Since marriage was originally a religius union, recognized and honored by secular governing bodies I will discuss the issue with faith as the background. I will also expound upon some of the social and familial cirumstances that this subject has effect. Although I have cited some factual sources for statistics and quotes some of the outlined material can be found in a news release on lds.org. I belive that in a logical discussion marriage must remain defined as it has traditionally.
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Matt 19: 4-6)
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God's plan for us. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. (Ballard) Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for passing on to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”(United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948)
Our modern era has seen the degredation of traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). (National Vital Statistics Report) Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents.(Alan Guttmacher Institute) At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women. Gender is one of the most important characteristics that is given to us from birth and must be cherished as such. It is ignorance to disregard and belittle the gifts of uniqueness that gender bestows upon mankind and harmful.
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished.(Matt 19:19) Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” (John 8:11) Tolerance as a principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. Any other definition is manipulation of terminology that is easily used to imbue guilt and emotional responses.
As I look out the window of the library where I am typing I see the mountains and it lends to thinking that just because the mountains stand majestic and dignified as defining characteristics they do not take away from the lakes which lie at their feet. The lake cannot and should not force the mountain to become like the lake and vica versa. Each can have respect for what they are individually but cannot be made the same. Draw the analagy yourself.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. We can love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
"Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination."(Oaks)
I do not condone abusive treatment of others or encourage anything but treating all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which I disagree on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” All of us can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies that are largely unmentioned and unknown to the casual observer. It was these types of realities that solidified my understanding for the need of defining marriage. I am open and welcome to different lifestyles but the implications upon society is unacceptable when encroaching upon the institution of marriage.
Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” (Gallagher, 2006)
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. (Turley, 2008) Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.(Stern 2006)
If same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished to say nothing of the implications upon education of children and the society as a whole. When they say they are being discriminated against the solution cannot be one which forces this kind of acceptance into religion, school and very effectively into homes. Religious and societal freedom must be protected in the solution to this problem. Encroachment into these realms hold much more danger to the nation and personal liberty than currently in existence.
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning in elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. This will have a destructive influence to the gender discussion earlier. These developments will also create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Matt 19: 4-6)
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God's plan for us. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. (Ballard) Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for passing on to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”(United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948)
Our modern era has seen the degredation of traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). (National Vital Statistics Report) Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents.(Alan Guttmacher Institute) At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women. Gender is one of the most important characteristics that is given to us from birth and must be cherished as such. It is ignorance to disregard and belittle the gifts of uniqueness that gender bestows upon mankind and harmful.
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished.(Matt 19:19) Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” (John 8:11) Tolerance as a principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. Any other definition is manipulation of terminology that is easily used to imbue guilt and emotional responses.
As I look out the window of the library where I am typing I see the mountains and it lends to thinking that just because the mountains stand majestic and dignified as defining characteristics they do not take away from the lakes which lie at their feet. The lake cannot and should not force the mountain to become like the lake and vica versa. Each can have respect for what they are individually but cannot be made the same. Draw the analagy yourself.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. We can love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
"Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination."(Oaks)
I do not condone abusive treatment of others or encourage anything but treating all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which I disagree on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” All of us can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies that are largely unmentioned and unknown to the casual observer. It was these types of realities that solidified my understanding for the need of defining marriage. I am open and welcome to different lifestyles but the implications upon society is unacceptable when encroaching upon the institution of marriage.
Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” (Gallagher, 2006)
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. (Turley, 2008) Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.(Stern 2006)
If same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished to say nothing of the implications upon education of children and the society as a whole. When they say they are being discriminated against the solution cannot be one which forces this kind of acceptance into religion, school and very effectively into homes. Religious and societal freedom must be protected in the solution to this problem. Encroachment into these realms hold much more danger to the nation and personal liberty than currently in existence.
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning in elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. This will have a destructive influence to the gender discussion earlier. These developments will also create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
