[CS-FSLUG] PD: Gay marriage

Sat Aug 14 10:28:14 CDT 2004

I have thought about this issue of "gay marriage" and I certain probably ramifications that I do not like. I will attempt to list them here with the line of reasoning by which I arrived at them.

1) Legalization of "gay marriage" will form the basis for the removal of the taboo against incest.

My rational here is that there will likely be those homosexual couples that are ALSO siblings (cousins, and aunt/uncle relationships are also likely) who will want to be married. To allow incestuous homosexuals the "right" to marry will lead to a demand that incestuous heterosexuals be allowed to marry.

2) Legalization of incestuous marriage will lead to legalized marriage between parent and child.

My rational here is that if siblings or a man/woman and his/her aunt/uncle are allowed to marry, who can say that it is wrong for a parent to marry his/her child. What's worse here is that a parent can already allow thier underage child to legally marry, so if a parent is allowed to legally marry thier own child, they can marry that child at, quite literally, any age.

I think I will stop here, these two probably ramifications that sicken me enough already, yet I can see how these can be carried further, much to demoralization of our society. Indeed, I fear that "gay marriage" will lead to the overturning of many of laws that we have in our country that are meant to protect family.

In Christ,

Christopher.

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Patrick Lehmann <lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:51:06 -0500
To: christiansource at ofb.biz
Subject: [CS-FSLUG] PD: Gay marriage

> I've been thinking about this subject, and I find myself conflicted.  On the
> one hand, homosexuality is an abomination and a sin against not only God but
> also the sinner's own body.  On the other hand, what is "sin" to our
> intentionally atheistic government?  On the other hand, if homosexuality is
> endorsed by our government, could this lead to difficulty for pastors/preists
> who discriminate by not marrying homosexual couples?  On the other hand, do I
> really want to set a precedent for government definition of marriage?  Do I
> want the bounds of sacred ceremonies set by a group of men and women who are
> likely to bend with the wind of whatever popular sentiment they think will get
> them the most donations and votes?  On the other hand, since at some point,
> laws must be made, and they must be made to some end, should I not work toward
> making law toward the most Godly standard I can?
> 
> I guess what it boils down to is this:  I'm a state's rights person.  I believe
> that any extra federal authority is an evil, and only in the event that it is
> the least evil available should it be utilized.  In order for me to determine
> if an ammendment blocking homosexual marriage is a lesser evil than (civil)
> homosexual sexual marriage, I'd have to know the philosophical and practical
> ramifications.  As part of my stream-of-concious-maundering e-mail, I'll go
> over possible things that could happen as a result of this.  This will take the
> form of comparisons to other things that have happened.
> 
> "How have laws affected morality?"  is my first question.  After all, one worry
> I have is that if homosexual marriage is supported by our government,
> Christians may in a few decades be considered bigots, and not merely prudes.
> My first thought was to look at something that had been legal, and accepted,
> until it was rendered illegal due to health reasons.  
> 
> Morphine and cocaine came to mind.  Since morphine was accepted until it was
> illegalized, and its use is now taboo, I thought to look into that to determine
> how government action had changed popular morality.  However, after a little
> poking on Google, I found http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htm,
> which indicates that it was public revulsion at the increasing incidence of
> "opium drunkenness" that lead to narcotic prohibition, in the same Prohibition
> wave that led to the 18th ammendmant, so that was out.
> 
> Next I thought of abortion.  Since the Roe v. Wade decision, there's seemed to
> have been a major change in public opinion, from the belief that abortion was
> murder to the belief that abortion was a choice that should be available to all
> women.  However, another Google search turned up this page
> (http://www.vitalsignsministries.org/vsmchurchhistory.html) on the history of
> Church thought on abortion which indicates that Christians have pretty much
> always stood against abortion, and the rest of society was in favor of it.
> This URL (http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/abortion/abhist.htm), a summary
> of a couple of abortion histories, indicates that the cutoff for abortions in
> Europe was at the quickening only until it was discovered that there was life
> before there was motion.  At that point, strong anti-abortion laws were fairly
> quickly passed.
> 
> It seems from these two quick lookups that morality has dictated law, and not
> the reverse.  So I don't have to worry about this law leading to a universal
> hatred of Christian bigotry.  If this is interesting to anyone but me, I'll
> continue writing as I try to figure out what I think about this.
> 
> Aaron Lehmann
> -- 
> Sometimes you stay the course;
> Sometimes the course stays you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
> 

-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10