Like Button

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

What Difference Does It Make?

Well, they've gone and done it. New York became the sixth state to subscribe to the non sequitur, "same-sex marriage". They've wrenched the longstanding, traditional definition of marriage from its moorings and twisted it to mean something else. "It's only the 6th of 50," some might argue, but New York ranks third in the list of state populations, containing within its borders more than 6% of the country's population. California (the most populous state) is on the verge of going the same way (when the courts declared it unconstitutional to call marriage anything but what the homosexual population wishes to call it) and that would add another 12%. With the other states combined, nearly 1 in every 4 Americans would reside in a state that has dumped "marriage" in favor of "same-sex marriage".

Still, what difference does it make? That's the question you'll almost always hear. What does it matter to someone who defines marriage as it has always been defined if someone defines it differently? You don't stop loving your spouse. You don't stop being married by your own definition. You don't do anything differently, do you? Why let it bother you? What's the big deal?

On the obvious side, it will certainly have an impact on the 29 states that have constitutional provisions that define marriage as marriage. Despite the self-declared denial of a "gay agenda", this move in New York is expected to provide impetus to overrun those states as well. Certainly the states who are only considering such a move, given that the courts have declared it unconstitutional and given that the tide is against it, will be in trouble. And as a resident of Arizona, trust me, I can say with certainty that the government has no compunctions about suing states for things with which they disagree. The President has already refused to defend marriage. When will the government go on the offensive? I can't say, but I don't think it's inconceivable. It will surely impact conservative politics. If the sense is that the pressure is on against taking such a stand, how many will stand? Based on the collapse of New York opponents in office, I'd say it doesn't look good.

But what difference does it make? Well, one prime issue in the modification of the definition of marriage by legal fiat is the affirmation of immorality. When the law is silent on a subject, it makes no moral statement. When the law forbids, as an example, murder, it makes a moral statement that murder is immoral. So now the laws speak in New York and Connecticut and Massachusetts and a few other states and, likely soon, in California that it is illegal to believe that homosexual behavior is a sin or that those who have such practices have a choice in the matter. The laws are now not silent on the practice, but making a positive statement. It is moral. The law has declared it. How long, then, until the laws regarding your opinions on homosexual behavior will follow the laws regarding racial discrimination? They like to draw that (erroneous) parallel. So how long until it's illegal for you to say, "I think homosexual behavior is a sin"? How long until churches and religious schools and other religious organizations will find themselves on the wrong side of the law on the basis of such things? Not long at all, I would suggest. It's already happening in some places around the world.

"Okay, fine, maybe you're right, but, really, how will any of this impact you?" That's all that really counts, isn't it? The reality that my country is working at not merely looking away from, but actually encouraging and embracing this isn't sufficient. The fact that finding a political figure who will support my views (can you say, "taxation without representation?") will become another step more remote doesn't matter. The removal of constraints and the legal support of sinning further, plunging more people into the downward spiral isn't a problem. How does it affect me? That's the only thing that I should care about. Does it change my life? Yes, it does. I will now have to swim upstream against a rising current to explain what has been intended for the past several millennia of human history. That whole "the lifelong union of a man and woman for the purpose of complementing and procreation" ... yeah, that's out. Marriage today will now be defined as a recreational joining, likely not for life, only possibly with children involved, based entirely on our urges. If we feel urges to remain faithful, fine. If not, fine. Stay that way? Maybe, maybe not. No big deal. Because marriage now will simply be a matter of how you feel at the moment. We've already pushed it to the verge of that precipice. How long before it goes over?

And it will basically annihilate communication on the topic. Words, you see, are symbols of meaning. They exist to express a thought in one person's head to the other person's head. If you try to explain to someone who speaks only German what green is, there won't be any communication because the symbol has no meaning in his head. So when I use the term, "marriage", and mean by it what marriage has always meant, I will be unable to communicate with others who have no such meaning in their heads, an idea I tried to get across in my post, A Failure to Communicate. "Never mind. I'd have to teach you a foreign language to understand, and even then it would likely be an entirely foreign concept."

They'll argue that it is little effect on me. They'll argue that what others do doesn't make a difference to my life. That law will support irrationality and quite literally destroy "marriage" is irrelevant. That politics will devolve further and those who take a moral stand on the subject of homosexual behavior will likely be further marginalized if not criminalized isn't any reason to be concerned. That I care about people shaking their fists in the face of God who Himself defined marriage for His own good purposes and made sexual relations for His own good purposes, instead calling evil good and good evil ... this shouldn't be a reason for me to be concerned. The best choice of action, they would tell me, is not to care at all. Now that's a negative impact.


David said...

I heard about a church that got sued because it wouldn't "marry" a gay couple. If a church can get sued for saying no to gay "marriage", its not long before individuals are getting sued for declaiming it.
I also see the acceptance of gay "marriage" as the coming of the end of our nation as a nation. It is the final telltale of the utter depravity of a nation. Every nation/empire in the past that has embraced homosexuality has fallen soon after. I'm not saying that embracing homosexuality is to blame, only that it is the final sign of a depraved nation. And for a nation that was founded on "Under God" to embrace homosexuality, I shudder to think of the coming destruction.

Stan said...

Oh, sure, the nation may fall, but the question is what difference does it make to you? Seriously, I shutter at the question.

Marshall Art said...

Do you mean "shudder" or do you mean you will close your "shutters"? :)

This issue is not the benign non-issue those who have made it an issue would have us believe. I have always thought that this imagined "right" will clash with the already understood and Constitutionally protected rights of religious expression, free association and free speech. It can't be helped once these whiners are given their way.

Stan said...

No, I definitely "shutter" -- close off the whole idea. :)

I thought it was interesting that the day before this post (which was written the day before) without coordination or communication Wintery Knight posted on "A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage", giving many non-religious, amoral reasons to oppose it. It's not small.

Marshall Art said...

WK's post is very good. I need to add that the fact that the arguments for homosexual "rights", support for their agenda, however you want to put it, are based on such and incredible number of lies, that I'm working on a beginning a series of posts that will simply speak on as many of them as come to mind. (I actually wrote the inaugural post, but somehow screwed up the publishing of it and lost it---and it was just SOOOO good, too!)