Working on a Dream


Leadership

Theology

Life


Tuesday, May 15, 2012

An open letter regarding the Sanctity of Marriage. Part 1

The Beatles got it wrong all those years ago when they sang, "All you need is Love" and I am here to tell you why.

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 hateI 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."


CorrectOver 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? 
A lot.
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:
It is at this point where I hear many raise the fact that marriage has become a laughingstock in this countryTo which I tearfully, yet gracefully nod and agree.  


Indeed, marriage is a total sham most of the time these days but I offer two remarks here:
1.  Mankind has failed marriage; Marriage has not failed mankind. 
2.  With the above being said, this does not void the original plan from our Creator for marriage.    

In conclusion, I want to add one last insight that I believe to be the core of the issue.  Since love and feelings are not the basis for marriage then what is?
--In a word, God

This concludes the end of today's open letter!  
I hope you enjoyed it.
I hope it made you think a little.
I look forward to your thoughts...


Stop back soon for part 2 where I'll be talking about shellfish, trimming beards, God's authority, bullying and whatever I can think of from now until then...

15 comments:

JJ Russell said...

Nice post...gives food for thought!

Ann Mullen said...

Anthony, the entire world is not as bad as you think when it comes to marriage and family. Please keep an open mind yourself here and read what one church put out in 1995: https://www.lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng.

My personal feeling about the state of marriage is different from this somewhat. I don't think it is a Constitutional issue and has no place being voted on in national and possible state referendums. Nor should it be an issue of political klout in election years. There might be legal issues, but I think those are the result of the government misusing its powers.

Cerebrations.biz said...

First of all, why must every argument against homosexual marriage disintegrate to the inane? I won't bother to discuss that ridiculous scenario any more than it makes sense that if we are for freedom then we have the right to do anything and everything WE want. Absurdity is simply that. Not worthy of a discussion.

Marriage is a government institution. If it weren't, there would be no rules or regulations pertaining to anyone regarding the process. Any church, synagogue, mosque, clique can make its own rules for its own adherents. But, YOU and your citation are describing a civil law. Stop bringing in whatever YOUR religion desires. Keep that for YOUR belief. (It happens to be mine, but I don't believe anyone has the right to proselytize.)

Love is the foundation for marriage. It doesn't have to be the only one (after all, folks have been marrying for money or protection for eons). Again, you can make your own definition for your life- or follow your religion.

But, to denigrate those desiring unions between loving couples (who, by the way, have so far managed to outlast the average length of unions of those who YOU condone) because of your religion is no different that what was done to Blacks in the South. After all, their (incorrect, as well) reading of the bible justified slavery in their minds. These folks seeking marriage have the same goals, aspirations, and beliefs in each other as you claim for yourself. Your (or your brethren's) bias should not rule the day.

Marriage is a civil matter. Deal with it civilly.

Marriage in your church is yours to choose as you so desire. Don't thrust YOUR church on me. (No, I am not Gay, nor am I Black, but the concept is identical for every slur that is imposed by the majority.)

Anthony K said...

Roy,

I disagree.
Marriage was not invented by man. God created marriage and therefore, sets the rules for it. We are His creatures, created by God for God. If the Gov't decides to rewrite history and play God by redifing something that they have no right to redefine then they are in error.

Anthony K said...

Roy,

I find it funny that you think those senarios are silly.
They are real.
Maybe your belief system informs you of their sinfulness ... hmmm.

Suerae Stein said...

Your post is thoughtful Anthony, and it is my spiritual belief that God is in everyone... we are all God's children, including homosexuals. And if God is the basis for marriage, as you believe, then why can't his own children marry?

Cerebrations.biz said...

Anthony- you need to separate your idea - or your impression of mine- of sinfulness. You have just PROVED my point. You want to impose YOUR religion on civil matters. There is NO SIN in civil matters. Whether or not I agree that this involves sin is immaterial- unless you wish to have a debate on religion. I'm up for it- but it has NO PLACE in this debate about what LEGISLATION shall be imposed for, against, or sideways with marriage.

Cerebrations.biz said...

Sorry, you are welcome to disagree. But, nowhere did the SB define marriage. The SB first thought that companionship of animals would suffice- and when it didn't, the SB proffered woman. But, Adam and Chava were never married. Nor, was Noah. Nor were the three Patriarchs. They took a woman, but there is no marriage ceremony...

Martha Giffen said...

Oh that your heart would not be so judgemental . . .

Anthony K said...

Roy,

"You want to impose YOUR religion on civil matters. There is NO SIN in civil matters. Whether or not I agree that this involves sin is immaterial."

It is my stance that God dictates how we are to live. Therefore, I am not imposing my religion/beliefs on anyone. I am agreeing with GOd for His will on Mankind.

Anthony K said...

Roy,

"There is NO SIN in civil matters"

I totally disagree with this idea.

What do you call what Hitler did via the civil gov.'t to the Jews?

I'd call that sin...what would you call it?

I find it funny that you consider those situations as absured and they are legit as people are trying to do them as we speak. Maybe your worldview, being dictated by your faith has something to say about why you think those actions are out of bounds... hmmm..

Anthony K said...

Martha,
You said,

"Oh that your heart would not be so judgemental . . ."

Do you realize that your statment is a judgement call itself? hmmm.

Anthony K said...

BTW: The basis for marriage is not civil. Just becuase we have made it that way does not negate is origins. Thanks to people like St. Valentine that did the right thing and married people -even though the civil authorities were not allowing young men to get married. He disobeyed out of duty to a higher moral standard, God.

Marriage has been defined by our
Creator in Genesis 2:24,


"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Mankind has no right, no matter how popular or unpopular an issue is, to redefine something that is not open for redefining.

Jason M said...

Anthony,
I find it amusing that people find those of us who cling to God's Word as bigots or judgmental. I don't condone murder or stealing either. I hate what drugs have done to our society as well. So does this mean i hate people who kill, steal or do drugs? NO! Once again these things are all contrary to God's Word. We as Christians aren't supposed to endorse or support these things, we are to lead people away from destructive behavior.

So why do people take such offense because we oppose homosexual behavior? Should we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to those who molest or rape women and little children? Some would argue that's different, but it's still the same thing.

because of man's sinful ways and opposition to the things of God, we as humans decide what is right in our own eyes. People can candy coat it all they want, however just like each one of us we will all stand before God.

Christen said...

Anthony- great post!
Jason M- great comment!