Why is it so important for secular and homosexual lobbies to destroy traditional marriage?
When they enjoy all of the privileges formally accorded to marriage, why do they want to redefine marriage: they want to remove any express mention of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but allow the definition to be so loose as to remove any mention of it requiring the consenting parties to be of opposite gender.
But this opens the possibility for two further steps of destruction:
First, since there is no requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman (ie one of each), then it would not only allow two men or two women to be “married”, but it could lead to include any number of men/women to “marry”; worse still hitherto banned relationships (eg a person could marry his horse!) would be encompassed.
The second step is that “marriage under God” (and therefore affirmed by church as God’s holy people) would inevitably be challenged as “not being in accordance with law”. There is the first glimmer of this is in the Coalition Government pressing for church buildings to be allowed for civil partnerships ceremonies.
We are obliged to the author of the following quote, which we have found on website, http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com.
This adequately encompasses our feelings and fears.
“TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Is traditional marriage unfair to all of these other groups who want to dismantle it? A group of social liberal activists ran a full-page statement in the New York Times in 2006 titled “Beyond Gay Marriage.” Part of that statement said this: “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal–for some, also a deeply spiritual–choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.” The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live their lives as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices. The result of meeting these demands will be a culture, a legal system, and a government that considers a monogamous, exclusive, permanent sexual relationship of child-bearing and child-rearing nothing more than one among many lifestyle choices. It leaves the claim that marriage is normative for the flourishing of spouses, children, and society–not to mention any attempt to enshrine in law this unique human good–would be considered bigotry. In other words, marriage as a social institution would be destroyed. “
You may find it instructive to visit James’ Hub (see BlogRoll in RH column) to discover more about the various “poly-aberrations” that exist in the minds and lives of others!
