Bringing radical thoughts worth pondering (A blog of poriruachurch.com)
Mona and Larry desperately want to be parents. The problem is, they don’t have kids, they don’t want kids, and they don’t even like kids. But they do have a poodle and a parakeet, and they are just as devoted to these pets as any parent could possibly be to a human child. Legally, however, they are not classified as parents and therefore do not share the same status, recognition, or rights as other parents. Mona and Larry, and many others like them, feel as though they are treated as second-class citizens just because they do not fit the traditional parenting model.
Due to this inequity, Mona and Larry face unfair disadvantages as they try to care for their beloved dependents. They do not qualify for financial aid, food subsidies, health benefits, or even tax credits like other parents do. Even though they dearly love and are deeply committed to their poodle and parakeet, no government assistance is made available to them.
Is it not the purpose of government to protect civil liberties? Do not Mona and Larry have the inalienable right to be parents? Being denied this legal recognition deprives them of freedom, equality, and personal choice in matters of family. Why shouldn’t interspecies parenting receive the same privileges and protections that traditional parenting is afforded?
Now for the pet-hating bigots who claim that parents by definition are caregivers of offspring in their own species, Mona and Larry believe this definition is too limiting. Parenting has evolved over the years, so perhaps it is time to modernize the outdated usage of terms such as “human,” “mother,” “father,” “parents,” “children,” “sons,” “daughters,” and “family.” More inclusive and non-species-specific designations would be less discriminatory and more politically correct.
It is no one else’s business if pet owners want to enjoy equal acceptance as parents, and it doesn’t harm anyone. People who adore their animals should be allowed the same parental benefits and public acknowledgement as the parents of homo sapiens. If the current legal definition of family results in blatant discrimination against parents of furry and feathered loved ones, is it not time for change? Who will support Mona, Larry, and all other pet lovers and take a stand for parental equality?
I hope you realize that the preceding paragraphs are satirical. To change the definition of “parents” to include pet owners, with all due respect, is nonsensical. And to keep the definition as it is cannot realistically be construed as discriminatory. The very essence of parenting in all societies unquestionably involves the raising of human children.
How, then, is “homosexual marriage” not an oxymoron? Marriage necessarily involves a bride and a groom, which by definition means a man and a woman. Marriage is the union of a husband and wife, which by definition means a man and a woman. To redefine marriage to include same-gender couples would require the elimination or radical change of all the terms and concepts that have always been integral to this cherished institution. Marriage never has been nor can it ever be gender neutral. It would be like trying to change the rules of mixed-doubles tennis to include teammates of the same sex.
Marriage is also pre-political and therefore a non-political entity. While lawmakers may recognize and sanction marriage, they neither created it nor are they at liberty to redefine it. Moreover, when marriage produces children, the marriage (according to design) naturally provides a mother and a father, something homosexual relationships simply cannot do. Even the reality of childless couples and single parents does not change this indisputable fact. Neither do childless couples and single parents redefine marriage. Proponents of gay marriage and gay adoption have yet to adequately explain which parent a child does not need – a mother or a father?
Is there a legitimate case to be made for so-called marriage equality? Is the rejection of homosexual marriage a matter of human inequality? Equality entails the correspondence of things that are alike. I may think it’s unfair that barn owners pay less for property insurance than house owners and then lobby to have my house reclassified as a barn. But the insurance company will simply remind me that my house, by nature, is not a barn. Even if I call it a barn, this does not change what it actually is.
Pet owners and parents raising children are not the same, so to refuse to categorize pet owners as “parents” does not create parental inequality. Same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are inherently different, so to limit marriage to a husband and wife, and to withhold the descriptive terms “bride” from men and “groom” from women, does not constitute unfair treatment to those who simply do not meet the fundamental criteria.
If parenting is the relationship between a father, mother, and kids, then Mona and Larry have no legal or ethical justification for crying “discrimination” if they do not fit into this category. If marriage is the conjugal union of a consenting man and a consenting woman along with certain commonsense restrictions, then two men or two women cannot feel discriminated against any more than a woman and her adult son or daughter, or a man and his adult son or daughter, or biological siblings, or two minors, or a grown-up and a minor, or a human and an animal, or multiple partners, or one who is already married to someone else. There are many who just do not qualify.
There has to be a standard. To replace the traditional marriage model with another one (e.g. inclusive of homosexuals) is to destroy the institution of marriage all together. It is not a matter of maintaining the current model while simply allowing others to join in. The redefining of marriage is the eradication of marriage itself and substituting for it something entirely different. I, for one, hold my marriage in much higher regard, and there is a practical reason for affirming the sanctity of marriage.
You will notice that the argumentation thus far has been based on reason and common sense. No appeal has been made to religion or to any religious document. For those who blindly dismiss opponents of gay marriage as closed-minded bigots or religious fanatics, you can stop reading now. Just ponder what has been written to this point.
For those of us who accept the divine authority of the Bible, by considering the following scriptures with an open mind and no underlying agenda, the will of God on this issue ought to be crystal clear. No further comment from me is needed. On the practice of homosexuality, see Genesis 13:13; 19:4-7; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-10. On God’s design for marriage, see Genesis 2:22-24; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-3; Ephesians 5:22-33; Hebrews 13:4.
–Kevin L. Moore, via http://kmooreperspective.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-delusion-of-gay-marriage.html
Addendum: Some will no doubt find this article offensive, whether advocates of gay marriage, or pet lovers, or maybe even tennis players and barn owners. But please don’t miss the point. It is not about homosexuals vs. pets, or barns vs. houses, or gender-specific tennis players vs. mixed-doubles tennis players. It is a reasonable challenge to those who are seeking to hijack and redefine a very special, centuries-old, well-established institution and are using irrational, defamatory, misleading bully-tactics to do so.