Archive for marriage

Stuff Going On — 05/17/2017

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 17, 2017 by cavalier973

Important, if true. Putting an intelligent partner’s spy (in this case, Israel’s) into danger doesn’t just hurt Israel, it hurts the U.S., because we rely on Israeli intelligence.

♣ “Important, if True” is a phrase that will probably be reduced to an acronym (IiT), because a lot of the stories coming out these days are sourced to unnamed “officials”, and these officials can’t always be trusted to report the facts.

Working woman decides to keep her daddy’s surname when she gets married, because it’s more important for her to identify with her daddy than with her husband, and besides, she gets to be seen as “her own person”, and it makes her feel powerful. Then it makes her feel isolated and hateful, but she still wants to be seen as independent and powerful, so she decides to not honor her husband by taking his name.

♦ People in the Stock Market are taking some money off the table. People outside the Stock Market blame Trump. I can see that, but there are alternative explanations that might be considered.


“Same-sex Marriage” and Miscegenation Laws

Posted in For God with tags , , , on January 8, 2015 by cavalier973

One of the arguments (which isn’t really an argument) that proponents of “same-sex marriage” put forth is an emotional appeal that follows along the lines of: “So, you don’t support marriage equality for homosexuals; I bet you would have opposed the repeal of the miscegenation laws, that prevented mixed-race couples from marrying”. The assertion is usually some variation of that statement.

It is an invalid comparison, however, because the situation is different. With the miscegenation laws, a white man could marry a white woman, but a black man could not marry a white woman. In the same way, a black man could marry a black woman, but a white man could not marry a black woman. The white man was granted a privelege by the government that the government then denied to the black man, and vice versa.

With regard to same-sex marriage, heterosexuals do not have a right to marry someone of the same sex that is then denied to homosexuals. However, homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. The situation we have at present is “marriage equality”.

What the proponents of same-sex marriage wish for is an expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. If they succeed*, then the situation will still be “marriage equality”, since there would be no reason to deny heterosexual partners the “right” to have a government-licensed marriage (to add legal advantages to a business partnership, for example).

The problem is that “marriage” has a certain definition: it is a heterosexual union for the purposes of companionship and procreation. That’s clear from Scripture. But even for someone who rejects Truth, the definition of marriage still holds. Marriage is how society manages the bearing and rearing of children. It works pretty well, overall.

In addition, relinquishing to the government the authority to redefine words is unwise. The government always seeks to increase its power over those living within its borders, and the ability to control the language is a key component to its agenda. When people can no longer communicate effectively, then they are more easily divided and suppressed.

*which they apparently will, through the courts; the “debate” over same-sex marriage ended with the defenders of definitional marriage–as a heterosexual union–winning at the ballot box. Their democratic victory has since been overturned in various places by the intervention of Federal judges 

Glass and Levchak and Protestant Divorce

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , on January 23, 2014 by cavalier973

The study is here (I believe):

And here is a more nuanced review of the study than one will find in much of the left-wing blogosphere:


Edit: One of my problems with the study is that the authors seem to be making an unwarranted distinction between “marriage and divorce” and “cohabitation and break-up”.  I infer from their language that they consider cohabitation to be less likely to produce negative consequences, and can even contribute to a stable marriage later on (because people take the time to find “compatible partners”).  While cohabitation is outside the legal sphere, the social damage resulting from a cohabiting couple’s break-up is, I imagine, much the same (possibly worse) as that of legal divorce.  So one of the authors’ elements that supposedly lowers the chance of divorce–cohabitation–can result in the same broken relationships, bad feelings, damaged children, etc.

The real hate-filled bigots

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , on April 1, 2013 by cavalier973

are those who are proponents of same-sex marriage.

Let the squick-fest begin

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 28, 2013 by cavalier973

So the SCOTUS looks bound and determined to make “same-sex marriage” the law of the land.  First, they appear ready to strike down California’s Proposition 8, while paradoxically striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because “it interferes with states’ rights to define marriage for themselves”.

I maintain that there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage”, since marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union, just like apple pie, by definition, contains apples.

I would like to digress a bit and point out an error I sometimes see people make:  CA’s Prop 8 did not “ban” same-sex marriage.  No same-sex couple that hires a pastor in CA and has a ceremony performed, and puts it out that they are married, is going to go to jail.

In any case, what disturbs me most about all this nonsense is that there are Christians who feel it is their duty to heap scorn on their brothers and sisters in Christ who deny the preposterous notion that two men (or women) can get married to each other.  These self-righteous chumps think that they are somehow honoring God by defending the “right” of a man to stick his thingy up another guy’s butt.  I’m sorry, but you’re wrong, and you’re wrong.  The plain reading of Scripture is that marriage was instituted by God as a heterosexual union for the purposes of companionship and procreation (“It is not good for the man to be alone”; “be fruitful and multiply”), full stop.  There are no penumbras or debatable passages on this.

At the same time, I’m annoyed by Christians who–in a very pagan move, indeed–insist that only government recognition can make a marriage legitimate.  Flapdoodle.  The state can declare that only same-sex marriages are now legal, and that heterosexual marriages are illegal, and the heterosexual marriage would still be legitimate, and the same-sex marriage illegitimate.  Government has no place regulating a God-ordained institution.

This guy for the most part gets it, especially with his closing paragraph:

There is no rescue from the self-deception of sin except for the salvation that is ours in Jesus Christ. While doing everything else required of us in this challenge, the faithful church must center its energies on the one thing that we know we must do above all else — preach, teach, and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

One other thing I’d like to point out: the purpose of this drive to legalize “same-sex marriage” is not to establish “marriage equality”.  It is, rather, to destroy the meaning of the word “marriage”.  It’s a very Orwellian move, a grab for power, because once words have no meaning, then information cannot be transmitted, and people are more easily controlled.

Plus, there is the future potential that legislation that legalizes same-sex marriage will result in a limiting of religious freedom.  Consider, for example, what Denmark did last year.  Don’t think it can’t happen here…

The Great Laurence Vance on “Same-sex Marriage”

Posted in For God with tags , , , , on June 8, 2012 by cavalier973

“It is only because any couple – gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered, or undecided – or any group of people should have the right to form any kind of legal arrangement they choose. If they want to call their arrangement a marriage, have a ceremony, and go on a honeymoon – fine. They have the freedom to do so just like they have the freedom to replace their Chevy emblems with Ford emblems and call their Camaro a Mustang. They just shouldn’t expect or demand everyone else to violate nature, language, tradition, and history and do likewise.”

Maryland and “Same-sex marriage”

Posted in For God with tags , , , on February 24, 2012 by cavalier973

There’s a debate going on over at about MD’s legislature passing a law legalizing people’s ability to declare nonsense.  The debate is here, and I wanted to restate on this forum a comment I made to one of the “same sex marriage” proponents.

The point isn’t some meaningless BS ceremony…

Daikokuco on February 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM

One other comment about this statement. The “meaningless BS ceremony” is what marriage is about. Marriage is not a set of visitation rights and tax consequences. Marriage is a solemn vow before God and man to commit one’s self to another (of the opposite gender, of course) for the purposes of companionship and procreation.

State interventions into this “BS ceremony” are the truly superfluous matters with regard to marriage.


cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM