The Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Ky., doubled down on 07 June on its agenda demanding that homosexual marriage be officially sanctioned, with all the perks a normal spouse receives also flowing to a homosexual partner. In her column, Charlotte Wood mentioned that she was celebrating her twenty-fifth anniversary of lesbian partnership and compared her situation to common-law marriage.
In his column, the Rev. Chuck Queen approached the subject not from a religious standpoint but made the point that same-sex marriage is inevitable anyway as the nation places itself on the “right side of history.” Since same-sex marriage has virtually never been recognized anywhere in at least the last 6,000 years, one wonders what history he was citing. Perhaps he meant the right side of the future.
Each columnist made it clear that the matter is entirely personal, i.e., that the folks involved should not be hampered from doing their thing. This is in line with the current collective mindset that diversity must include every gender-related possibility, so one might assume that multi-partner marriages would be the next step, thus negating the laws concerning bigamy, polygamy, etc.
The one thing neither columnist mentioned was children, the logical implication being that marriage is designed for the pleasure of the players, homosexual or otherwise. For Wood, this is understandable since she and her “partner” apparently don’t face the nuisance of children.
For the reverend, this seemed strange since the use of the term marriage in the scriptures has to do with the propagation of the race, not the ecstasy of sex or scamming the governmental perks available. For instance, Adam and Eve were told by God in Genesis 1 to be “fruitful and multiply,” not go out and have a helluva time. God officiated at their marriage. Jesus reinforced this definition of marriage in Matthew 19 for those who consider much if not all of Genesis as myth.
In other words, marriage is treated as an institution scripturally, with the husband and wife as the founders. The Kentucky Constitution also treats marriage as an institution, with the same instigators, and provides for the offspring, remarking the husband and wife as mother and father. This furthers the marriage as an institution governed by laws that protect the family, including children.
Lesbians and homosexual men cannot and will never be capable of propagating the race, so actual marriage as an institution is an impossibility for them, either religiously or governmentally. They can hook-up as “partners” and cadge perks, as is the case at the University of Kentucky, which is complicit in violating both Kentucky statutes and the state Constitution, but by definition they cannot function as progenitors or parents.
Both writers seem oblivious to what’s involved in trivializing male-female marriage, which is the most important institution people can form, particularly since most thinkers regard the nuclear family as the foundation of society, the fabric holding it together. It’s unseemly and unnatural that children can have two mothers or two fathers or two partners, so the entire definition of marriage must undergo change lest huge numbers of lawsuits tie up the courts.
Queen wrote, “Let … government govern without discrimination,” as if homosexuals, who bear no responsibility for propagating the race, are not forcing that responsibility upon the “straights,” who are actually creating and maintaining the race, not just financially, but biologically, never mind any sort of “marriage contract.” That constitutes profound discrimination against the heterosexuals, who carry the entire load.
States can approve any arrangement for “paying off” the supposedly aggrieved homosexuals (civil unions, etc.) who want a huge piece of the pie, but this should not come at the expense of prostituting marriage as the vital institution it is, effectively wiping it out and in the process easing the country’s skid into Europe-like oblivion. Wood/Queen have the president on their side but that does not make them right.
Queen was not identified as a preacher or minister, as he should have been, but as a BAPTIST preacher, implying that he speaks for an entire faith-group. It’s doubtful that more than a minute minority of Baptists believe as he does, especially since the Bible treats marriage as male-female only and condemns homosexual behavior as unnatural and wrong, as it obviously is by any measure. Baptists who do not believe the Bible deserve this pastor, who obviously does not believe scripture vis-à-vis marriage.
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment