The Memorial Day weekend humor fest continues. This time the subject is same-sex marriage.
We rightfully expect the wisdom of restraint from judges, but judges are human. So sometimes judges exercise their passions. Thus as Brian Fairrington notes below (from here), four judges in California decided to conduct some daring legal exploration on their own. These judges decided to equate same-sex “marriage” with traditional marriage.
Are same-sex “marriage” and traditional marriage equivalent?
To be funny, humor has to contain an element of truth. Sometimes, however, the author of a cartoon does not see the truth. Nonetheless, even when the cartoonist misses the truth, his cartoons may still teach us.
Such is the case above (from here). What Steve Benson wants us to believe is that four judges in California equalized the scales of justice. Because Benson forgets a certain aspect of reality, what the picture portrays is not what he intended.
Is it wholly beyond our imaginations to add a few panels to Benson’s cartoon? What will happen as time passes? What will happen to those scale of justice? Will a same-sex “marriage” ever bear any fruit of its own?
As Chuck Asay notes here (see below), same-sex “marriage” is a dead end.
Same-sex “marriage” is not marriage; it is an exercise in frivolity. At best, a same-sex union can produce entertainment.
Because there are no children, a same-sex “marriage” protects no one. What same-sex “marriage” does is provide the government’s sanction on a peculiar sexual relationship that tends to be both mentally and physically harmful to the participants.
If you are saying that same sex marriage can be… let’s say… replaced with domestic partnerships, and the same thing as gay marriage can be achieved with such partnerships, then why stop marriage?
From what I understand, you are saying the legal aspects, such as medical care, can be achieved with a domestic partnership, or other legal document. what’s the big deal about giving the couple a nice little ceremony and rings and a legal document saying they are husband and husband, or wife and wife? I’m not sure if I misunderstand your meaning.
Now onto the issue of children. Why should we ban two people from legally taking care of a child if they are indeed able to? Just because they are not able to create a child together doesn’t mean they can’t take care of one period. Imagine the children all over the world that would love to be adopted by a lesbian or gay couple in order to have shelter, or food, or even just people to love them.
lallariah – Laws exist to force people to behave in certain ways, and marriage has a legal significance. When the law defines two people as married, it forces employers and others to accept their relationship. If two people of the same sex want to live together and have sex, it is their business. I cannot stop foolish people from trying to live out their perverse fantasies. My issue is not being forced to condone or participate in such vile foolishness. Because it is wrong, I don’t want any part of fornication.
Are their desperate children? Yes. Is same-sex “marriage” about helping desperate children? You know it is not..
By definition, a same-sex “couple” has nothing to do with producing or raising children. Children need both a father and a mother. That’s why it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Because we learn from example, children also need proper role models. And while some heterosexual couples do not provide a good example, there is not way a homosexual “couple” is going to model an appropriate marriage.
Well, I just took a quick skim and I realized two things.
1: People are willing to spout out what they believe in a heartbeat, wether or not they actually know anything.
2: Citizen Tom, you know your sh**.
Well, ok, one last statement then. Just so any of you know, I aint reading after I post this, so if you want to make an insult, don’t worry, you won’t be hurting my feelings 😉
I don’t know anything about laws whatsoever. I just don’t get why it matters when someone wants to marry they can’t.
I think the best thing to do is just create another thing like marriage. But i don’t know call it garriage. Something like that, saves the trouble to argue with old fashion people.
I don’t get all that talk about children and bla bla bla. Isn’t it more sinful for straight couples not to have baby, when they are given the ability to? While the gay couple might adopt/save an orphan. And all that talk about man/woman marriage, whatever okay, if thy law is made to protect kids, why is the population of children dropping?
I don’t get why some people keep talking about traditional marriage is a man and a woman. Well traditionally, we don’t have many things we have today.
I definitely see your point, but admittedly, my first thought was, “That’s awfully presumptuous.” Then again, maybe it’s true. Unfortunately, I’m too ignorant on the issue to go any further than that.
OFL, always appreciate your insights. 🙂
If I shoot someone, does that make it okay for you to shoot someone. Just because some cretins have responsibility for children, we are suppose to give more people who would make inadequate parents the job?
Parents provide role models for their children. People are partly a product of their environment and the examples they see, partly a product of their genes and partly a product of who know what else. Considering the emphasis some homosexuals have put on their sexual orientation, don’t you think it odd they want to raise children? How could they possibly set an appropriate example? With respect to sexual relationships and the vast majority of children, a same-sex couple could not set anything but a confusing example at best.