Now before we venture to the point of no return, let's lay some ground rules:
1. This post is not intended to be the end-all-be-all on the subject of the sanctity of marriage.
2. I have a motto that I live by: To disagree is not to express hate. I realize that the possibility of everyone reading this and agreeing with me 100% is never going to be the case. That's OK with me. Just do not interpret anything I write here with hating anyone.
3. You have a responsibility after you get done reading this: Think about it ... then reply, share it, or whatever, just do something. --------(emphasis on the ... BTW).
4. After you decide to reply, be nice.
I. Love & Feelings are not a sufficient basis for marriage:
A. Love is not an appropriate foundation for marriage:
Last week I read an article titled, The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage featured in The Tech. Since I do not consider myself that knowledgeable in Civil Gov't intricacies, I found their remarks thought provoking. Below is an excerpt:
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html (you can click on the link to the left for the full article).
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
I personally found the case above very thought provoking because of the pivotal question(s) it raises and the fact that it is by definition a secular article (meaning without religion/or religious influence). It seems that there is a silent slippery slope embedded in the argument for the right of a homosexual couple to marry. BTW: If you have the answer(s), then I would like to hear them. One last point about this subject that I find compelling is that both the political arena and the religious have historically come together and agreed that marriage is reserved between a man and a women. (That is until our president declared otherwise last week.)
I began this section by stating that love is not a sufficient basis for marriage; if that is the case, then what is?
-------------------------A proper foundation for marriage is Holiness------------------
Let me share an illustration:
During pre-marital counseling, I ask couples to go outside, pick two separate rocks of their choosing and bring them to me. Returning to my office, they find me standing in front of a large jar. I then ask the couple to place both rocks in the jar and instruct them to shake the jar together for 30 seconds. After, I take the rocks out of the jar, I ask the couple this question: What would happen to the rocks if you continued shaking them for the next day, month, year, decade?
"They would start to get really smooth & lose their rough edges."
Correct! Over time each rock would wear down the others sharp points and although the rocks are still the very same rocks that were placed into the container years and years ago, they have morphed into something even better.
Holiness is God's plan for marriage.
Your mate will be the primary tool that God uses to bring you both closer to Him and His will for your lives. So what's love got do with it?
Love, laughter, tears, drama ... are all part of the process -the fruit produced by Holiness, nonetheless, are all insufficient as the primary foundation for building a healthy marriage.
B. Feelings are not a primary basis for marriage:
We all know that throughout our lifetime we have had strong feelings, maybe towards a person or a belief you held, and years later have come to think differently. Feelings are a funny thing because they change over time. Feelings will change throughout your lifetime umpteen times, and for many of you they have about 20 times since you woke up this morning.
-If marriage were built on feelings, then what would keep a man who has fell out of love with his wife from leaving her for another women?
-If love and feelings are the basis for marriage then why not marry as many people as we want? (Polygamy)
-If love and feelings are the basis for marriage, then no one can place any type of boundaries over marriage. This opens the door to marrying inadamant objects, marrying animals, or even marrying myself!
This leads to a entire barrage of disastrous results.
Now for a side note: