The American Freedom Network

Redefining Marriage? Why?

February 8, 2013 – 12:29 pm

First, spare us the “homophobe” and “intolerance” flames.  Disagreeing on issues doesn’t mean people “fear” or “hate” opposing points of view. Can YOU answer the question, “Redefining Marriage?  Why?”

Denying it is redefining the term is as Orwellian as the “Ministry of Peace”.  What is amazing is so many, well intentioned, caring,  sheep buy it.

1. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. Women in some cultures. Never, no not once, has it ever been considered a union of same sex partners.
2. Marriage as an institution developed in order to foster the protection and propagation of the human race. It had nothing to do with “love” and nothing to do with sexual satisfaction beyond begetting a new generation. This is true in many cultures today, still.
3. Homosexual political activists seem to crave, as an ultimate goal, not just equal protections, but active affirmation of their lifestyle and sexual preference by all of society. Failure to be penalized, attacked and ostracized.
4. Every protection of the law is available equally to homosexuals today. Civil union legislation to fix problems wouldn’t encounter too much difficulty where necessary. Realistic current contract law and powers of attorney make that neccesity unlikely.

Brave enough, honest enough, educated enough to continue?  We dare you….

As for the definitions of words.  Just because you say something repeatedly doesn’t make it so.   The definition of marriage IS BEING redefined.  Check this comparison.  Number 1 remains the most common definition in dictionaries.

This is Webster’s Definition (Online) Today

History and Culture.

Rabid avowed “atheists” (who have more faith in their belief than many theists I know love to claim that marriage is a “religious” institution.  Regardless, why does that requiring redefining a word?  Actually marriage is a cultural institution documented in earliest history and throughout.  None of the myriad of sources available talk about homosexual unions as any type of rule, norm or accepted equivalent to actual marriage.  Fascinating Akkadian Marriage contract.  More ancient (starting point) legal documentation.  No homosexual marriage references here either

People prior to recorded history developed their cultures and adopted religious practices.  The religious practices were to support, strengthen, justify and explain the already developed cultural practices.  In pre-history people were hunter gatherers with small populations.  Marriage and the resultant family developed as a means of protection, sustenance and continuance of the tribe/clan/group.  Blaming religion doesn’t change the actual reason family groups developed and marriage was adopted.  When human societies became agricultural/pastoral the same survival protection purpose remained.

Things people hate to hear (Truth Hurts)

Homosexuals already enjoy “marriage equality” in the United States.  In every legal (ack! and religious!) and societal way homosexuals enjoy the EXACT SAME rights and opportunities that others do.  Exactly the same.

Homosexuals want marriage redefined to include same sex couples because they want society and the mainstream culture to accept them and their practices.  Not leave them alone, not provide equal protection under law, which they already have.  No they want to be accepted and celebrated as just an “option”.  But even more, to not be (under pain of law) considered (or at least referred to) as in any way aberrant or abnormal.  Under the strict definition of the words, homosexuality is very aberrant and abnormal.  Fortunately our political systems have developed so that even aberrant or abnormal behaviors may be practiced as long as others are not harmed (involuntarily) by it.

Bully tactics.  Homosexual activists don’t want honest debate.  They want opponents silenced.  They project their own emotions onto their opponents and then claim that is the reason their opponents must be quiet.  They call others intolerant to mask their intolerance.  They assign fear to others from their own fear of being rejected as not quite right.  They assign fear to others because of their own fears of being “judged by others” and found to be different.  This assertion is entirely anecdotal observation common most of our contributors and authors.  It just seems that way.  We don’t really have an argument so let’s just demonize anyone who dares disagree.

Rationality

The wonderful thing about the U.S., unprecedented in world history, is the ability to express your opinion and advocate for political and social change.  When you pare away the emotions, the unspoken agendas (of which homosexual activists have many) solutions aren’t that tough.  Its that “paring” that seems to get people every time.

1. Assure that the unions of couples have equal protections under the law, if you aren’t going to get the government out of the sanctioning business.
2. Homosexual partners can consider themselves “married” have it solemnized in a religious setting, whatever, regardless of reality and word definitions.  They aren’t because that isn’t what “married” means but so what.
3. Quit trying to force redefinition of words and your acceptance on people with legitimate moral and/or faith based reasons to consider homosexual BEHAVIOR (something the libs gloss over) to be wrong, bad and inappropriate.  As long as you receive equal protection before the law that’s enough.
4. Stop trying to shout and bully your way to change and acceptance.  Some folks only oppose your agenda because of your constant shrill attacks on others your attempts to force your acceptance (not toleration) on society.
5. Opponents of homosexual marriage aren’t the same as “homophobes” or those who oppose ANY form of homosexual civil unions.

Finally, please point out the “fear”, “hate”, “oppression” or “phobia” displayed by the opinion piece above.  We are interested to see what other words by be commonly misused or used as a club.  Intellectual cowards can stay away, or not.

 

---