This page was last updated on July 12, 2015.
Union of gay couple is not a marriage; Frank Makozy; Beaver County Times; July 9, 2015.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“I’m writing to take offense with the June 29 editorial and adjoining cartoon where God only has rainbows.”
[RWC] I didn’t read this editorial and it’s not on the BCT website.
“First; the word marriage means to wed/unite, or to merge. The ‘two’ become ‘one’ flesh. This ‘one’ is evidenced by children produced. In my eight plus years of dental training, I’ve had cell biology to the point of regurgitation. No where do I recall how the DNA of two males intermixed produces a child. Same applies to females.
“If you want to call this a civil union, I won’t have a problem. However, a marriage it is not. Recently, I came across a case of a father in love with his adult son. Wasn’t this once called incest?
“Regarding the editorial cartoon, it seems to me God poured out fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah. I also recall God was quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination. I don’t recall him changing his mind, as if his laws were negotiable. Maybe someone can point me to God’s press conference where all these changes took place.”
[RWC] Even if we don’t believe same-sex “marriage” (whether participants are hetero-, homosexual, or a mix) is one of the “evils” released, the Supreme Court opinion opened a Pandora’s Box full of potential consequences, some intended, some not. It’s time to get government out of the marriage and marriage-recognition business, including common-law marriage, Medicare and Social Security provisions, tax provisions for the married, adoption preferences for the married, spousal privilege, and so on. Essentially, we’d expunge marriage from all laws in which it’s mentioned except for those doing the expunging.
People who want legal protection in their joining could enter into a notarized, custom-made contract of their own design instead of the current one-size-fits-all format. As with other contracts, government would get involved only when a party to the contract declared breach of contract and sought relief via the court system.
The supporters of same-sex unions still have a lot of work to do. Since a same-sex union can’t produce offspring, laws banning the joining of cousins and siblings need to go, as well as those banning parent/of-age child unions.
In a same-sex union, what’s the compelling government interest in banning polygamy? A pretty-much contiguous group of countries from Africa to the Far East embrace polygamy. Why shouldn’t the U.S.?
There needs to be outreach to the heterosexual community to make sure we know same-sex unions are not just for homosexuals. I can see public service announcements by those in homosexual same-sex unions celebrating and encouraging participants in heterosexual same-sex unions. Helping organize Hetero Pride parades would also be a good gesture. Movies and TV shows must celebrate heterosexual same-sex unions and their participants must be major, positive characters. To make sure we got the message, these situations would need to be overrepresented in movies and TV shows.
The economic and legal benefits of a same-sex union apply to all same-sex couples, not just homosexual couples. Hopefully, affirmative action programs won’t be needed, but it’s imperative heterosexuals not be underrepresented in the same-sex union community.
In one of his comments on the BCT website, Carl Davidson (KD) wrote, “Actually, if you read the Sodom bible story carefully, you’ll find that the crime was rape, not same-s3x [sic] activity itself.” If you’re familiar with KD’s body of work, you won’t be surprised he misrepresented Genesis; the specific verses are 19:4-5.
Genesis 19:4-5 in the Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic) reads, “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:” The King James and the New Revised Standard Version versions have wording nearly identical to Douay-Rheims, and all three end with “that we may know them.” Does KD expect readers to believe he doesn’t know what “to know someone in the biblical sense” means?
In the New International Version, 19:5 ends with “so that we can have sex with them.”
In the New Jerusalem Bible (approved for Catholics), 19:5 ends with “so that we can have intercourse with them.”
Just in case the above paragraphs aren’t enough, are we to believe KD doesn’t know the origin of the term “sodomy?” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the origin of the term sodomy is “Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11.”
When KD wrote “the crime was rape,” he wanted readers to think of men raping women, not men raping men. If KD had stopped there, he would have been lame but not technically wrong. Apparently that wasn’t good enough, however, and KD “went the extra mile” and claimed the crime was “not same-s3x [sic] activity itself.”
Unfortunately, KD has a long trail of this behavior. Another person (macalot) called out KD for his falsehood. As of the time of this writing, KD did not respond.
© 2004-2015 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.