Regarding The SCOTUS Review Of Gay Marriage

Wednesday 27th, March 2013 / 09:17 Published by

Marriage is an institution that predates civilization and is exclusive to one man and one woman who have the responsibility to procreate the human race, and to nurture, educate, and pass on shared values and mores to their offspring. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

This new “gender ideology” which is increasingly being imposed on society by Western governments, undermines the fundamental understanding of what it means to be a human. In seeking to make every individual completely autonomous, it destroys the understanding of the family as a community designed for the rearing of children. In this radical new understanding of sexuality, children lose their own rights and become mere objects of adult possession.

By Paul Kokoski

Share
, , ,

1 Comments on “Regarding The SCOTUS Review Of Gay Marriage

  • First, to be fair, I must disclose my reception of the piece here. It was in fact, an ignorant piece, but I feel it was ignorant and bigoted with misinformation and a lack of any real argument to warrant such a piece other than to pander to the common denominator of approval in this society.

    Let’s discuss the changes in the concept of marriage in it’s history of change. Marriage was before property rights and complex written laws that intermingled marital status with a plethora of other laws. This intermingling of rights has institutionally discriminated against children out of wedlock, women (Wives and Daughters), non-Christians (Or any non-adherent to the dominant religious sect), and many other groups. For the most part, all of these groups have achieved their equality in some form.

    Now, in what you mentioned about the purpose for family and community. That purpose was existent when countries were not liable/beholden to their people. A time where bloodlines defined your status. If someone marries someone of the same gender and adopts a child together. Where is the loss of community? There is no scientific evidence to provide a basis for any claim that their are detrimental effects on an individual raised by a same-sex couple. At least, not any more than any normal man-woman house hold.

    You offer no explanation of what you base your “What it means to be Human” line of reasoning. What is your basis? What is the foundation that teaches what it means to be human? Again you state nothing like indirectly purporting an argument raised from your “feelings”.

    Finally, (not really but for a sense of not writing something double the length of your original post) what definition or idea of “Gender” do you hold? Gender is, as I have seen, a very hard to define area of research. Is gender physiological? Psychological? A Mix? If you claim Physiological, then a pseudo-hermaphrodite (as we see in humans) would present a problem. If it is Pyschological then the scientifically supported Gender-Dysphoria presents a problem. If both, then a myriad of problems exist.

    I’ll reiterate the theme of this reply. You have written 185 words but have managed to say absolutely nothing. Besides pander, of course.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Bahamian Project

Like Us