Ask a Question
The slippery slope to same-sex “marriage”
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”: words which have been immortalised from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to suggest that the name given to something does not change its essence.
In the raging debate about same sex “marriage”, what is at stake is not “equality” or even “rights”. What is at stake is the slow deconstruction of something which humanity has held as sacred and the norm from time immemorial.
It has not been about equal rights because by law any adult or adults may enter into any arrangement they like. An adult may leave a same sex partner all his/her inheritance, and as long as it is done legitimately and legally then that will stands.
No, this has not been about rights or equality, it has been about demolition. It has been about disordered conduct and it has been about winning at all costs.
The “same-sex” lobby may achieve what they set out to achieve but it will come at a heavy cost, that is, the demolition of the most fundamental institution of society as we know it. It will introduce into society all manner of combinations and it will introduce social disorganisation unlike anything we have known in the past.
And yet, we should have expected this, and should have seen and been prepared for its arrival.
It has been on the periphery of our vision since the 1930 Lambeth Conference, strengthened by Margaret Sanger’s involvement with contraceptives and brought to “birth” in the “pill” in 1960, then strengthened by the rejection of Humane Vitae (1968) in the Catholic- Christian world, and thus the devaluation of marriage and its raison d’etre, that is a union of a man and woman for the delight and the welcome of children into their life.
Following contraception, we have witnessed the slow legalisation of abortion worldwide from one country to another to another, till today we have abortion on demand throughout the world and abortion to full term in many countries, including Australia.
What has all of this to do with homosexual marriage? Very very much.
The acceptance of contraceptives by women and insistence of their use by men, and then the acceptance of abortion first for “hard cases” (e.g. rape, disability) till in one generation we have abortion on demand.
This ultimately ensured that the creative intimacy between a man and a woman could be caused to be sterile.
It rendered the act of intimacy as a pleasure only act with consequences (conception) manageable. It rendered the act of intimacy, even every act of intimacy (unless wanted) as sterile and if every act of intimacy can be demonstrated as both sterile but pleasurable, then in any combination (e.g. same sex) and with any partner it is acceptable, especially if both partners are sterile.
If conception is not wanted, then those who are sterile (same sex) consider themselves in a better situation.
I remember Fr Paul Marx, Founder of Human Life International, saying that abortion will surely lead to euthanasia.
It is my belief that the contraceptive pill and other devices together with abortion and the demand for euthanasia have contributed to where we are today, with the new demand for same sex legalisation of a union, or what these proponents want to call “marriage.”
The interesting thing is that all sterile inducing intimacies (pill and devices, abortion and same sex unions) and including euthanasia have all been achieved and have worked using the same strategies.
These include moving slowly, methodically, “appearing compassionate” and manipulating language.
We have seen words like unborn baby become “cells”, changing the killing the elderly, the sick or those who are depressed to “good death”.
Contraception has become synonymous with “freedom” and “equality” and same sex unions have become “equality” and “love.” By manipulating language, then change of popular thought became possible and easily achievable.
I began with a “rose by any other name would still smell as sweet” I meant by that, that we cannot change the nature of a “rose” A rose is a rose is a rose, just like you cannot change the nature of the masculine and the feminine and their design to be intimate with one another.
He is to enter and give she is to be receptive to his gift and two individuals of the same gender cannot do this for one another. Each cannot be a giver and a recipient.
Indeed they mock one another and they cheat the other of the very essence of who they are because they cannot give of their “love” and to their “love,” themselves truly and be received truly.
Again, same sex “marriage” (or as I prefer unions) have arisen because we as a society have sterilised the sexual act. We decided to take control of the act most like God’s creation, and manipulate it to our own designs.
When a human being decides to do things his/her own way without God in mind then we must expect the outcome what we have today.
A “gay” couple reputedly now “married” what has that achieved for them and their world and society? No children are possible unless different and new manipulations are called into play. So why did it become necessary to “marry” except to maybe say, “Look at us we are normal. Our sexuality has now been declared normal.”
Nothing else can be achieved and much harm has been invited into society by opening the doorway to further attempted innovations to the divine order.
Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 28 No 6 (July 2015), p. 5
|AD2000 Home | Article Index | Bookstore | About Us | Subscribe | Contact Us | Links|
Page design and automation by
Umbria Associates Pty Ltd © 2001-2004