it legal to “marry” your mother or father or your sister or brother?
Why do we need to open the door to other kinds of relationships in order to please the homosexual community? Homosexuals are depending on the heterosexual community to protect them because heterosexuals feel that the gay community is being attacked and are therefore the “minority”. Why should we declassify a subgroup of people in order to make them a part of a minority group? When will this minority group become the majority and therefore redefine what a family is as is best explained by a comment by Michelangelo Signorile, an outright gay activist:
(Same-sex marriage offers)… “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture…” Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32.

7 Comments:

Blogger jennifer said...

Excellent post, Scia!

I guess now that I know all of this that I should stop praying for my future HUSBAND, and start praying for my future PARTY A!

NOT!

His,
Jennifer

4:24 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Laughing Out Loud. Thanks Jennifer. I am going to post a lot of these question and answers. The truth needs to be spread!

7:10 PM, June 06, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

SCIA, keep up the good work! I only wish your site (and others like it) got as much traffic as KTN. I cannot believe what I've been reading over there lately. Wait, yes, I can. It's the same stuff. Joe accusing people of being me, or Paul, Lula being irrational, Tom screaming "where's our rights????" while denying that others have theirs, as well...

Michael Graham has been giving this a lot of attention lately. He keeps saying, in essence, is "If all you've got is 'Your a BIGOT!', you have run out of points and you've lost the argument...give me a REAL REASON why homosexuals should be allowed to marry!"

8:27 PM, June 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it always seems to be the same little group of people on each other's site. How sad it is all of you are so focused on the lives of others instead of your own.

4:13 PM, June 11, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

How even more sad is that Joe, Paul, Lula and Tom on Know Thy Neighbor CAN NOT answer questions posted to them on their site.

Yes, we are focused on other people's lives because their unwillingness to acknowledge our practicing of democracy by letting the people vote is affecting me and you.

If I want to sign a petition to safeguard traditional marriage, why do I need to be harrassed on a hate site, such as Know Thy Neighbor.

Read my recent post on an interview with Know Thy Neighbor. All they can do is threaten and NOT answer a simple question I proposed to them.

How sad is THAT???

8:45 AM, June 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Know thy neighbor is no more hateful than this site. I've read some of your posts here, and there, and you come across just as mean and hateful as some of the pro-SSM people.

I find it funny when yourself, or Tyler, claim SSM proponents are denying your rights? When have they done this? No one is denying your right to free speech, are they? No is denying your right to marry, are they?

The legislature and the courts make lots of decisions the general public does not get to vote on. How dare they do their job. I for one would like to vote on whether or not congressmen and judges should get a pay raise or not. Not gonna happen.

Not to mention, even if this comes to a vote, and the vote goes your way, doesn't mean it will stick. I believe a law was created making seat belts mandatory in Mass, then we voted to not have them mandatory, only to have that overturned. And didn't we vote on it again? Hard to remember for me since it wasn't that big of a deal to me.

Anyway, my point is, no one is denying anything to you, while you want to deny gays and lesbians civil marriage.

Nice try though.

7:59 AM, June 16, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"I find it funny when yourself, or Tyler, claim SSM proponents are denying your rights? When have they done this? No one is denying your right to free speech, are they? No is denying your right to marry, are they?"

I am not saying SSM (Same-Sex Marriage)proponents are denying my rights. You need to read a little more carefully when on my site.

No one is denying my first amendment right or my right to marry. What are you getting at?

You said:

"The legislature and the courts make lots of decisions the general public does not get to vote on. How dare they do their job."

Georgia just recently had a judge reverse a ban on same-sex marriage even though 76% of the voters JUST voted to ban same-sex marriage.

Yah, I think it is important for the people who are governed by a constitution to be able to vote on many things especially when it comes to changing their cultural values. Shame on the people for partaking in democracy.

You agree with not voting on same-sex marriage because the bleeding heart leftist judicial system is the only branch of government you can hind behind.

By the way, the seat belt law was not a citizen initiated amendment to change the constitution. Try using analagies that are similar to what we are dealing with.

Please try agiain.

10:30 AM, June 16, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com