Changing definitions of marriage

Gay marriage is what we all pray our marriage will be until death.

Homosexual marriage, however, has been called an abomination by many in the Christian church.

Why the media continue to use gay as a definition of homosexuality has always made me wonder. If I were homosexual and proud of it, I certainly would be proud of the established definition of such homosexuality. Marriage is defined as a Holy Sacrament of the Catholic religion. Who is the government to think they can define religious definitions? Our Constitution provides protections against government forming religion. When government changes definitions, they are performing a change. Civil unions are on the way to allow homosexual unions with the same government benefits of marriage. Why does no one call for homosexual marriage? Could it be that homosexuals are ashamed of the definition of their choices? Sorry, but when I am gay and fun loving, it does not include my sexual preference.

Daniel Robert Smyth

From the March 27-April 2, 2013, issue

One thought on “Changing definitions of marriage

  • Mar 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    So you’re opposed to the word ‘gay’ being used as a synonym for the word ‘homosexual’. Ok. I suppose I have no real quarrel with that, but it’s never been used as a “definition” to my knowledge.

    “Marriage is defined as a Holy Sacrament of the Catholic religion.” I’d like to know where in history evidence exists to support this claim. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and we’ll assume you can produce such documentation of marriage being a purely Catholic construct. Are you then suggesting that only Catholics should have the right to become each other’s legal next of kin? If you’re stance is broad enough to allow only Christians to marry – or broader yet; Judeo-Christian theists in general – then marriage is an institution reserved only for those who believe in the “God” portrayed in the Bible, regardless of their sexual orientation. If marriage is a purely religious institution, then those who do not affiliate with a religion should not be able to be married and should be taxed at a different rate than married believers.

    I’m not sure I grasp the point you’ve attempted to make here, Daniel. What do you think the difference is – or should be -between a civil union and a marriage? There is no shortage of people, including Christians, who stand in support of legalizing same-sex marriage. The days of homosexuals feeling shame for being true to themselves are in the past, despite your most fervent wishes.

Comments are closed.

Enjoy The Rock River Times? Help spread the word!