Same Sex Marriage

In this article I simply present the absurdity of the arguments about same sex marriage, as well as a simple solution to solve this issue.


Same Sex Marriage


This article should be fairly short, because marriage is not a matter of morality or religion where the state is concerned, but rather the matter of legality, and mainly the definition of the word. Since marriage is a matter of legality, I presume that the most important part of concern is the changing of the meaning of the word marriage.
Page Reader

If changed, then it will automatically eradicate, or at least renders as inadequate, all the laws regarding marriage made by the lawmakers prior to the changing of the meaning of the word marriage. When the legislators of the past made the laws regarding marriage, they had undoubtedly on their mind the union between man and woman, and no other possibility came across their mind, since this is something new and unseen by history.

There are religious laws that basically remain the same and do not change, which is why the religious folks stand so strongly against the same sex marriage, because by changing the meaning of the word, one is also changing the meaning of the word in their scriptures. This is very important to them, especially when it comes to the youth, who will obviously in time understand the new meaning of the word as "union between two people", and not as "union between man and woman".

This dispute could be resolved very easily by inventing a new word, since we have invented something new, which is basically very simple. If one does not wish to invent a new word, one can add another definition to the word "union", which then should read, "union between two people". In short, on some personal questionnaire there is a question if one is married or not, in which case the option of living in union should be added to the options of married, divorced or single. If the term "living in union" would be applied to homosexuals living as couples, it would simply resolve all the above mentioned problems. The religious folks would more likely leave it alone, since it no longer pertains to them or to the word marriage, while at the same time the previous laws made regarding the marriage would remain undisturbed. Of course there remains the issue of disclosure of being homosexual in these questionnaires, that more likely is the reason why this problem is not being solved in this way, which more likely has to do with shame on the part of the homosexuals.

I presume the main battle about the same sex marriage is about the taxes, and so in this way the people living in unions would receive the same rights and tax benefits as the married folks, depending on the laws of the state, obviously.

By what I see and hear, I really have to wonder if all these arguments on the part of the folks promoting same sex marriage are driven by hate and resentment, because it is beyond me why they cannot resolve this controversy in this simple way. It has also become more than apparent on the part of the homosexuals, and same sex marriage activists, that they are driven by resentment and hate of the straight folks and the religious. This hate and resentment does not differ much from the hate and resentment by the atheists of the religious. I guess if one looks deeper, he will not be surprised to find at the core of this hate and resentment the original sin of envy.

There is of course the hate and resentment by the straight of the homosexuals, which is more or less rooted in fear and insecurity, hence the term homophobic. This term is however misused by the homosexuals, more likely with the intent to provoke and offend anyone that does not approve of homosexuality. There is a huge difference between not liking something or someone, and hating something or someone. The concept of toleration is not applicable to people's personal lives, and it should not be demanded in the so-called free society. The same goes for discrimination, as we all discriminate against one thing or another, or against one person or another, or against one people or another. If I do not like to associate with some people, e.g. the feminists, I should have the right to exclude such associations from my personal life, and the same goes for the private clubs or societies. In public life it is something else, which is then of course the subject to the laws of the land.

There is also the issue of raising children in such environment that goes not only against the nature, but also against the well being of the children. A child without one parent is simply an orphan, and there is no man that can replace a mother, nor there is a woman that can replace the father. If the unfortunate children were born into such environments, they should stay, as it is better than being in the care of the state. On the same note, it should be illegal for homosexual couples to adopt children, as well as for lesbians receiving artificial insemination, since many of these folks desiring children are obviously very selfish, and do not care, whether or not, their child is missing a father or a mother. It should be the right of all children to have the right to a mother and father, and the state should insure this right to the children in question, whether born or unborn.

Christian faith is, and should be, first and foremost the foundation for human decency.

Written by Ludvik K. Stanek




first image second image third image fourth image fifth image sixth image seventh image eighth image
themed object
Personal website of Ludvik K. Stanek. A horseman by God's grace.